Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Often we find ourselves unhappy with the quality of our life because we have lost control of it. There are many ways we can lose control. One of the most common is when we let people or things direct our living. In the Mutt and Jeff cartoon series, Mutt awake one morning with a hangdog expression, and sadly told his wife, “Why get up? I am so depressed. Nothing is right in my life, and I am so unhappy. I have nothing to live for.”

“Nothing to live for!” exclaimed his wife. “Why, you have the T.V., the stereo, the car, the boat, and the house. They aren’t paid for yet!”

The last panel showed Mutt standing in line to catch his bus for work. The cynical humor of the strip aptly illustrates the fact of life for too many people, that their direction in life is determined by things and not by the people themselves.

When we lose control of our lives and instead are controlled by things, inevitably pain follows. Control of our life does not mean control of other people, events, or things. These we cannot control. For instance, Jesus prayed in the garden for control of the events in his future, “Father, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done O Lord.” God did not give Jesus that kind of control. He still went to the cross in great shame. But God did give Him the peace and strength to endure. In the following hours, we find that it is Jesus before the mob, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and upon the cross who controlled the situation. Because Jesus possessed His soul in peace, secure in His relationship with God, He did not fear whatever men did to Him. One has only to observe the mob falling back before Jesus’ words “I am He;” His putting Pilate to shame; His self-possession before the Sanhedrin, a calm center of peace amongst the contradictions, shouting, and rending clothes; the conversion of the centurion; to indeed see a man who controlled the event by His own self-possession.

Paul prayed to God three times that his “thorn in the flesh” might leave him. God’s answer was “My grace is sufficient unto thee.” Paul’s change in attitude following God’s response gave him the power and control he needed in his life to meet and change the effect of the pain to good (2 Cor. 12:9, 19).

But, when we lose control of ourselves, our relationships, and in turn are used by others we lose the abundant life. When we permit others to control us, we often are manipulated, and not to our good.

Comparing Ourselves

Paul told the Corinthian brethren, “We dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).

When we compare ourselves, we run the risk of making the comparison to some mythical “average man” or consensus. We compare ourselves to “them.” The “them” could be most anything, but in the church the comparison is usually to what we perceive as “success.” (As an aside, it is interesting to note that most writing done today, as well as whatever preaching I hear, warns brethren against the evils of comparison to the world. The vast majority of the brethren do not care for the praises or approval of the world. But, they covet the approval of those within the church. Peer approval, or the popularity we have among those we consider worthy “amongst us” is far more an insidious danger to the abundant life than seeking approval elsewhere. It is cloaked in a mantle of respectability, and as such is of greater danger to the unwary Christian, “Whose praise is not of men, but of God” – Rom. 2:29).

For example, the “standard” of a successful preacher as openly described by many and reflected in the deeds of some might be portrayed like this: A man of youthful appearance, and stylish dress, who holds a graduate degree in some area of history or religion. This “successful” preacher must be eloquent and polished in his delivery, with a large store of humorous illustrations and anecdotes. He must have held several debates, write for a subscription journal, or failing that write for a local church bulletin that has national circulation. His preaching experience must be with the larger, financially abundant churches in areas where the church is strong in number. He must publish some kind of scholarly book, be an expert in some area of the gospel, hold several meetings a year, be on a first name basis with all the journal editors and college administration (having spoken at least once on the annual lectureship). It does not hurt if he also has wealthy friends and family, a good looking wife, and a large library.

Now, none of these things are evil, or even particularly to be avoided. They are merely incidental to Christianity and really have nothing to do with being a good preacher at all. A man could have all the things described here and still go to hell, never having amounted to anything as a man of God. The danger lies in the preacher or other brother who looks at this “myth of success”-and actively seeks to add each bead to his bower, that he might be a “success” as a preacher. Not only are they unrelated to the abundant life, but in many cases are actually harmful.

