Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

During the week of April 16-20, Mike Willis met Mr. Eddie K. Garrett in a debate. Mr. Garrett is a Primitive Baptist. The debate concerned unconditional election and limited atonement.

The Disputants

Mike Willis, Editor of Truth Magazine, is a young gospel preacher. This was his first formal debate. Frankly, I was a little concerned about Mike’s lack of debate experience, but my fears were quickly dispelled. Mike was totally prepared. He had volumes of notes and charts which he used with devastating effect. Brother Willis is a sharp, incisive thinker on his feet. This is absolutely essential in debate. One might think that this is simply another “we whipped the sox off them” report and review, but if you think so, secure a copy of the debate tapes and see for yourself. Mike was fair and courteous, a gentleman at all times, as was Mr. Garrett.

Eddie K. Garrett is a wily veteran in debate. He has had approximately 25 debates. He is kind and gracious. However, his doctrine was no match for the truth of God. Garrett is unusual in that he generally attempts to give answers to questions that are put to him. He does not fulfill his ditty as a negative speaker. He ignored, by actual count, 80% of Brother Willis’s affirmative material. This is typical of denominational debaters.

The Audience

The Primitive Baptist building was packed nearly to capacity every night. Chairs had to be set out the last night. The audience was exceedingly well behaved. A good spirit prevailed. At least a dozen or more gospel preachers attended during the debate. Christians out numbered the Baptists three to one. Primitive Baptists came from as far away as Cincinnati and one Missionary Baptist preacher attended the last two nights. The old, worn out objection against debates because they “gender strife” was again put to rest. There were no ugly, unkind incidents.

The Debate

I will not attempt to debate the debate. There were several points of interest, though, that it might be well to discuss. Mr. Garrett is a Calvinist. He believes that God elected certain ones to salvation without regard or respect to conditions and that Christ died only for these elect ones. He says he does not believe in unconditional reprobation, but one of the high points of the debate was Brother Willis’s ability to show that this is precisely what Mr. Garrett must believe. In Rom. 9:13, Mr. Garrett argued that “Jacob have I loved” referred to God’s unconditional election of Jacob to salvation. Mike clearly showed that “Esau have I hated” must mean that God unconditionally damned Esau. Further in Romans 9, Mr. Garrett contended that “vessels of mercy . . . afore prepared unto glory” meant that God had unconditionally elected certain ones to salvation. Mike showed that the parallel expression, “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” must mean that Gc)d unconditionally elected certain ones to eternal damnation. If not, why not? Mr. Garrett made no attempt to escape the obvious force of this conclusion. He denied that he believed it, but all could see the consequence of his position.

In reply to a question, Garrett said, “God does not desire to save every one.” Willis charted the statement from 1 Tim. 2:4 and the one from 2 Pet. 3:9 to the effect that God “will have all men to be saved,” and that He (God) “is not willing that any should perish.” Mike pressed the point time after time. Garrett made no response. He simply continued to say that God does not will to save every one.

In response to a question, Mr. Garrett said that Primitive Baptists do not teach their children the song, “Jesus Loves Me.” We knew they could not and be consistent with their doctrine, so I wrote a parallel, Primitive Baptist version entitled, “Jesus Hates Me.” Below is the chart of the two songs:

How Do You Know Which Song You Should Be Teaching Your Children?

