Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping on your own?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Romans 14:4 - Bible Gateway

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2014:4
Who are you to judge the servant of another? Before his own master he stands [approved] or falls [out of favor].
-----------------------------------------------------------

The Scripture is enough , already. Continue believing what you want to....
It's not been given to me to say more here.

 

[Tharseo]

Tharseo,

My take is that while the Greek word does indeed have a very literal and practical meaning (a rock that someone could literally strike their foot against and stumble over), both Jesus and Paul used the word metaphorically... not literally. To be sure, the natural meaning of a word will inform the metaphorical usage of the word, but it does not determine the metaphorical meaning as used by a given speaker/author.

Consequently, our task is not so much to discern the natural meaning of the word, but rather to discern how the speaker/author is using the word in the immediate context.

And as I read Jesus' usage of the metaphor, I sense a very different specific application of the metaphor as compared to Paul's employment of the term.

As I said before, when Jesus used the term, it's evident that the one who "stumbles" has ended up in hell (Take note of His assertion that it's better to go through life hand-less and eye-less than to "stumble" by that hand/eye and burn in hell - Mark 9:43-48). By contrast, when Paul describes someone who "stumbles," he describes a person that has violated his/her own conscience by participating in a morally-neutral activity which they still believe is wrong ("to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." - Rom 14:14). In Paul's mind, there is literally nothing sinful about the actual activity the "stumbler" is participating in... only the fact that he's doing it in violation of his conscience. These two usages of the "stumbling block" metaphor are different.

I make this claim solely on the contextual usage of the term by each speaker. As in all efforts to interpret the scriptures, "context is king."

Can you demonstrate that my analysis of the context is in error?

Thank you very much for giving the details.

Unfortunately, there are no hints that Paul used it in a different way. I did a quick word study, but since it is really quick, I don't want to say something I am not absolutely sure. But I will explain how I study the word "stumble" in 1 Corinthians 8 to you.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13: "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble."

So this is not merely a fault that doesn't matter. It causes the person who stumbles ruined. Paul is talking about if a person's conscience is wounded, he is sinful And the one who causes this wound is also sinful. This is consistent with Romans 14, as with rest of the Bible.

Romans 14:20-23: "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."

Whoever doubts is sinful, and whoever makes a person doubts is also sinful.

 

[SkyWriting]

That was actually my first thought about the topic. My second thought was what would the media say when they found the drowned body nude.

The odds of that increase dramatically if you swim alone. Perhaps for multiple scary reasons.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Thank you very much for giving the details.

Unfortunately, there are no hints that Paul used it in a different way. I did a quick word study, but since it is really quick, I don't want to say something I am not absolutely sure. But I will explain how I study the word "stumble" in 1 Corinthians 8 to you.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13: "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble."

So this is not merely a fault that doesn't matter. It causes the person who stumbles died. Paul is talking about if a person's conscience is wounded, he is sinful and will die. And the one who causes this wound is also sinful. This is consistent with Romans 14, as with rest of the Bible.

Romans 14:20-23: "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."

Whoever doubts is sinful, and whoever makes a person doubts is also sinful.

I think you need to look at it again, Tharseo.

First of all, it doesn't say that the brother "died"... it says that he's a brother... for whom "Christ died."

Secondly, this is not a matter of heaven vs. hell, either... for the brother is called "brother."

Finally, ask each passage this basic question, "How do I know if someone has 'stumbled'?"

• In 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 the answer is: When he violates his conscience.
• In Mark 9, the answer is: When belief in Jesus is shorted out and a person ends up in hell.

Consequently, I see these as different.

Here's another observation worth making from Paul's two passages... While Paul is talking to each of us--warning us to not cause someone else to stumble--he's literally addressing something that we DO have the FREEDOM to do!! "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block..." Or in Rom. 14, "One person has faith that he may eat all things... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." (vss. 2 & 22).

One final comment that I think is worth making... Consider this question: "Is it God's intention that a 'Weak' brother remain weak?" The text itself doesn't address that question, but isn't it self-evident? So, if we really apply Paul's teaching, it implies that the need to defer to the "weaker" brother is only a temporary limit to our freedom, for as we continue to invest discipleship into that brother, he will cease to be a "weak" brother, and then we no longer need to avoid the activity (either the brother will now be able to participate with us without violating his conscience, or else he will simply not join us, and thereby not violate his conscience). By contrast, there's no way that whatever the one "causing to stumble" did that Jesus was talking about would ever be okay!