When we try to compare ourselves to such an image we are then controlled by externals which we can in no way regulate. It robs the Christian of peace and self-confidence because we are always afraid of what others think of us.

Conformity brings a degree of external lack of conflict, because we adapt ourselves to whomever we are around. But the cost to ourselves is enormous. We lose ourselves, and become helpless when we use other’s good will and approval as a standard in running our life. We lose a large portion of our life and experience trying to do and be what others want. This pressure to conform can be very seductive. It eliminates the risks of standing alone. We can be very persuasive in convincing ourselves that this “lining up” is just the thing we want. The inevitable result is always that we lose ourselves in the process.

There is nothing wrong with being like other people, if what we are is good and right. It is not necessary to be a non-conformist to prove our independence. In fact, the compulsive non-conformist is also controlled by others. He observes others, and then sets out to be different and unique. He still defines himself by comparison to others. He has no real control over his life because it is a reflection of others, rather than a positive statement of value in itself. (As another aside, it is interesting that the new “liberty” journals, like Ensign Fair, et al only seem to have a self-identity in relationship to those they oppose. Read any issue of any of these papers and there is not a positive statement of practice in them. Their total view of themselves is defined by what others are – that they are not. It makes one wonder, whether there would be anything there at all, if the terrible abuses they decry so loudly were taken away.)

I recall a college professor that I had once who was quite well-off financially, sophisticated, and well aware of the world around him. Yet, his ability and means did not influence him. He lived in a modest two-bedroom house with his wife, drove an older car that he worked on himself, and he always wore clothes that had gone out of style ten years ago. Some students thought him foolish, “What, with his money why doesn’t he live better?” He did not care. His clothes were not ragged, just out of style. His auto was reliable and provided good transportation, it just provided no status or prestige. His home was warm, comfortable, and gave room for all their possessions. A larger home would have been more prestigious or comfortable, but was hardly necessary. His wealth he spent on the young, and preaching, and to the work of the Lord in foreign fields, and few knew about it. Wealth, fashion, prestige, power, and men’s approval had no control over his life. And he is a happy man.

What is important to us is often reflected in the way that we live. Courage in opposing what is wrong is often developed in the hearts of those who have determined not to be controlled by things. But, the man who “pulls his punch,” flatters, and “has men’s person in admiration because of advantage” generally are those who are unwilling to risk their prestige, power, or bread and butter by opposing those who hold the power to feed and promote them. “Ye are slaves to them whom ye serve.” The philosopher Diogenes was washing lentils to make soup. He was noticed by the philosopher Aristippus, who had acquired a comfortable living by paying court to the king. Aristippus sneered, “If you would only learn to flatter the king, you would not have to learn to live on such poor food as lentils.”

“If you had learned to live on such food as lentils,” retorted Diogenes just as disdainfully, “You would not have to flatter the king.”

“Be Ye Followers Of Me”

The first step in living the good life is to stop ourself whenever we find ourselves comparing ourselves. Consider Jesus. He did not define Himself by others. Rather He lived with a divine standard, disdaining the disdain of others who sought only their own. He did not permit His life to be controlled by others.

The scribes and Pharisees came to Jesus in Matt. 15:1-14 and said, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” It reminds me of those who hold up the example of the prominent journal editors and college officials of the past, the “pioneer preachers” as standards for today’s preacher. It seems to matter little that these men lost their families in some cases, or their health, and established precedents in their lives that set the stage for apostasy. They are still appealed to as “standards.” Jesus was not intimidated by the great example of sinful men. He was not about to be controlled by others comparison of His practice to some arbitrary standard of years past. By rejecting the force of the ages many were offended and quite angry. Their response is not recorded, but it might have been, “Who does he think he is? He is but thirty years, and yet he presumes to fly in the face of the practice of the greatest scholars and pious men of the ages!” That is exactly what Jesus did, He who has become our wisdom and righteousness. His disciples came to Him and said, “knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?” Jesus’ response would be considered by many political brethren of today to be intemperate and unwise. If one seeks to accomplish anything, he cannot afford to offend those of influence who might be able to help. But Jesus said plainly, “Let them alone. They be blind guides. And, if the blind shall lead the blind, they both shall fall into the ditch.” In other words, ignore those men who seek to bring you into conformance with other men by such tactics. Stand by the truth, and you will never be lost. Follow those who seek to please men, and you fall into the same trap they are in. These men are totally unaware of true spiritual reality, and they lead people astray daily.