Jesus Loves Me (To Be Sung To Elect Children)	Jesus Hates Me   (To Be Sung To Non-Elect Children)
Jesus loves me! This I know,   For the Bible tells me so; Little ones to Him belong, They are weak, but He is strong.	Jesus hates me, this I fear   From the Calvinists, this I hear Non-elect ones don’t belong, They are weak, but He is strong.
Jesus loves me when I’m good,   When I do the things I should, Jesus loves me when I’m bad, But it makes him very sad.	Jesus hates me when I’m good,   When I do the things I should, Jesus hates me when I’m bad, But it makes him very glad.
Jesus loves me! He who died,   Heaven’s gates to open wide; He will wash away my sin, Let His little child come in.	Jesus hates me! He who died,   Hell’s gates are open wide; He will damn me for Adam’s sin, Let his non-elect come in.
Jesus loves me! Loves me still,   Tho I’m very weak and ill; From the shining throne on high, Comes to watch me where I lie.	Jesus hates me! Hates me still,   Tho I’m very weak and ill; From His shining throne on high, Comes to watch me while I die.
Yes, Jesus loves me,   Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes, Jesus loves me, The Bible tells me so.	Yes, Jesus hates me,   Yes, Jesus hates me, Yes, Jesus hates me, Eddie K. Garrett tells me so!

 

Now, if any Primitive Baptists want to use this in conjunction with their doctrine, that will be fine with me. I would like to have some royalty money from it, but I will waive that just so it can be included in Primitive Baptist songbooks.

Mr. Garrett said he could sing, “Amazing Grace.” He read the first verse of that great and grand old song: “Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now I’m found, was blind, but now I see.” So, I went back into the song writing business for Primitive Baptist churches, and Mike read a parallel which is consistent with the doctrine of unconditional election: “Limited grace how sour the sound that ignored a wretch like me! I once was lost, and I still am, was blind, and still can’t see.”

Mr. Garrett called us “Campbellites,” “blind Pharisees,” and said we were “mixed up in the head.” He spoke of “hook-nosed, pot bellied Jews,” and used other equally complimentary terms. Some of our brethren who are a little squeamish about “indelicate” language ought to “write up” Mr. Garrett, Mike did not retaliate in this manner. He was strong and his scriptural arguments struck with great force. For this, some few might wish to condemn him, while they ignore the “sweet” words of Mr. Garrett.

Mr. Garrett appealed to prejudice. Again, this is par for the course with denominational debaters. He talked about how Mike’s position sent sweet, old Methodist grandmothers to hell. He said that Mike’s doctrine would condemn all Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, American Indians before Columbus, people during the dark ages, etc. He said that what Willis preached would “split hell wide open.” Mike’s response was to the Bible. He cited John 8:24, Hebrews 11:6, and Mark 16:16. Mr. Garrett said that idolaters would be saved because their worship indicated that they feared God. He said that infidel Jews and Indians who worshipped “black stumps” would be saved. Mike cited 1 Cor. 6:9, 10 and Gal. 5:19-21, along with the verses cited just above. Further, Mike showed that according to Calvinism, most of those people that Garrett was so worried about were probably not elected anyway. No matter how the Methodist grandmother lived, no matter how sweet she was, she would be lost because God hated her and did not elect her! It was not a pretty picture, but Brother Willis painted it in all its stark reality. It was a vivid contrast to the doctrine of the Lord to which Mike appealed.

Conclusion

Much more could be said, but enough. Ron Halbrook, Morris Hafley and Gary Kerr assisted in the debate. Gary was especially helpful with his handling of the charts. Even Mr. Garrett commended his splendid ability.

The debate exposed many to truth and error for the first time on a visible plane. Brother Willis was a living embodiment of 2 Cor. 10:3-5. More plain, pungent, penetrating preaching such as he did in the debate is needed. It is our prayerful hope that some will see, believe and obey the truth as a result of the teaching done in the debate.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 378-379
June 7, 1979

By Tom Wheeler

Kathy Kay Davidson, a faithful Christian, devoted mother of two young girls and devoted wife of Doug Davidson (the faithful gospel preacher working with the German School Road church in Richmond, Virginia, passed suddenly from this life early Saturday evening, April 14, 1979. Kay had not been seriously sick. In fact, there was no hint that she had a serious physical problem. She just sat down in a chair and passed from this life. An autopsy revealed that she had an aneurysm on the brain. It had been there since birth but had allowed her to live twenty-six years.

The autopsy was completed on Monday. Tuesday, Kay’s body was ready for viewing in Richmond. A large number of people came to the funeral home to pay their last respects to Kay here upon the earth.