 

[RDKirk]

Here's another observation worth making from Paul's two passages... While Paul is talking to each of us--warning us to not cause someone else to stumble--he's literally addressing something that we DO have the FREEDOM to do!! "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block..." Or in Rom. 14, "One person has faith that he may eat all things... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." (vss. 2 & 22).

One final comment that I think is worth making... Consider this question: "Is it God's intention that a 'Weak' brother remain weak?" The text itself doesn't address that question, but isn't it self-evident? So, if we really apply Paul's teaching, it implies that the need to defer to the "weaker" brother is only a temporary limit to our freedom, for as we continue to invest discipleship into that brother, he will cease to be a "weak" brother, and then we no longer need to avoid the activity (either the brother will now be able to participate with us without violating his conscience, or else he will simply not join us, and thereby not violate his conscience). By contrast, there's no way that whatever the one "causing to stumble" did that Jesus was talking about would ever be okay!

Basically, the "weaker brother" is weak in the knowledge of the Romans 14 wisdom.

In our understanding of the things of Christ, there are indisputable matters (such as the death and resurrection of Christ) and there are "disputable matters."

The indisputable matters are those that are essential to the faith, essential to salvation. They are witnessed multiple times explicitly by clear scripture and have nothing in scripture that conflicts with them.

The "disputable matters" may have only one scriptural witness, may have apparently conflicting witness, may not be explicit or may be extrapolations. Those are "disputable matters," and the Body should not become divided over them.

A weaker brother is one who does not understand the distinction and thinks all matters must be indisputable. He doesn't understand that it's okay for another Christian to be on the other side of a disputable matter.

 

[Tharseo]

First of all, it doesn't say that the brother "died"... it says that he's a brother... for whom "Christ died."

Sorry, my mistake. I highlighted the wrong word.

1 Corinthians 8:11: For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.

Secondly, this is not a matter of heaven vs. hell, either... for the brother is called "brother."

A false brother is still a brother. A weak brother who is ruined, well, I don't think it is any better.

Here's another observation worth making from Paul's two passages... While Paul is talking to each of us--warning us to not cause someone else to stumble--he's literally addressing something that we DO have the FREEDOM to do!! "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block..." Or in Rom. 14, "One person has faith that he may eat all things... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." (vss. 2 & 22).

True that we are free to do this thing. But it does not mean that we can always do the thing. For example, we are free to put off all our clothes when taking a bath, but this does not mean it is legal to do it in the centre of a mall. We are free to eat and drink anything, but it is a sin to do it in front of a weak brother. It is not the same in different situation.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

1 Corinthians 8:11: For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
...
A false brother is still a brother. A weak brother who is ruined, well, I don't think it is any better.

You are reading a lot into the meaning of the word "ruined"... I don't see much within the context to help us know what Paul means by that word, but I would suggest that it's a stretch to suggest it is permanent ruin (is someone lost forever if they violate their conscience??) or that they will die (wow... that would be harsh!). It's an even greater stretch of reason to suggest that it means that the guy will go to hell.

So, my question to you is this... can you give and support a definition of "ruined" that makes sense in the passage so that we can understand Paul's meaning correctly?

True that we are free to do this thing. But it does not mean that we can always do the thing. For example, we are free to put off all our clothes when taking a bath, but this does not mean it is legal to do it in the centre of a mall.

Now you're conflating two issues... Paul is talking about what activities I participate in... in the presence of a brother. We are not talking about activities that are legal or illegal within the context of civil government. The bible speaks separately about our obligation to obey the government, but that requirement has no bearing on the morality of an action or when or where we are morally required before God to defer to another person.

You also completely avoided my point...

You said that there's "no hint" that Paul used "stumble" differently than Jesus did. Yet I offered a number of "hints"... observations that demonstrate that they actually did use the word differently.

Case in point...

• In Paul's teaching, it is clear that a person MAY do the activity in one context, but may NOT do it in another.
• In Jesus' teaching, it is clear that a person can NEVER do the activity that causes someone else to stumble.

Can you refute that observation? If not, how can you maintain the assertion that Paul and Jesus used the term the same way?

 

[RDKirk]

True that we are free to do this thing. But it does not mean that we can always do the thing. For example, we are free to put off all our clothes when taking a bath, but this does not mean it is legal to do it in the centre of a mall. We are free to eat and drink anything, but it is a sin to do it in front of a weak brother. It is not the same in different situation.

Yes.