Jesus gave us further instruction in how to free ourselves from the control of others. Many cannot do anything that they do not tell. Some even feel a compulsion to declare in as many ways they can of their accomplishments. Their view of their own worth is dictated by other’s approval. Therefore, all good that they do is of no value to them unless it is known by others. Jesus told us how to break ourselves of this in Matt. 6:1-7. Do your giving privately. Try to keep it a secret. Do not even let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, let alone anyone else. Speak to God privately, away from all others. Do not make a show of your privacy (“I want to be alone!”). Rather, let your communication with God be between the two of you. Any sacrifice you make in service to God, do not let it show. Wash your face and put on a smile, and step before the world as though nothing has happened. Make this a practice of life. Not something we do occasionally, but all the time. “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips” (Prov. 27:2). God rewards openly what is done in secret. Also, we are sure of our motive when we do right and tell no one. Then we know it is not for man’s praise, but for God’s glory. By doing our good so that no man knows it, we rid ourselves bit by bit of our dependence on the praise of men.

The brother who complains, “No one ever appreciates me. I work so hard, and never a thank you” is not living the abundant life. He has not yet learned the lesson that “it is not man’s estimation which is important, but God’s judgement of value.” Great is the reward here and in heaven for the man who does good for the eyes of God alone. Then shall his praise be of God, and not of men.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, pp. 534-536
August 23, 1979

By Bob Waldron

In the third temptation of Jesus, recorded in Matthew 4, “the devil taketh Him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he said unto Him, `All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me’ ” (Matt. 4:8, 9). Satan sought to get Jesus to worship him. If ever the bald-faced audacity of Satan was ever manifested, it was then. The very idea of supreme Deity worshiping Satan is mind boggling. If Jesus had seen fit to fall down and worship Satan, then surely we who are far less in power could do no less than to follow His example. As I said, the consequences of such an action would have shaken the foundations of reason itself.

What was the appeal of this temptation? God had promised Jesus the “obedience of the peoples” (Gen. 49:10); “the nations for throe inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Psa. 2:8). For Jesus to follow God’s way to the throne on the “holy hill of Zion” led to the cross. It was the hard way, the sacrificial way. Satan’s way was easy. All Jesus had to do was to fall down and worship him. If He had done that, being who He was, Deity would have been divided. Deity would have submitted to an inferior being’s power. The scheme of redemption would have been completely thwarted.

Jesus answered Satan, “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, ‘Thou shaft worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shaft thou serve”‘ (Matt. 4:10). For the third time Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy (6:13). Moses warned the people that when they went into the land, they were not to follow after the idols. One may make a god out of anything. Satan wanted to exchange himself for God and let Jesus worship him, but Jesus refused. “Thou shaft worship the Lord thy God and Him only shaft thou serve.”

It will be profitable to look at a few reasons why Jesus was perfect. They are exemplified in the temptation accounts. We blame sin on our human bodies, but Jesus had a human body and did not sin. Sin comes from the heart. It is the heart which allows the desires of the body to become lust. Surely the divine nature of Jesus is the ultimate explanation of His complete, lifelong perfection. There are, however, two things which we may study with great benefit. One reason why Jesus never sinned is that He was not ignorant. He knew everything that was right. Many times we sin because we do not know. We have not studied and learned. The more we know of God’s way the better we wilt be able to walk in it. Another reason why Jesus never singed is that He always did what He knew was right. How often do we get to the end of a day and say, “I should have done this or that,” and did not do it? We can improve our service to God without learning anything else if we will immediately begin to do more of what we already know we should do. We can then further improve by studying the scriptures more diligently. Let us be imitators of Christ and “resist the devil and he will flee from you” (Jas. 4:7).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, p. 533
August 23, 1979