Wednesday was a travel day. Kay’s parents, Doug’s parents and Doug’s youngest brother Jeff had come from Marion, Indiana to be with Doug and his two little girls during this very difficult time. Paul Smith of West Lafayette, Indiana had also traveled to Richmond to help Doug in any way that he could. Wednesday they all traveled to Swayzee, Indiana (a small town near Marion). Kay’s remains were placed in the Rybolt Funeral Home where more than five hundred people signed the register on Thursday. The line was so long that no doubt many came who did not sign. There were so many flowers they could not be properly displayed.

A memorial service was held on Friday at 2:00 p.m. The owner of the funeral home said that it was the largest funeral he had ever had in twenty-three years. Tom Wheeler preached the sermon at this service. Four close friends, brothers and sisters in Christ, sang four appropriate songs. Afterward, the remains were moved to the Garden of Memory. A short service was held before Kay’s remains were placed in their final resting place. Gene Tope made some very timely remarks at this service.

The large number of people who showed they care attests not just to the fact that Kay’s husband is a preacher but to the kind of person she was. To meet her was to love her. She was pleasant, outgoing but modest, and had a great ability to let people know that she cared. Kay was dedicated to God, committed to heaven and devoted to her husband and children. As far as man can tell, she was a faithful child of God and we have a confident expectation to see her in heaven if we remain faithful.

Doug’s present plans are to return to Richmond and continue his work. He will, of course, have double duty to perform as he not only continues the most important work on the face of the earth but, at the same time, tries to be both a father and mother to his two young children. We commend him for his determination and pray that he will have many years to devote in faithful service to God.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, p. 378
June 7, 1979

By J. T. Smith

In order for us to have a clear understanding of the subject, we need to define the word “adultery,” find out from the Scriptures what conditions constitute an adulterous situation, and how one may “live in adultery.”

The word “adultery”is from the Greek word moicheuo and its basic meaning is “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 417). However, in the Old Testament, the word “adultery” was used to describe every kind of illicit sexual act, as the word was used in “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” in the ten commandment law. According to Young’s Analytical Concordance (p. 368), the word “fornication” is used only five times (Ezek. 16:15, 26, 29; 2 Chron. 21:11; Isa. 23:17) in the Old Testament. In every one of these cases, the word was used to describe a spiritual condition.

Unless we are going to take the position that a single man cannot look upon a single woman to lust after her, and commit adultery with her in his heart, we are forced to the conclusion that the word “adultery” is used in the New Testament to describe those who are unmarried as well as those who are married. Jesus said in Matt. 5:28, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Also, in 2 Pet. 2:14 Peter said, “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin . . .”

In an effort to answer this argument, one of the respondents in a discussion I had on the West Coast took the position that “the definition of a word determines the meaning, not its usage in the context.” I will allow you, the readers, to determine whether or not this person’s conclusion is valid.

There are a number of passages I would like for us to consider in our discussion of this subject. In Matt. 5:32 Jesus said, “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, Causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Again, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mat. 19:9). Then in Mark 10:11-12 we read, “And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Finally, in Luke 16:18 Jesus’ statement is recorded, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

In all of these passages, Jesus plainly points out that if one puts away (divorces) his spouse, for any reason other than fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery. And the one who marries the “put away one” (whether she is “put away” for fornication, a word which includes every kind of illicit sexual act, or for some other reason) commits adultery.

Another passage of scripture that I would like for us to consider that mentions one being in adultery is Rom. 7:2-3. Paul said, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound-by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

The word “commits adultery” is a present active indicative word in the Greek language that describes continuous action. Thus, since Jesus allows freedom from the “marriage bond” with the right to remarry for only two reasons (fornication, Matt. 19:9; death, Rom. 7:2-3), then those who divorce and remarry for any other reason “commit adultery.” And as we noted above, this is not just a “one time act.” It involves continuous action. Every opponent that I have met in debate on the subject of divorce and remarriage freely admits that those who divorce, without the cause of fornication being involved in the divorce, when they remarry are nothing more than “legalized adulterers.”