And so, what is the difference?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying.

Modern translations put "everything is permissible" in quotes, explaining in some way that Paul didn't really say that. But there are no quotation marks in koine Greek, there is no indication Paul isn't really expressing this as his own opinion--and it very much follows in the line of what he says elsewhere about the written code of the Law.

I believe Paul is establishing a new benchmark for Christian behavior. The old benchmark was a written code: "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." So people studied the written code carefully and established rules for how to follow it, such as "do not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that's just like striking a match, and you can't strike a match on the Sabbath, because that's starting a fire and starting a fire is work and the Law forbids work on the Sabbath."

So Paul states boldly: There is no written code for Christian behavior. Don't comb through scriptures to determine by the written code exactly where on the line every action falls, and then assert it as doctrine.

Instead the bar is: Is that action beneficial (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? Is that action edifying (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? There are no pre-emptions by a written code, but a discernment by a renewed mind, a mind of Christ.

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

This is identical in concept as the Philippian Prescription: “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things and the God of peace will be with you”

By saying "whatever," Paul is saying that there is no pre-emption by a written code, but a discernment by a renewed mind, a mind of Christ, of what is beneficial and edifying.

 

[Tharseo]

Yes.

And so, what is the difference?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying.

Modern translations put "everything is permissible" in quotes, explaining in some way that Paul didn't really say that. But there are no quotation marks in koine Greek, there is no indication Paul isn't really expressing this as his own opinion--and it very much follows in the line of what he says elsewhere about the written code of the Law.

I believe Paul is establishing a new benchmark for Christian behavior. The old benchmark was a written code: "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." So people studied the written code carefully and established rules for how to follow it, such as "do not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that's just like striking a match, and you can't strike a match on the Sabbath, because that's starting a fire and starting a fire is work and the Law forbids work on the Sabbath."

So Paul states boldly: There is no written code for Christian behavior. Don't comb through scriptures to determine by the written code exactly where on the line every action falls, and then assert it as doctrine.

Instead the bar is: Is that action beneficial (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? Is that action edifying (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)?

This is identical in concept as the Philippian Prescription:

Well, yeah, I just said the same actually, maybe I am falling into the same trap again...

IMO it is not a matter of "can" or "cannot", it is a matter of "good" or "not good".

1 Corinthians 10:23: ""All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up."

I don't think there is a definite answer to this question, but depending on the situation, consider whether such act is good and helpful (to yourself and/or others). If not/in doubt, don't do it.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I believe Paul is establishing a new benchmark for Christian behavior. The old benchmark was a written code: "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." So people studied the written code carefully and established rules for how to follow it, such as "do not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that's just like striking a match, and you can't strike a match on the Sabbath, because that's starting a fire and starting a fire is work and the Law forbids work on the Sabbath."

So Paul states boldly: There is no written code for Christian behavior. Don't comb through scriptures to determine by the written code exactly where on the line every action falls, and then assert it as doctrine.

RDKirk, I think you make a good point... although I think I would hesitate to say it as starkly and absolutely as you did... I do think it's possible to find some clearly articulated behavior commands in the NT... but that's a different discussion.

More important is your assertion that we not do as the Pharisees did... in their zeal to obey God completely, they established a gazillion man-made commands that they then raised to the level of Divine Holy Writ and used their own rules to assess whether someone was obeying God or not.

In like manner, many Christians give in to the temptation to come up with a list of rules whereby they can assess another Christian's spiritual condition. Or... they may come up with rules that they think will "ensure" that a person will obey God's genuine moral commands.

Paul makes it abundantly clear that such a practice is worthless and that we should NOT submit to such made-up rules:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

I would go so far as to say that...

It is more damaging to the kingdom of God to promote man-made rules for righteousness than it is to cause a brother to "stumble."

 

[JCFantasy23]

No idea why this would be seen as wrong. There isn't an actual option for that answer on the poll. Nudity in itself isn't bad, and if you're alone in the water, I'm not seeing any harm.

 

[Archivist]

A couple years ago a young woman was sunbathing topless in a West Virginia state park. She was in a secluded area not bothering anyone but she was spotted by a park ranger who ticketed her for indecent exposure. The problem is that it is not illegal for women to go topless in West Virginia. People supporting her organized a topless protest in the West Virginia state capital. I understand that the charges against her were dropped.

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk, I think you make a good point... although I think I would hesitate to say it as starkly and absolutely as you did... I do think it's possible to find some clearly articulated behavior commands in the NT... but that's a different discussion.