By Mike Willis

Every Christian is faced with the problem of how to handle his day-to-day sins with reference to his hope for an eternal home in heaven. If sin separates a man from God (Isa. 59:1-2), the individual must cope with the possibility of losing the salvation which he has obtained through Jesus Christ. Last week, we discussed one possible method of handling the problem of day-to-day sin, namely that which is used by Calvinists. The Calvinists appeal to the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the believer’s account to reach their belief in the impossibility of apostasy. This is their method of handling the problem of day-to-day sin. I did not engage in a refutation of this belief last week because I have previously reviewed the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ and, furthermore, most brethren are well equipped to handle the subject of the impossibility of apostasy.

Not all denominations, however, handle the problem of day-to-day sin in the same manner as do the Calvinsits. Others handle the problem with a “second act of grace” otherwise known as the sanctification doctrine. Let us define this doctrine in more detail.

A Second Work of Grace

Perhaps a word should be said about the philosophy of this second work of grace (otherwise known as perfectionism). The underlying principle of perfectionism is that of natural depravity and the impotence of the individual to help himself, morally and spiritually.

Man is “a mass of corrupts and his salvation must come from outside himself. In attaii that ideal three steps are usually recognized. Justification secures remission of sins; it is divine forgiveness, conditioned on repentance in evangelical thinking, and does little or nothing to man’s nature. Regeneration is an inner work, usually accompanying but distinct from justification, which purifies the life and purges it of the original taint. But there still remains “sin in the regenerate”; men are still tempted, evil desires remain, and depravity still manifests itself. So there must be sanctification which completes the work of regeneration and frees man entirety from inbred sin (Elmer- T. Clark, The Small Sects In America, p. 52).

The result of sanctification is the total eradication of sinful desires and deplorable psychological states; the individual is thus enabled to live free Jrom sirs because of this second work of grace.

The second work of grace is secured in only one way. A direct operation of the Holy. Spirit manifested in the believer by a definite emotional response is the only way of obtaining sanctification. In defining “Christian Perfection,” John Wesley stated the following:

1. Christian perfection is the product of faith and means freedom from all sin, both outward and inner, including “evil thoughts and tempers,” though it does not insure against such human frailties as ignorance, mistakes, temptations, and the common infirmities of the flesh.

2. It is not the same as, nor does it ever accompany, justification, but is always subsequent thereto . . .

3. It is always an instantaneous experience, though there may be gradual growth both previous and subsequent thereto . . . (Ibid, p. 55).

Here are some statements from creed books which manifest belief in this doctrine:

We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect.

It is wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for fife and service.

Entire sanctification is provided by the blood by Jesus, is wrought instanteously by faith, preceded by entire consecration; and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness (Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, 1944, p. 29).

Sanctification is that renewal of our fallen nature by the Holy Ghost, received through faith in Jesus Christ, whose blood of atonement cleanseth from all sin; whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts and to walk in His Holy commandments blameless (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940, p. 48).

McClintock and Strong summarized this doctrine rather concisely in their monumental work; they wrote,

This is, in brief, the doctrine that Jesus Christ is a present Savior from sin; that he is able to keep those that trust in him from falling into any sin whatever; and that if the soul trusted him completely it would be preserved from all deliberate sin, and its unintentional wrong-doing – errors rather than sins – would not be imputed to it. It is true that some of the advocates of this view claim to have so lived in the presence of Christ as to have been for weeks and months unconscious of any sin; but more generally those who hold this view of the present redeeming power of Christ, while they insist that it is possible to live so near to him as to be kept by him “without sin,” also confess that they occasionally fail to keep up a complete and undeviating trust in Christ, and so do, in fact, in some degree, temporarily fail away from that condition in which they maintain it to be their privilege to walk (Vol. -VII, p. 944).