In commenting on the expression “called an adulteress,” in Romans 7:2-3, Moses E. Lard said, “To render it, as in the E.V., `she shall be called an adulterous’ is without warrant. The apostle does not mean to tell what the woman shall be called, but what business she is in. She will act the adulteress.” Hence, as long as she continues to commit the act of adultery, she is living in that condition.

Sometimes the question arises, “Why would the guilty party, the one put away for fornication, commit adultery when she remarries? Isn’t the marriage bond broken when adultery is committed and one is put away for fornication – thus the guilty party loosed also? If so, the guilty party would not be ‘living in adultery’ when she remarried. Although this human reasoning may sound good, there are a number of things wrong with it.

In the first place, the-word “marry” is being equated with the word “bound.” But they are not equal. The word “bound” is from the Greed word dedesai and means, “to bind by a legal or moral tie, as marriage, Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39” (Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 89). One can be bound and not married, or he can be married and not bound. Herod’s case is an example of one being “married” (according to the laws of the land) but not “bound” by God (Mark 6:17-18). In Rom. 7:2-3, we find an example of one who was “married” to another but was still “bound” to her first husband. Thus, according to the above definitions, the antithesis of “bound” is “loosed,” and the antithesis of “married” is “divorced.” Therefore, I can tell a person who has “put away” his mate for the cause of fornication that the Lord has “loosed” him so that he is free to remarry without committing sin. However, Christ nowhere indicates that the wife is released form “her obligation” to the law of her husband.

Christ’s teaching in Matt. 19:5-9 points out that there is both an “obligation” to “leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife” and both are “restricted” from having any sexual relations with anyone else. Thus the one who is put away for fornication is loosed from the obligation of “leaving and cleaving,” but is not released from the restriction of having sexual relations with another. If so, where is the passage that shows that release. I know she is released from the leaving and cleaving to the one to whom she was married. For, the Lord granted him, because of her fornication, the right to remarry. Thus, their mutual agreement to “leave and cleave” is dissolved by God with the God-given right of the one doing the puttting away to have a wife.

Again somene may ask, “What about 1 Cor. 7:27-28 which says, ‘Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned . . . ! Who are those who are loosed?” Yes, Paul said those who are “loosed” may be married. But who is loosed? The one who has never been married, or one whom God, not man, has loosed. As we have already noted, God only looses the one who puts his (her) spouse away for fornication, and the one whose spouse has died. All others are “loosed” by man and not by God; and if they marry they sin.

In Col. 3:5-7 we read, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupicence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” The word “fornication” in verse 5 is the general word for illicit sexual acts and when used by itself in a context would include adultery. Thus, we learn from the above passages that anyone, whether alien sinner or Christian, can “live in adultery.” To deny this is to deny what the Apostle said, Who, then, is willing to do it?

QUESTIONS

1. What is the basic meaning of the word “adultery”?
2. Is the word “adultery” ever used in the Scriptures in a way different from the basic meaning given by lexicographers?
3. How do you determine the meaning of a word?
4. What are to two reasons given in the Scriptures for one being “loosed” so that he may remarry without sin?
5. What kind of action is involved in the Greek language for present active indicative?
6. What was Moses E. Lard’s comment on the expres sion “called an adulteress” in Rom. 7:2-3?
7. If the innocent party is “loosed” to be remarried without sin, why isn’t the guilty party “loosed” to remarry without committing sin?
8. What is the antithesis of the words “marry” and “bound”?
9. What two things are imposed on those who decide to contract a lawful marriage?
10. Which one of the two things mentioned in answer to question no. 9 does God release the “guilty party” from, and which one does He retain?
11. How would you answer the question, is it possible for one to “live in adultery”?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 376-377
June 7, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