What we need to do is look at those clearly articulated behavior commands in terms of what their beneficial and edifying effects actually are. For example:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes

Is it sufficient that a woman merely make sure her hairstyle is plain, wear no gold or pearls, get all her clothes from Walmart? Let's make sure we're really in the clear by dictating only clothes from the Salvation Army. Check, check, check, everything checked off, and now she's all good in God's sight. That would be looking at the command from the legalistic perspective of a written code.

But what is the intended beneficial and edifying effect of this clearly articulated behavioral command, and so what does it mean for us in our situation?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

What we need to do is look at those clearly articulated behavior commands in terms of what their beneficial and edifying effects actually are. For example:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes

That's an unfortunate example... because the translation itself is not good...

• the word translated "dress" (cosmeo) does not mean "put on clothing" in Greek.
• The word translated as "modestly" (katastole) has nothing to do with keeping body parts covered.
• The word translated as "decency" (aidos) has nothing to do with sexual propriety.

The whole point of that passage is to tell women not to "dress to impress"... with expensive clothing or jewelry.

(That is a very short summary of an extensive examination that I performed on 1 Tim. 2:9 that I would happily share with anyone who might feel the summary is not well-founded)

Better examples of legitimate behavioral commands in the NT for Christians would be these:

• Do not be drunk with wine.
• Forgive one another.
• Husbands, love your wives.

That said, I would agree that we must understand the truth of God that's behind the command before we use it to beat others over the head. It's certainly not about establishing a "list" of rules to follow.

David

 

[RDKirk]

That's an unfortunate example... because the translation itself is not good...

No, it's exactly the example I deliberately chose because my point is to that we must examine what the benefit is supposed to provide--what it was supposed to be then and how to achieve the same benefit today--not to attempt to follow it by the letter.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

No, it's exactly the example I deliberately chose because my point is to that we must examine what the benefit is supposed to provide--what it was supposed to be then and how to achieve the same benefit today--not to attempt to follow it by the letter.

And my point was that even the "letter" in English is demonstrably faulty.

The bible never commands women OR men to be "modest" in the way we typically think of it in today's culture. This passage is the ONLY one used to buttress the false "modesty" command and it's based upon a questionable English rendering of the Greek text.

 

[rjs330]

Yes.

And so, what is the difference?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying.

Modern translations put "everything is permissible" in quotes, explaining in some way that Paul didn't really say that. But there are no quotation marks in koine Greek, there is no indication Paul isn't really expressing this as his own opinion--and it very much follows in the line of what he says elsewhere about the written code of the Law.

I believe Paul is establishing a new benchmark for Christian behavior. The old benchmark was a written code: "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." So people studied the written code carefully and established rules for how to follow it, such as "do not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that's just like striking a match, and you can't strike a match on the Sabbath, because that's starting a fire and starting a fire is work and the Law forbids work on the Sabbath."

So Paul states boldly: There is no written code for Christian behavior. Don't comb through scriptures to determine by the written code exactly where on the line every action falls, and then assert it as doctrine.

Instead the bar is: Is that action beneficial (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? Is that action edifying (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? There are no pre-emptions by a written code, but a discernment by a renewed mind, a mind of Christ.

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

This is identical in concept as the Philippian Prescription: “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things and the God of peace will be with you”

By saying "whatever," Paul is saying that there is no pre-emption by a written code, but a discernment by a renewed mind, a mind of Christ, of what is beneficial and edifying.

Yes and the general pattern of this world is anything goes. The world tells you nudity in public is fine, inappropriate contentography is fine, homosexuality is fine, fornication is fine. Lust is fine. Lying is fine. Gluttony is fine. Divorce for any reason is fine. I could go on.

The patterns of this world are not fine. We as believers have a higher calling. A higher standard to live a righteous life. Part of that life is to not do things that cause our Christian brother to stumble. The world would tell us if we just loosened our morals more people would embrace Christianity. Yet Jesus told us the way was narrow and few would find it. Why? Because it's a harder way. Pick up your cross is sacrifice. It's not the easy way. The easy way is the world's way.

So in answer to the original post, no it's not a sin to skinny dip by yourself. There is no one else around it's just fine. No one to cause to stumble. Skinny dipping with others (other than your spouse) is dangerous for you and others and could cause you to or others to stumble.

