Truth Magazine

By Mike T. Rogacs

Each year for about three to four months I find myself taking an unpopular stand on a certain issue, a practice which many of my brethren are content to continue to expound and to do. Each year I get so many funny looks and sly remarks that I am simply tired of my stand, and in this article I hearby call on somebody, anybody to show me the scriptural reasons why my convictions on this issue are wrong so that I can put aside this unpleasant task of objecting.

I am talking about someone who can justify to me the yearly warm-air practice of taking off nearly all of a person’s clothing, except for one or two small pieces of cloth which are designed to cover certain areas and to wear this attire in public swimming areas, thereby being thusly clothed in the presence of and with members of the opposite sex. In fact, I wish someone would justify this practice because I, too, greatly enjoy swimming in water and exposing my skin to healthy sunshine. Since I do not approve of God’s sanctified children disrobing to the bare minimum and swimming with those of the opposite sex (unless it is a wife or a husband in private), I have to find private ponds and streams to enjoy swimming and sun-bathing, and finding them is often difficult. I even learned to love the salty sea-water in Florida when a bunch of us boys at Florida College found an out-of-the-way area on the beaches where we could swim out of the view of other people. But not long ago a fellow preacher and another friend wanted to go to a public pool and I had to turn down the invitation to swim in public-after they had tactfully showed their annoyance at my suggestion that it might be wrong for them to also go.

But until someone is willing and able to justify this practice of pleasure to me, I will continue to bear up under the criticism that I am a “nut” or a party spoiler and will continue to strongly object to God’s Holy children swimming with nearly no clothing on, with members of the opposite sex. I had been taught by Christians even before I was baptized in obedience to God’s will that public swimming in modern beach attire was wrong and sinful because it was one form of what the Bible calls lasciviousness. In Galatians 5:19, lasciviousness is named as one of the works of the flesh; in Ephesians 4:19 it is one of the sins of those who are spiritually “past feeling,” those who have had their understanding darkened. It is clear that any form of lasciviousness should not be named among God’s enlightened children.

The definition of the Greek word for lasciviousness is as follows: “denotes excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness” (W. E. Vine). Thayer adds “shamelessness.” Any act which is indecent, shameful, wanton or in excess is sinful. (Webster defines “wanton” as “unchaste; lewd;” “chaste” means “modest, not indecent; restrained and simple in style.”) With these thoughts in mind, can it be said that public swimming is “lasciviousness”? I believe so for the following reasons:

1. 1 Timothy 2:9–At least one half of God’s people are directly commanded to wear “modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety.” Oh, yes, in context the reference is to gaudy clothing (1 Peter 3:1-6 also), but the thought is that it is wrong to dress in excess. No First Century woman in her right mind would have dared run around in a swim-type attire, but she might overly dress. Both are excesses: excessively over-dressed and excessively underdressed; both are done to attract the opposite sex.

We do not find the same command given to men, but is it not simple that excess in dress is wrong for them likewise? One brother told me, “But it is different for men. Women do not lust after a man’s body as men lust after women.” Now, how gullible can we get! I have read of and even in my presence have had women and girls admit that when they see men in swim suits, there is a very real element of lust on their part. Perhaps a man can argue that the lust is not as great as a man’s lust, but it still exists! That brother used this thought to expound the opinion that Christian women should not swim in public, but Christian men could. He reasoned that he was not going to be there to lust, but to swim, and since women do not lust after men, he could be there. This reasoning (?) leads us to our next observation.

2. Matthew 5:27-28-Jesus said it is just as wrong to look on a woman and to lust after her as it is to actually commit adultery. It seems clear that a man should not go so far as to put himself in a situation where he will (or “might”) have an extremely easy and abundant view of nearly undressed women (Christian women or not, by the way). You have that easy view when women are in swimming or sun-bathing atire. If it was not so disheartening at the time, I would have split my side in laughter when that brother said that he “didn’t go there to lust” but to swim! Is he not human? Are we not all human? There are many things we may not intend to do, but when we find ourselves surrounded by temptation, it is far more difficult not to yield. Why place ourselves chin-deep in temptation, when it is not at all necessary to do so?

It was also said by this brother that it was wrong for a woman to go swimming in public (but not a man). Why? Are we to assume that all women go swimming to lust? Would that be just as right as his statement or not? But I guess that the brother really meant that someone might lust after her, so she should not even unwillingly tempt another. If that is what he meant, now he is getting on the right track! It is indecent, unchaste, lewd, immodest for a Christian woman (or any woman) to be in a situation where she will be nearly undressed and open to public view and thereby tempt others, even unawares, or be tempted herself. But let us not forget that it is likewise, indecent, unchaste, lewd, immodest for a Christian man (or any man) to be so undressed and to place himself in a situation where it will be quite easy to lust after the opposite sex or give place for them to lust after him.