Blatant immodesty was once limited to such haunts of unrespectable sin as houses of prostitution, bars, and night clubs. The circus has often displayed women in costumes which “hesitated to begin and ended almost immediately,” as one Kentucky preacher complained a hundred years ago (Apostolic Times, 6 May 1875, p. 186). Nowadays, it seems that all sins haveobecome “respectable,” no sin more so than the sin of exposing the body in lascivious attire. Extremely low-cut fronts and backs on dresses have appeared in a variety of styles, the latest being the “disco” look. The “mini” skirt, after being the rage for several years, has become one among many in the smorgasbord of lascivious styles in our do-your-own-thing society. Shorts, halters, tubes, and swimsuits have become a way of life for many people, no more to be questioned than apple pie, mother, and the American flag. Immodest dress is treated as a human right, involving the right of men to look with pleasurable lust upon the woman’s figure and the right of the women to entice his pleasurable lust by displaying her figure.

Proper Attitudes and Proper Clothing

When sin broke into the world through Adam and Eve, over the protest of God, the power of sinful lusts was unleased, cursing mankind to this day. Before sin entered, Adam and Eve had lived in fellowship with God, in marital companionship with each other, and in the same innocent nakedness which is still seen among small children. Immediately upon sinning, Adam and Eve experienced shame in nakedness and made apron-like girdles to wear. God replaced these with long coat-like garments (cf. Gen. 3:7, 21). Wherever mankind has gone, the bodies of men and women have been covered because of the influence of God’s Word, the shame of sin, and the reality of temptation. Lack of clothing has characterized cultures darkened by rejecting God, embracing sin, and delighting in pleasurable lusts.

Clothing reflects attitudes. Enticed by “the attire of an harlot,” foolish men have destroyed their souls in lust and sin (Prov. 7). Once a man possessed by demons went about with “no clothes” but was healed by Jesus and was then seen “clothed, and in his right mind” (Lk. 8:26-36). Godly women are inwardly adorned with “a meek and quiet spirit,” with an awareness of the shame of sin, and with a sober attitude toward the dangers of temptation. This inner spirit of submission to God is reflected in all facets of a godly woman’s life, including the clothes she wears (1 Pet. 3:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:9-10). She blunts, by her careful dress, the destructive powers of temptation in those who look upon her. Her dress stirs up admiration and respect rather than lascivious thoughts. What does the practice of men and women appearing before each other in modern swimsuits reflect: the darkness of sin or the high standards of God’s Word?

Understand and Respecting the Sexual Nature

It is not wrong for the woman to be sexually attractive to the man. Indeed, God convinced Adam that no creature was suitable to his needs; then, He created woman as a companion suitable in every way. This one man was given one woman, and this one woman as presented to one man, that the two might “be one f lesh ” (Gen. 2:18-24). The sexual relationship was thus a gift from God for the good of man and woman, rather than something ugly, shameful, dark, and unclean.

Our sexual capacity is a gift to be enjoyed, not an evil to be endured. The joy, stedfastness, faithfulness, and passion of love between man and woman are celebrated poetically in the Song of Solomon. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). The beauty and purity of the bed upon which sexual love is shared can be preserved only as each partner shares that love with the one mate alone.

Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.

Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares?

Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers.

May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

A loving doe, a graceful deer —

may her breasts satisfy you always,

may you ever be captivated by her love.

Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?

Why embrace the bosom of another man’s wife?

(Prov. 5:15-20 NIV)

The very sight of the woman’s body – unclothed or nearly so – stimulates sexual pleasure in the man, thus making her delightful, tantalizing, and desirable to him. It is a great blessing to find one’s mate attractive and to share the sexual privileges of marital love. The sexual union, intercourse, or companionship of marriage is a part of the creation which God pronounced “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Both the personal needs and the pleasures of individuals are served, as is humanity’s need for reproduction (Gen. 1:28; 2:18; 1 Cor. 7:2-4).

