Truth Magazine

By Ronny Milliner

Nakedness is shameful. Isaiah 47:3a says, “Your nakedness shall be uncovered, Yes, your shame will be seen.” Nahum

3:5b reads, “I will show the nations your nakedness, And the kingdoms your shame.” Notice the parallelism in both of these verses where “shame” is parallel to “nakedness.” The prophet Micah wrote, “Pass by in naked shame, you inhabitant of Shaphir” (Mic. 1:11a). The New Testament book of prophecy records, “Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame” (Rev. 16:15b). The exposure of the nakedness of Noah was a shameful incident in his life (Gen. 9:20-27).

In spite of this clear teaching regarding the shamefulness of nakedness, many folks today do not hesitate to engage in this sin. We want to notice three types of nakedness in our age.

The Nakedness of Pornography

Did you know that adult bookstores in our country outnumber McDonald’s restaurants three-to-one? There are more than 1,000 different pornographic magazines. The Playboy Channel services nearly 20 million homes. During one year’s sale of six million video cassettes 20 percent of them were pornographic. One “daily-a-porn” service has more than 220,000 calls a day. Pornography in our country is a $6 billion-a-year business.

Surely no one will deny that pornography is based on lust. Such lust is licentiousness and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Such “passion of lust” is not to be a part of the Christian’s life (1 Thess. 4:5; Rom. 13:13). Jesus warns us of this sin in Matthew 5:28, “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

In this matter it would do us good to be like Job. He said, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman? . . . If my heart has been enticed by a woman, Or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, Then let my wife grind for another, And let others bow down over her. For that would be wickedness; Yet it would be iniquity worthy of judgment. For that would be a fire that consumes to destruction, And would root out all my increase” (Job 31:1,9-12).

The Nakedness of Immodesty

God had a great concern for the modesty of his priests under the Law of Moses. In Exodus 20:26 he said, “Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness not be exposed on it.” In Exodus 28:42 the requirement was, “And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs.” Penalty for disobedience on this point was death (Exod. 28-43).

We who are Christians are God’s priests today (1 Pet. 2:5,9), and he is just as concerned for our modesty (1 Tim. 2:19-10). Many Christians who may recognize the shame of the nakedness of pornography, fail to recognize the shame of the nakedness of immodesty. Because they are briefly dressed and not completely naked, they do not think such passages apply to them.

These brothers and sisters need to learn that nakedness is not necessarily complete nudity. The Hebrew word erom is defined, “naked, either as without clothing or stripped of the outer or peculiar garment designating brethren to prove that there is an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They give human testimony, the evidence of experience, to affirm that they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The passages of Scripture are misinterpreted and human testimony is invalid, subjective evidence.

Consider Adam and Eve. When God came to speak to them after their sin they hid themselves. God inquired as to the reason for this action. Adam’s reply was, “I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself” (Gen. 3:8). This statement was made after they had sown “fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (Gen. 3:7). Men take note! Here was a man clothed in what would probably be similar to modern swimming trunks and yet he said he was naked. Women are not the only ones that can be guilty of immodesty.

Or look at the case of Peter in John 21:7b. The passage reads, “Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.” M.R. Vincent commenting on the verse said, “NAKED. Not absolutely, but clothed merely in his undergarment or shirt” (Vol. 1, p. 512). Yes, we too can be considered naked though partially clothed. And remember that nakedness is shameful.

The Nakedness of Spiritual Uncommittedness

The church at Laodicea was guilty of the sin of lukewarmness (Rev. 3:15-16). Jesus describes them in this condition as being “naked” (Rev. 3:17) and advises them to buy “white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed” (Rev. 3:18). Later in the book, he says, “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame” (Rev. 3:16). What are these garments? Revelation 19:8b answers, “the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. “

There are Christians who would be quick to condemn pornography and the sisters for their short dresses who themselves are also guilty of nakedness. They are not out trying to teach the lost, restore the erring, encourage the weak, or help their neighbor. Their “righteous acts” are brief and as far as God is concerned they are naked. These ones also need to buy the “white garments.”