In a telephone conversation with a person who believed in this second work of grace, which conversation was aired on the radio, he stated that he had lived fifteen to twenty years without committing a single sin. Some of the more staunch defenders of this second work of grace would frankly confess that they have not sinned in years. When confronted with sin in the lives of their members, they either try to explain this as not being sin or assert that this individual who obviously is guilty of sin never actually received sanctification. In this, they remind one of the Calvinists who deny that a certain individual who has fallen away from the faith ever was saved in the first place.

Sanctification And Daily Sins

Despite whatever one may think about the truthfulness or falsity of this doctrine, he must admit that this one method presently being used to grapple with the problem of day-by-day sites in a Christian’s life. This approach simply states that a Christian who has been sanctified does not sin anymore. The temptation to sin has been removed from his body; consequently, he does not sin.

The advantage of this position if obvious. It gives an individual a security of salvation. He does not have to worry about being a “yo-yo Christian” who moves in and out of grace every day. Instead, once he has been saved and sanctified, he is forever secure because he simply cannot sin; hence, there is nothing in his life to separate him from God.

The disadvantages of this position should be obvious to anyone who has his eyes open and knows his Bible. The very first disadvantage should be obvious to anyone, with or without a Bible. That is, that it is not in harmony with experience. With our eyes and ears, we have witnessed quite the contrary; we have seen men who had been saved by the grace of God become involved in transgressions. We have seen men who were dedicated to the service of God for years become enmeshed in some sin. This has happened on a sufficient number of occasions that it simply cannot be dismissed by saying that such individuals were never saved in the first place. Hence, this first objection is that this doctrine of sanctification is contrary to experience.

The second, and more important, objection is that this doctrine is contrary to the Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures demonstrate that those who have been saved by the blood of Christ can continue to commit sins from time to time. The following. passages, addressed to Christians, demonstrate this fact:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 Jn. 1:8-2:1).

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, . . . Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted., when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (Jas. 1:1-2, 13-15).

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (1 Cor. 10:12).

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway (1 Cor. 9:27).

These passages show conclusively that Christians can continue to sin after being saved; they continue to have temptations; they must be careful lest they fall away from Jesus Christ and, consequently, lose their salvation.

Thirdly, this doctrine is contrary to what the Scriptures teach regarding sanctification. Sanctification is not a “second work of grace” which occcurs instantaneously making man above the temptation to sin. Sanctification has a two-fold meaning in the Scriptures: (1) It refers to that which occurs in salvation whereby one becomes setapart to God (1 Cor. 6:11; 1:2). These are not sinless persons but set-apart persons. (2) It refers to that continuing process of growth in Christian living whereby one is constantly laying aside sinful acts and deeds in an attempt to replace them with fruits of the Spirit, as the following: Jn. 17:17; 1 Thess. 4:1-7.

Conclusion

This second method of dealing with the sins which occur day-by-day in one’s life is rejected. The denial of the possibility for the presence of sins in the Christian’s life is antiscriptural. It is in direct conflict with what we learn about the Christian’s life in the Scriptures. Hence, this method of handling day-by-day sins must be rejected. (Continued next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, pp. 531-533
August 23, 1979

By Norman E. Fultz

Now whoever thought of stubbornness as a sin? “Preacher, where did you ever come up with that idea?”, you may be asking. Well, basically from one Old Testament passage which we will consider later:

The word “stubborn” takes on a vividness when broken down. The root “stub” can be defined as “the stump of a tree, the short blunt part of anything after the large part has been broken off or used up.” Picture the stiffness, rigidity or hardness of the stub of a weed which the mower has clipped near the ground. Contrast that stiffness with the former flexibility of the weed as it would sway gracefully in the wind. The idea of “stubborn” thus becomes “fixed, resolute, or unyielding; especially, obstinate . . . difficult to handle, manage or treat; refractory” (Webster).