 

[Archivist]

Yes and the general pattern of this world is anything goes. The world tells you nudity in public is fine, inappropriate contentography is fine, homosexuality is fine, fornication is fine. Lust is fine. Lying is fine. Gluttony is fine. Divorce for any reason is fine. I could go on.

But I have not seen anyone on this thread promoting inappropriate contentography, fornication, lying, etc.

The patterns of this world are not fine. We as believers have a higher calling. A higher standard to live a righteous life. Part of that life is to not do things that cause our Christian brother to stumble. The world would tell us if we just loosened our morals more people would embrace Christianity. Yet Jesus told us the way was narrow and few would find it. Why? Because it's a harder way. Pick up your cross is sacrifice. It's not the easy way. The easy way is the world's way.

Except you don't explain how skinny dippy is loosening our morals.

So in answer to the original post, no it's not a sin to skinny dip by yourself. There is no one else around it's just fine. No one to cause to stumble. Skinny dipping with others (other than your spouse) is dangerous for you and others and could cause you to or others to stumble.

And as I asked before on this thread, is owning a nice house or wearing nice clothing or driving a nice car enjoying good food wrong since any of that could be the trigger of someone stumbling.

 

[Darkhorse]

Swimming alone is against the Boy Scout Code of Safety. You would not get your merit badge if you suggested swimming alone was OK.

Buddy System Minute

Interesting that you would mention the Boy Scouts...

When I was young, nude swimming was very common during Boy Scout gatherings.
Now, it's officially forbidden; another victim of modern inappropriate contento-prudery.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

So in answer to the original post, no it's not a sin to skinny dip by yourself. There is no one else around it's just fine. No one to cause to stumble. Skinny dipping with others (other than your spouse) is dangerous for you and others and could cause you to or others to stumble.

Once again, this is a FALSE application of the "stumbling" teaching in the Bible.

(For the purpose of this discussion, assume that the legality of public nudity is not a factor in any of the following examples)

According to Rom 14, if I go skinnydipping, I have caused a brother to "stumble" IF (and only if) the following happens.

• I go skinnydipping. I do so because before God, I know it's not sinful to swim naked... nor is it a sin to allow myself to be seen naked by other people.
• My Brother who is with me does not fully believe that skinnydipping is morally permissible. Yet, because I'm his brother, and he trusts me, he figures "If David is skinnydipping, what will it hurt if I do, too?" So he strips down and joins me skinnydipping.
• RESULT: because by my freedom, I was a catalyst that resulted in my brother being emboldened to violate his own belief about the morality of skinnydipping, I have caused him to stumble.

=========

Unfortunately, that is not what most people who invoke the "stumbling" prohibition mean.

Let me give two examples that are NOT "causing to stumble"...

1. Someone is SURE that I'm wrong!!

• I go skinnydipping. I do so because before God, I know it's not sinful to swim naked... nor is it a sin to allow myself to be seen naked by other people.
• My Brother who is with me does not believe that skinnydipping is morally right. So, he declines to participate.
• RESULT: All is well. Everyone is fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5) and there is no stumbling and no sin. He doesn't have to skinnydip, and I don't have to refrain.

2. Causing someone to lust.

• My daughter goes skinnydipping. She does so because before God, she knows it's not sinful to swim naked... nor is it a sin to allow herself to be seen naked by other people.
• My Brother who is with her has a weakness with reference to sexual lust. He sees her naked and has lustful thoughts.
• RESULT: The Brother is in sin because of his lust. My daughter is not in sin... and she did NOT cause her Brother to "stumble."
• NOTE: Having a sinful response to an external impetus is always and totally the responsibility of the one having the sinful response.
  • Jesus was not responsible for the Pharisees' hatred.
  • Joseph was not responsible for Potiphar's Wife's lust.
  • Bathsheba was not responsible for David's lust.
  • The Angels visiting Lot in Sodom were not responsible for the lust of the men in town.
  • The woman in Jesus' teaching is not responsible for the mental adultery of the man who looks lustfully at her (Matthew 5:28).

Consider Jesus' words in Mark 7:14-23

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.

The sight of a woman's body is by definition "outside the man." If that sight triggers a lustful response, it only reveals the lust that resides within that man already!

This conclusion is inescapable from Jesus' words. Even sexual sin comes from within a man...not from what he sees!

In Paul's teaching, "Stumbling" has only to do with emboldening someone to violate their own conscience... and joining someone else in an activity they don't yet realize is not sin.

Any attempt to apply Paul's words about "stumbling" any other way is biblically false.