Conclusion

In Luke 8:26-39 we read of the story of the demon-possessed man of Gadarea. This man was said to be one who “wore no clothes, nor did he live in a house but in the tombs” (Lk. 8:27). Jesus healed the man by casting the demons out of him and into a herd of swine. After his healing he was said to be “sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind” (Lk. 8:35). Are you in your right mind? Don’t be guilty of the sin of nakedness.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 257, 279
May 5, 1988

By Kieran Murphy

Jesus came into the world in order to save it (cf. Jn. 3:16-17; Lk. 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:10; 2:3-6). It is not surprising, therefore, to see him appealing to mankind to come unto him so that they could have rest for their souls. “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and my load is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

Sooner or later every human being will find himself caught by unexpected changes in life that leave him sorrowing, burdened, anguished and frustrated” (Harold Fowler, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2, p. 572). This invitation, then, is truly an invitation to us all. Jesus invites us, the “weary and heavy-laden” to come and learn from him. He promises that those who respond to this invitation will find rest for their souls.

As a result of this invitation many followed him, seeking to become his disciples. Even today as the invitation continues to be made, the down trodden and those burdened with sin are flocking to him; and this is good! For who but Jesus can give rest to the soul?

But as the multitude was coming, seeking to attach themselves to him as disciples, Jesus warned them that they could not be his disciples without cost to themselves.

“Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, ‘If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. . . So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions'” (Lk. 14:25-27, 33; cf. Matt. 10:34-39; Lk. 9:23-26).

The Lord wanted men to follow him. But he did not want anyone to rush into this without first counting the cost. In these verses he informs all would-be disciples that their loyalty to him must be absolute. When a choice must be made between his will or . . . Jesus must always come out first. If one is not willing to be totally committed to Jesus he cannot be one of his disciples.

The Lord spoke first of the choice that he expected his people to make between their families and him. “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father . . . he cannot be My disciple” (14:26). Even with Matthew’s commentary on what it means to “hate” one’s family (i.e., to love them less than Jesus – 10:37), this saying scarcely loses any of its severity. For it still demands that when a choice is to be made between the will of our family and the Lord’s will, the disciple must always choose the Lord.

“But didn’t Jesus understand the natural affection that people have for their families?” Of course he did! It was for this reason that he said what he did. Even before circumstances demanded that they choose between him and their families, the Lord wanted these would-be disciples to know what he would expect of them. They were to put him first; they were to love him more than they loved their families. Those not prepared to do this disqualified themselves from being his disciples.

In Luke 9 Jesus gives another condition for discipleship. He said, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (v. 23).

The Greek word translated “deny” (arneomai) has several shades of meaning. Yet each time that it is used in the Scriptures the underlying thought is that something has been rejected or repudiated. Thus, when Jesus says that one must “deny himself” he means that one must reject self; he must no longer live a selfish life, a life where he puts his own personal interests first.

By his own life Jesus teaches what it means to deny self.

1. John 12:27f: He did not asked to be delivered from the most difficult aspect of his work, instead he submitted himself to God’s rule.

2. John 7:16: His teaching was not even original. He taught only what his father authorized him to teach.

3. John 17:4: Jesus glorified the Father because he did the work which the Father had sent him to do.

Paul also spoke of Jesus’ self denial when he wrote: “For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written. ‘The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon Me'” (Rom. 15:3).

Jesus lived a life of self denial. He stepped down from life’s throne, laying both crown and scepter at the Father’s feet and submitted his whole life to his control (Fowler, Vol. 3, p. 566). This is what Jesus demands of those who would be his disciples. They must give up self rule. They must deny themselves the right to be their own master and submit entirely to his lordship, even if such submission is unpleasant and/or inconvenient. If one “serves” only when it is convenient and pleasant he has not denied himself; neither is he the Lord’s disciple.

Jesus informs those desiring to be his disciples that they must remain in his word. It is only as men do this that they are “truly” his disciples. “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Paul reveals that it was for this that Jesus died, so that those who “live” as a result of his death might stop living for their own pleasure, but for the pleasure of him who died on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:15).

One who is not willing to give Jesus the full control of his life cannot be his disciple. For “whatever” the true disciple does, whether “in word or deed” he does “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17).

Being a disciple of Christ is not without cost. It is not always attractive to follow him. Sometimes it is even unattractive (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9-14; 2 Cor. 11:23-27). But for those willing to pay the price the blessings make the sacrifice seem as nothing.

Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Cor. 4:16-18; cf. Rom. 8:18).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 239, 247
April 21, 1988

By Donald Willis

I am a child of God, born again through the blood of Jesus Christ because of the glorious teachings of the gospel of salvation. My heart is filled with hope, and I daily rejoice due to the wonderful assurances that are afforded the children of God. What do you mean, “working for Satan”?