Satan has perverted every gift of God, including the gift of sex. Fornication in its broadest meaning is any sexual intercourse which violates and abuses the law of God. Satan tempts unmarried people to experience sexual union, to commit the sin of fornication. He tempts married people to have sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married under God’s law, thus to commit a form of fornication called adultery. Our Adversary is smart enough to know that all sin begins in the heart (Matt. 15:16-20). Therefore, the first step to fornication is for a man to look on a woman, to whom he is not married, stirring up the desire, will, and intention for intercourse with her. Whether or not he gains the opportunity to unite his body with hers, he has “committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28). Satan has many devices to encourage such lusts in the heart and these devices are called lasciviousness. The lascivious spirit weakens the sense of modesty and restraint by stirring up the fires of temptation and lust. This can be done through words, dances, pictures, and dress. Much of modern society accepts lasciviousness as a way of life, a legitimate means of pleasure, and even a business tool in advertising.

Men can be tantalized by women in clothing which is arranged so as to reveal rather than to cover the woman’s body, or which is so brief as to present the body nearly unclothed. For a woman to appear this way before her husband alone, and thus to make herself attractive to him, is a privilege given to them in marriage by God. For a woman to appear this way before other men is lascivious. As pleasures and desires are stimulated in the hearts of these men, she becomes guilty of the terrible sin of causing others to sin. In this lascivious age, many men think they have the right to these sinful pleasures and desires, and many women think they have the right to “catch man’s eye” by dressing so as to stir his lusts. So terrible is this sin in God’s sight that Jesus said it were better for her that a millstone were hanged about her neck, and that she were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matt. 18:1-14). Jesus also said it were better for these men if they had no eyes (5:29).

Modern Swimsuits: Reflection of a Lascivious Society

Exact styles of dress are not specified in God’s Word; differences from nation to nation, age to age, and person to person are allowed. Still, the Christian is regulated by divine principle in dress as in all facets of life. We may enjoy different styles and modes of dress, except when they violate the principles of God’s Word. If unlimited change is permitted and God has no concern for dress at all, then nudity itself can be justified. Does the modern swimsuit (worn by a female who is sexually mature in the presence of a male to whom she is not married) fall within the limitations of God’s word, or outside those principles in the lascivious spirit of an ungodly age?

Those who think that Christian women can appear before men in the abbreviated cloth wrapping which covers what little it covers in the formfitting style of a sausage casing, would be hard pressed to prove absolute nudity wrong. Yet, ocassionally some Christian conforms his or her ways so much to the ways of this age that it becomes necessary to rationalize certain practices. For instance, the danger of appearing in mixed company in swimsuits must be explained away by arguing something like this: “We can be like the world in innocent matters. Perhaps at one time people of the world were provoked to ungodly thoughts by the sight of a woman in her swimsuit, but the practice is now so widely accepted that no normal person notices such a thing any more. The practice no longer attracts attention and so has become innocent.” To be around our friends of the world and to hear them speak with lascivious delight about this or that woman in a swimsuit is to know how hollow the above rationalization is. Conscientious Christian men try to avoid the situation or look away when the sight of a woman in a swimsuit presents itself, in the effort to guard the thoughts of their hearts.

On other occasions, Christians who are determined to defend such practices will concede the lascivious thought are a problem for the sinner but not for the Christian: “It is alright for a group of Christians to go mixed swimming in modern swimsuits because our minds are pure and none of us would be tempted by ungodly thoughts.” While it is true that Christians strive to discipline their thoughts, it is untrue that a Christian male cannot experience lascivious lusts at the sight of the tightly-outlined or nearly-nude form of a female body. Baptism does not make eunuchs of men, does not change the chemistry of male-female biology. Men do not enter the baptismal water in bodies of flesh and emerge in bodies of stone or steel. Christians discipline their thoughts but also admit the ever-present reality of temptation and danger of sin so long as we are in the body. Remembering what happened to King David (“a man after God’s own heart,” Acts 13:22) when he chanced to look upon a woman’s exposed body, Satan knows that he may well take advantage of the modern Christian who is so arrogant as to assert, “Now, that I’m a Christian, lascivious thoughts cannot be stirred in my mind and fornication can never seriously tempt me again.” If the above rationalization has any merit, it could as well prove that a nudist colony populated by Christians alone would be all right!