The word “stubborn” appears five times and the word “stubbornness” twice in the King James version of the Bible. A study of the passages can teach us a great deal about the – shall we call it a malady, an attitude?

1 The Bible uses of the term show it identified with an attitude of rebellion. In Deut. 9:27, Moses pled for God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and “look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin.” Read the entire ninth chapter, and note: “ye have been rebellious” (vs. 7, 24) and, “thou are (it is) a stiffnecked people” (vs. 6, 13). The Psalmist (78:8) called Israel “a stubborn and rebellious generation” because their heart was not set on God’s service. That same relation between stubbornness and rebellion is seen in the case of the uncontrollable son (Deut. 21:18-20).

In Judges 2:19, it is connected with self-seeking – “they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.” A lack of faithfulness in marriage and playing the part of a harlot led Solomon to call the evil woman of Proverbs (7:6-23) “loud and stubborn.”

But the example of King Saul (1 Sam. 15) is verily a study of stubbornness. Samuel calls Saul’s behavior “rebellion” and shows it to be- the result of “stubbornness.” Read the chapter and let’s consider Saul’s problem.

He had “grown up” in his own estimation – no longer little in his own sight (v. 17). Quite a change had come over him since the time of his anointing (9:21). On another occasion, he had “done foolishly” and “not kept the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 13:8-13). Peace offerings were to be offered at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 17:1-6). Saul’s power had gone to his head. How often in our day do we see those who cannot become prosperous or powerful without losing their humility and submissiveness?

Saul elevated his-own thoughts over God’s instruction. God said, “utterly destroy.” Saul thought the best of the spoil should be saved (v. 19) and the vile and,- refuse destroyed (v. 9). What he thought to be good was in fact evil; because it was disobedience: He had riot learned that God’s thoughts and man’s thoughts are- often greatly divergent ,Isa. 53:8-9). What of those today who seek to improve upon what God has revealed regarding worship or .the organization and work of the church?

The king sought to justify himself and blame others for his disobedience (v. 20-21). He had understood his mission, for he admitted the spoil “should have been destroyed.”He blamed the people and tried to rationalize their motive -they only did it “to sacrifice to the Lord thy God.” But he learned that partial obedience is disobedience (v. 11, 22) and that he, himself, was guilty.

Samuel’s rebuke of Saul is stern and pointed. “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?” God does not require obedience to one commandment to the point of another being violated. God required sacrifices, but not of the Amalekite spoils – it was to be destroyed. God requires Christians to give (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8-9), but not to the point that they engage in dishonest effort in order to give, or to give more. “It is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (2 Cor. 8:12). Basically, what Samuel is saying to Saul is that God grades “A” for obedience – “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (cf. Ex. 19:5; Hos. 6:6). Samuel likens Saul’s rebellion unto witchcraft or divination, a practice definitely prohibited in Israel (Deut. 18:10). His “stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry,” also disdainful to God (Ex. 20:3-5).

The results of Saul’s stubbornness are far-reaching. The kingdom is taken from him; and Samuel, the seer, departs permanently from him (v. 23, 35). The light he refused is darkened, and the voice he rejected is silenced. Even though Saul confessed his sin and worshiped God (v. 24-31), the effects of his sin were permanent – “The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day . . . the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent” (v. 27, 29). Many moderns need also to learn the devastating and far reaching effects of their sin, and that though sin may be repented of, the effects may remain. As an instance, the alcoholic who gets “on the wagon” may have permanently impaired his health and wrecked his family.

Now, if it be argued that stubbornness is itself not a sin, only that attitude which may lead to sin, I answer – “a mere technicality!” Look at its company: rebellion, self exaltation, lack of submissiveness, witchcraft, idolatry and iniquity.

The child of God must guard against stubbornness in his own life in all his relationships, and the Christian parent is challenged to do all within his power to keep his child from developing a stubborn will.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, p. 530
August 23, 1979