Satan is alive, he is our adversary, and as a roaring lion seeks to ensnare Christians (1 Pet. 5:8). He works upon Christians in a very subtle manner, we must not be ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11; 11:3). One may permit himself to play into the hand of Satan, and become an instrument of unrighteousness instead of righteousness. How?

By refusing to give the cause of Christ our potential strength for good. The Scriptures teach that one is to love God with all the heart, soul and mind (Matt. 22:37). Christians must seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. The cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches garnish our strength. Our eyes are filled with the pleasures of mammon. We find no time in our busy schedules for God and truth. We have played right into the hand of Satan. Jesus affirmed, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30). Truly, Satan ensnares!

By evil influence. Christians are epistles (2 Cor. 3:2), people of influence (Rom. 14:7). Either we are good epistles and influences or we are evil! Jesus called his people salt and light. But, if the salt loses its saltiness, it is good for nothing. How do people see us? Does Jesus rule in our lives, or do we permit Satan to control? “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). The New International Version reads, “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.”‘ Do we warm our hands around the fires of the enemy, or are we seeking the fellowship of the saints?

By openly opposing truth. Jesus said the truth will make men free (Jn. 8:32). Elymas would “pervert the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10). One might oppose truth by teaching error, upholding the hands of the false teacher, sending money to causes that are wrong; or, simply ignoring truth, failing to live proper examples, failing to instill truth in our children. Paul proclaimed that many religious individuals walked, yet often improperly. “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:17-20). John warns, “He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 11). Stand up for God and truth; and against Satan and error.

By perverting the Scriptures. Religion is not a joke! The Scriptures not only stand as God’s pattern for leadership and direction as we go through life; but, at the judgment these Scriptures are that embodiment of teachings by which all shall be judged (Jn. 12:48). James cautioned teachers (either public or private; by word of mouth or by example) that they would receive the greater condemnation. We are responsible for what we believe, stand for and teach to others. Satan will attempt to get one to compromise on this issue or that one. Satan will convince one that it does not really make any difference what one believes, and will lead in the writing of religious creeds and rules. However, when one leaves the teachings of Christ, he no longer has God (2 Jn. 9). That is the problem with error. We have just cut ourselves off from the only hope of salvation. How about it? Is it worth the price?

I refuse to permit Satan to control me. “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that clay” (2 Tim. 1:12). Stand up for God! Quit play acting at religion! Seek the lost!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 242
April 21, 1988

By James W. Adams

Some weeks past (November 1620, 1987), it was my pleasure and privilege to attend a religious discussion between Keith Sharp of Lakeland, Florida and Lewis G. Hale of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The debate was conducted in Russellville, Arkansas, a beautiful, small city at the foot of the Ozark Mountains. Nature was resplendent in her coat of many colors and the weather cold but invigorating and delightful. The discussion was conducted in public facilities – an auditorium at the County Fair Grounds. Crowds were only average in number, but consistent, orderly, and respectful. The conduct of both disputants was impeccable, and the gravity and the importance of the occasion recognized and respected by all. Each disputant pressed his points of view with vigor, yet with courtesy and proper regard for the other. Nothing occurred that was beneath the dignity of the church, the gospel, or the high standard of ethical conduct to be expected of Christians. This was a debate between brethren in the Lord, members of the body of Christ, and the entire affair was in keeping with this fact.

The subjects of discussion concerned what have come to be known as “The Issues.” To be more exact, they were concerned with: Church support of human institutions in benevolence; the cooperation of churches in benevolence and evangelism through a “sponsoring church”; and the scope of the responsibility of churches in benevolence (general or limited to “saints”).

The “conservative” congregation in Russellville which sponsored brother Sharp in the discussion did not begin as a result of a division in one of the churches of the city. A group of brethren who lived in and near Russellville and who could not conscientiously worship with any of the then existing congregations in the city decided to form a congregation in which they could so worship. Brother A.W. Goff moved to Russellville to work with them as a preacher of the gospel. His and their labors have succeeded splendidly. The Eastside Church of which they are a part is an active and growing congregation with a nice brick meeting house in a good location. Brother Goff has militantly pressed what he conceives to be the truth (and what I believe to be the truth) both in the pulpit of the Eastside congregation and on the radio. Some have consequently left churches of the area which, for want of a better term, we call “liberal” to have fellowship with the Eastside brethren. Such brought about a challenge from a congregation in Ola, Arkansas (a nearby town) for a public discussion of differences. Eastside chose Keith Sharp to represent them, and Ola chose Lewis G. Hale. Propositions were agreed upon and the debate occurred.