Let us be honest in our thinking. Why is it that so many people like to “hit the beaches”? Is it only to swim and sun bathe, and no more? Let us not become so naive as to believe that. A great deal of motivation is to find a seemingly socially accepted way of showing off the human body to the world and/or to “enjoy the sights” one’s self. Someone always repeats, “But I don’t go for that reason!” If a person truly wishes only to enjoy the swim and the health benefits of the sun, then why can it not be done in a private area with the opposite sex not in presence? It can be done. I do it. In the past, all like minded Christians have done so to avoid placing themselves in a position to lust or to cause others to lust. When it comes to institutional issues in the church, everyone who is of sound thinking remembers Paul’s exhortation that when you cause a brother to violate his conscience; you sin (1 Cor. 8:12). But it seems that when it comes to personal pleasures, we forget that we sin when we cause another to commit sin, even when we give another the opportunity to lust after our bodies. Remembering that one of the terms in the definition of “lasciviousness” was “absence of restraint,” the unwillingness to restrain one’s self from public swimming, even for influence sake, seems to fit the definition of lasciviousness.

There are other reasons for my conviction on this matter such as 1 Thessalonians 5:22, to “abstain from all appearance of evil,” but I can almost hear the ringing in my ears: “But who says swimming is evil?” People will always close their eyes when a personal pleasure or view is involved. We must learn the lesson that the act of swimming is not wrong. It is the exposition of your body to the opposite sex that is wrong. When I look at today’s standards of morality in society, with sex splashed across the movie screen, in magazines and even in the streets, I almost feel that I am shouting in the dark.

As I mentioned, anymore this seems to be an unpopular conviction to hold among our brethren. The childish reasoning that “Everyone in the community does it. Why can’t God’s people” rules the day. I am weary of the verbal consequences of my holding this view. It would be nice if someone could show me that the scriptures show that God approves of such skimpy atire in public. But no matter how weary I might become, if no one can come up with such a justifying and truthful answer, I must continue to declare that the practice of publicly taking off nearly all of a person’s clothing for any cause is lasciviousness and is therefore sinful.

(Did somebody hear someone whispering something about dancing?)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 11-12
September 5, 1974

By Luther Blackmon

J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, has repeatedly told us that the greatest factors in preventing juvenile delinquency and crime are discipline and the influence of religion in their lives. Statistics show that a very small percentage of the people in our penal institutions have ever attended church regularly. Less than five percent, I believe. But parents are not impressed. Only 51 percent of the people in this country are even “church related,” as they put it. And only a small percentage of the 51 percent attend worship more than three times a year. In the church of Christ, you can find as many who don’t attend as you can find who do. It would be safe to say that less than 25 percent of the youth attend worship except on “special” occasions. The one thing that would exercise the greatest influence in their lives to keep them from crime and delinquency, to say nothing of the salvation of their souls, the parents don’t give them. They give them money to spend, parks, playgrounds, dance halls, country clubs and nearly everything else that appeals to the flesh. But the one thing that has proven most effective, they deny them: The example of godly, church-going, Biblereading parents.

There are many reasons for this. One is the utter spiritual bankruptcy of these parents. They care nothing for God until tragedy strikes them or they think they are going to die. Dad spends $25 or $50 a year for newspapers and knows all about current happenings. Mother may belong to the Book of the Month Club, or spends long hours at canasta or some other game. The children know about science fiction and Elizabeth Taylor. The spend an average of 36 hours a week in front of the T.V. set – smaller children. But the Bible is a keepsake. It is the depository for old pictures and locks of hair. Not much chance of their being lost there because that is one book that is seldom touched. On the Lord’s day these parents are too tired to go to worship. So they wash the car or cut the grass or play a game of golf or visit some friends or play poker while their children observe the fine examples their parents are setting. This sort of conduct is understandable in parents who deny the existence of God, heaven or hell, and who believe that the Bible is folklore. But for parents who recognize that their children have not only a body and an intellect, but also a soul, there is no excuse. There is no city of refuge where they may hide when the day of reckoning comes. Juvenile crime is constantly on the increase. But don’t blame the kids too much. They did not ask for the kind of parents they have.

(Written several years ago)

By James Sanders

Friendship is one of the more noble treasures of life. There is nothing quite like a good friend. When adversity strikes, the good friend is constant. He is the same whether we are in wealth or in need: “A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (Prov. 17:17). Friendship improves happiness and abates misery. It doubles our joy and divides our grief (Addison). Two are better than one.

Comfort and Candor

Friends are for comfort but friends are also for candor: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:6). There is a sincere frankness’ between friends-a frankness tempered with tenderness. Friendship is something that is built through a labor of love. It is the work of a lifetime. We are bound to other men by every ‘sort of tie: by blood, by fear, by admiration, and by circumstances. But friendship finds its bonds in the tenderness of the heart. Friends are truthful. The friend who will not openly rebuke us is not worth the name. And the man who gives counsel without respecting our feelings, likewise is not our friend.