The testimony of the world itself about whether swimsuits tend to stir up lascivious desires would be the most conclusive evidence possible. When the world speaks of its own things, the testimony is decisive. The funny papers, comic strips, and comedians reflect a common sense kind of psychology; they make us laugh at ourselves, at the real world. Among situations often made the brunt of a joke is the man who walks into a wall or drives his car into a telephone pole while craning his neck to see a woman exposed in shorts, a tight dress, or a swimsuit. The man’s accident under such circumstances may be funny, but the reality of his lascivious thoughts and of her exposure which stirred them are no laughing matters. Eloquent testimony also comes from the advertising industry, which has made untold millions of dollars by knowing what attracts the attention of people. In ads for everything from cokes to cars, advertisers utilize the lascivious effects of women in swimsuits to gain audience attention on billboards, in magazines, newspapers, and on television. Is this industry convinced that normal men today do or do not take special notice of a woman whose body is exposed in a swimsuit? The Bible teaches a woman to cover her body so that it will not be an object of lust, temptation, and lasciviousness.

Time Magazine (11 December 1978), in the “American Scene” column, points out that what keeps many football fans from running for hot-dogs at halftime is the sight of females in their twirling costumes. What better way is there “to catch a man’s eye” than in these costumes which are “tight,” “stretchy,” and “skimpy”? The article adds that the performances reflect “dance lessons” and include attractive “struts and tosses” of the female body. In other words, people of the world freely admit that such costumes and performances are enjoyed in pleasurable lusts by men who live in an age which accepts such lasciviousness as commonplace and justifiable. Twirling costumes are designed on the same pattern as one-piece swimsuits. While the world freely admits the pleasure of looking at female bodies exposed in lascivious attire, the worldly minded in the church deny that (1) such attire is lascivious, and that (2) normal men take any special notice of such attire. Brethren who make these denials are grossly ignorant (perhaps unmarried or sexually inactive), are sexually naive (sheltered from the real world and unexposed to the realities of temptation), or are intellectually dishonest (refuse to admit the facts condemning a practice they are determined to continue).

What Shall We Do Then?

Some who were once in the world have been baptized but not converted, and so have brought the world into the church. Others who once opposed the practice of mixed bathing in lascivious swimsuits have surrendered to the increasing power of worldliness, like Gideon who compromised the truth after having fought for it. Feeling the worldly pressures from within the church, they say, “If we preach on this, we will run off the members.” Feeling the worldly pressures from without, they say, “If we preach on this we will be viewed as fanatics by the community.” Forgotten in many cases is the heavenly call to preach the truth “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Let us not surrender to the gloom! When we teach those within, the honest of heart will repent and only the hypocrites will be driven away. When those without hear stirring condemnations of sin, they will be touched by the power of the gospel as the Spirit intended (Jn. 16:8; Rom. 1:16). The consciousness of sin will bring them to the cross. This writer recently baptized the same hour of the night a young adult who heard one gospel sermon and who wanted to hear more afterwards because, she said, “I know what you said about swimsuits is true; I’ve been there -I’ve been guilty of the very things you warned of and know them to be true.” Faithful Christians can determine to teach modesty and to oppose sinful modern swimsuits. Many are so teaching, and many elders are standing behind this teaching. Irven Lee says that a church which tolerates such worldliness as gambling, social drinking, and immodesty of mixed swimming is a “garbage church” – and every town needs a garbage dump to collect unconverted brethren who persist in worldliness so they cannot ruin good churches. Consistent teaching keeps the church pure by encouraging the strong to stay strong, helping the weak to grow, and causing the stubborn to exit in search of their own kind.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 373-375
June 7, 1979