Keith Sharp is a comparatively young man in the early years of middle life. He is well educated, a careful Bible student, an excellent speaker, and a forceful personality. He came well prepared for the discussion and acquitted himself with dignity, ability, and effectiveness. Not only was he strong in the affirmation of his propositions, but acutely perceptive in recognizing the weaknesses and inconsistencies of his opponent’s argumentation and clear and definite in his responses. In a word, Keith is an excellent debater. I have known and loved him from his boyhood; his recently deceased father and his mother have long been among my dearest friends; hence I took a great deal of personal pride and satisfaction in Keith’s excellent handling of this debate.

The first debate on these issues in which I was involved was the now famous Cogdill-Woods Debate in Birmingham, Alabama. It occurred thirty years ago almost to the day. I was brother Cogdill’s moderator in that discussion. Though a generation of time has passed and many subsequent debates have occurred, nothing seems to have changed. So-called “Conservative” and “Liberal” churches yet pursue widely divergent paths and the differences grow greater and the cleavage wider. Brother Hale produced nothing new in his argumentation. In fact, one can reasonably well get everything he presented in the debate by reading the book he published more than thirty years ago entitled, “How Churches Can Cooperate, God’s Work in God’s Way.”

Brother Hale seemed more concerned about confusing his audience than convincing them of the absolute truth of his propositions. I was amazed and disappointed to hear him construct arguments the major and minor premises of which involved incidents widely separated from one another by years of time while the validity of his argument depended upon their having occurred or the situation to have existed at the same time, which he stated to be the case. I do not wish to impugn brother Hale’s honesty, but he is too good a Bible student not to have known better. As evidence of brother Hale’s effort to confuse rather than convince was the fact that, in his last speech, he made an appeal to the audience for a decision in his favor on the basis of “reasonable doubt.” It seems to me that this was a tacit admission of defeat. Besides, it was his practice that was the occasion of the controversy, hence if reasonable doubt were a proper basis for a religious decision affecting the destiny of man’s immortal soul, it would be employed to decide the matter in favor of the positions occupied by brother Sharp. Never in more than fifty-five years of gospel preaching and attending and participating in debates have I heard a disputant plead for a favorable decision from an audience on the basis of 4treasonable doubt.” I confess: this was brand new. As far as I am concerned, brother Sharp clearly exposed the lack of validity of all arguments adduced by brother Hale, hence I came home completely satisfied with the results.

Another thing surprised and disappointed me relative to brother Hale’s defense of his position. He was asked repeatedly about certain avant garde practices of brethren with whom he is more or less aligned. I have yet to hear him repudiate any of th m, however “far-out” they are, with the exception of “the Crossroads and Boston movements.” He even stumbled and was evasive relative to Alvin Jennings and his “urban church” concept and practice. In all other cases, he would say, “Yes, I would endorse that under proper circumstances” or something to that effect. He always failed, however, to tell us what those circumstances are. I have always considered brother Hale to be one of the more conservative of the so-called “liberal” brethren, but I have had to revise my thinking. I really do not know anything the brethren are doing that he would actively oppose.

In my judgment, Keith Sharp answered every argument and every quibble and inconsistency in brother Hale’s presentations. The only disappointing thing from the conservative standpoint about the debate was the attendance by preachers and brethren outside of Russellville. Only a few years ago, preachers and brethren by the scores would have been present in support of the truth. Does this signify diminished concern with reference to the relevancy of a discussion of these issues, and/or a growing aversion to a public negation of religious error and a conversion to detente and sweet-spirited tolerance? May this not be true. If it is, it is indeed “later than we think!”

In conclusion, may I say to brethren everywhere: If your situation calls for a debate with proponents of error “within or without,” you may call upon Keith Sharp to represent you and the truth with complete confidence. The truth will not suffer in his hands.

(Note: If anyone is interested in obtaining tapes of this discussion, they may be obtained from: Stephen Saunders, P.O. Box 221, Fordyce, A R 71742. The 8 tapes will be $16. 00 plus postage and handling. Also tapes of the Sharp-West Debate and the Sharp-Polk Debate may be had for the some price. These debates were on: Cooperation of Churches in Evangelism and Benevolence, Limited Benevolence, and Church-sponsored Recreation and Entertainment [Social meals].)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 234-235
April 21, 1988