Close friendships are rare and therefore the more precious. Jonathan’s friendship for David was an once-in-alifetime blessing for both. Jonathan loved David as he loved his own soul (1 Sam. 20:16). And when Jonathan died, David lamented, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Sam. 1:26). The death of Jonathan was an irreparable loss. David never again had another friend like Jonathan. “The loss of a friend is like that of a limb; time may heal the anguish of the wound, but the loss cannot be repaired” (Southey). Close friends are rare and are few. A host of acquaintances is not what helps us. A few close friends are better and stand in a class by themselves: “A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:24, NASB).

Warmth and Joy

The warmth of friendship is the best blessing of all. There is that healthy clash between friends which invigorates the soul: “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). Friendship is too good to be believed. Remember how your heart leaped the last time you saw the face of an old friend you had not seen in years? Remember your laughter and your tears-and how time itself seemed to stand still? There was neither Winter nor night as both of you relived the memories of the past. This is friendship and friendship at its best. Heaven will be like’ this. When we cross the River of Death, our friends will be on the other shore to welcome us. “At last!” they will shout. But no one will weep for there are no tears in that country (Rev. 21:4). Friendship sharpens the countenance. Friendship touches the heart and makes nobler men of us all. Friendship is one of God’s good gifts.

Because friendship is precious, it needs to be cherished. We take care of our health; we lay up our money and make our roof tight. But we neglect the best property of all-our friends. Friendship must be cherished. It is worthy of respect. It is worthy of courtesy. It is worthy of tact. There are certain bounds beyond which not even a good friend should venture. It is easy to outstay our welcome in more ways than one: “Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour’s house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee” (Prov. 25:17). Friendship needs to be cherished and never betrayed. The disgrace of Judas lies in that he betrayed a good friend. His deed has ever since lived in infamy. Not even the soldiers who crucified Christ are remembered like Judas. Friendship is a sacred trust.

(Credit should be paid to Derek Kidner, The Proverbs. His comments were most illuminating. The essay, “Friendship,” by Ralph Waldo Emerson was also rich with suggestions. Some of the thoughts and words I used were from the pen of Emerson.)

By Larry Ray Hafley

This scriptural title was used recently “By Rev. Bruce Cummons, Pastor, Massillon Baptist Temple, Massillon, Ohio,” in an essay on John 3:5. “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The relevance and pertinence of this passage is clear. “The subject and doctrine of the new birth is all-important. Jesus said that except a man be born again, he cannot enter into God.” Thus, the significance and importance of this study is as great as entering into the kingdom of God.

Purpose of This Theme:

“The purpose of this sermon in to clarify the meaning of the words representing the two agents absolutely essential in the new birth, as set forth in John 3:5, namely water and the spirit. (Observe that Cummons considers these two agents “absolutely essential.” Fine, we shall hold to that:) “I especially want to deal with the fifth verse and its proper interpretation.” (Remember, now, whatever is “proper” is Aabsolutely essential.@)

“Water and The Spirit”

1. General Premises: Mr. Cummons rejects the theory that being born of water is a reference to physical birth. In this, he is correct. He arrives at his special and specific conclusion by these general means. First, he reads the text, context, and related passages. Second, he prays. Third, he turns to Greek texts. “Finally, I pull every book off my library shelf that might have a sermon, a paragraph, a sentence, or a word, concerning the text at hand … Following this plan I have put John 3:5 to the test. . . .”

2. Specific Conclusion: Mr. Cummons quotes his “old seminary professor. . .concerning John 3:5: `There is no need for confusion as to the meaning of water in verse 5… water is a symbol of the word of God. Ephesians 5:26 tells us distinctly, ‘The washing of water by the word.’ Titus 3:5 further emphasizes the same truth – ‘the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.’ He tells us it is with the Word, which is the instrument, and the Spirit who is the agent that one is regenerated. Water symbolizes the Word.” (Dr. Louis Entzminger, Studies In John’s Gospel). Cummons quotes A. C. Gaebelein, H. A. Ironside, and Dr. Lehman Straus to the same effect. Then, Cummons comes clean and postulates. “I state clearly that water in John 3:5 is representative of the Word of God.”

So, Cummons states it “clearly.” His authorities do likewise. Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 are cited to prove (1) that “the words of our Lord have nothing to do with baptism,” and (2) that “Water in this passage (Jn. 3:5) is the figure of the Word of God.”

My, my, that does make it rich! The Lord meant “Word,” but he said “water.” Paul did the same thing in Ephesians 5:26, according to Cummons. Paul said Christ cleansed the church “with the washing of water by the word.” (Eph. 5:26) But Paul meant “Word” when he said “water.” Was the Lord able to say “Word” if he meant “Word?” Why say “water,” if he meant “Word?” Was Paul unable to say “Word” in place of “water?” But if Cummons is correct, we have Paul saying Christ cleansed the church “with the washing of word by the word.” Now, if Paul said “water” but meant “word,” why can I not say in the last phrase when he said “word” he meant “water.” So, with the Hafley and Cummons amendments, Paul said, “with the washing of the word by the water,” and we are back where we started.

Further, if Jesus said “water” in John 3:5 but meant “Word,” how does Cummons know that he actually meant “Spirit” when he said “Spirit” in John 3:5? Just suppose I were to argue that Jesus meant water baptism when he said “Spirit?” If Cummons claims “water” means “Word,” how could he deny Hafley’s hunch that “Spirit” is water baptism?

“Of” Argument

“Rev.” Cummons makes an argument on the preposition “of” that I think little “of.” Says he, “Read John 3:5… Notice that in one instance the little preposition ‘of’ is in italics. This means it was not in the original language but was placed in the text by the translators. Now, if you will read the text, leaving out the italicized word ‘of,’ you will see what I mean by the words ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ being used together to mean one thing.

“‘Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” “There is only one preposition ‘of’ used with ‘water and spirit.’ Since there is just one preposition governing the entire phrase, this points to the fact that the words ‘water and spirit’ are to be regarded as one thing and not as two separate things. Both of these things joined together as one are absolutely essential to the new birth!” (“Absolutely essential,” eh? Well, we will mark that down.)

Where, oh where, is Cummon’s scholarship? Why did he fail to cite a scholar who says the absence of a second “of” means the two things are actually only one and the same thing. However, 1 John 5:6 says Christ came “by water and blood.” Does the absence of a second “by” mean that water and blood “are to be regarded as one thing?” No, therefore, we wave “by(e), by (e)” to that argument. Compare also Rev. 5:9; 7:9, 11:9 – “of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” “Since there is just one preposition governing the entire phrase,” does this point “to the fact that the words… are to be regarded as one thing and not as two separate things?”

Cummon’s Confusions or Scholars’ Conclusions

Cummons quotes Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5 and concludes, “The foregoing texts of Scripture have no reference to baptism! They speak of the word of God… used by the Holy Spirit as one and the same power. . . .” It was Cummons who said “with the help… many. . able scholars” he was given “an insight into the original Greek.” Let us see some “able scholars” Cummons would do well to envy. And lest we forget, the elements of the new birth are ‘absolutely essential.”

John 3:5

“There is not one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism. And if` it be not so understood it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water, anymore than of wood…. All the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Savior (John 3:5) ‘Verily,’ verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, ” of baptism…. I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied ,this place to mean baptism. He gave another interpretation, which he confesses to be new” (Wall. History of Infant Baptism, Vol. I, pp. 92, 443).

“There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that gennethenai ek hudatos (born of water) refers to the token or outward sign of baptism – gennethenai ek pneumatos (born of Spirit) to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped” (Dean Alford, Greek Testament, Vol. I, p. 714).

“The convert is immersed in the material and spiritual elements, rises newborn out of them, and enters into the kingdom. . . .Of the two elements, water signifies the purifying power, spirit the life-giving power: the one removes hindrances, making the baptized ready to receive the other (Acts 2:38; Tit. 3:5). Note that ek is not repeated before pneumatos, so that the two factors are treated as inseparable” (Plummer, Cambridge Greek Testament, The Gospel of John, p. 102).

“. . the necessity of baptism in order to participation in the messianic kingdom (a doctrine against which Calvin in particular, and other expositors of the Reformed Church contend) has certainly its basis in this passage” (H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 124).

” If brother Vaughn convinced us that born of water refers to anything but the baptism of one previously born of the Spirit, we never knew it,. . It means nothing else, and no Baptist that we ever heard or read of ever believed otherwise until A. Campbell frightened them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages” (J. R. Graves, Tennessee Baptist, May 17, 1884.)

“By water, here is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5” (Albert Barnes, Barnes On The New Testament, Luke John, p. 210).

Conclusion

Other authorities could be cited, but the above will suffice. Let it be observed that the Lord’s statement in John 3:5 can be interpreted in light of other things He said concerning entrance into the kingdom of God. In Matthew 7:21, He said that only those who do the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom. In Matthew 18:3, he said the disciples must be converted before they could enter the kingdom. These are all different wordings of the same fact, i.e., how one obtains entrance to the kingdom of God. One must be converted, do the will of the Father, be born again.

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). An apostle of Christ, speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Ananias, a man sent of God, told Saul of Tarsus, “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). So, even if we could exclude baptism in water from John 3:5, we could not wring and wrest it out of these plain statements of Scripture.

In view of this, how can one read either the scholars or the Scriptures and conclude that baptism is anything less than “ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL?”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 10-11
September 5, 1974