Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

Jesus said, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Mark 8:34). Self-denial is one of the most basic attributes of Christianity. Yet, it is one of the most difficult to attain. One reason for that is that it requires great strength of will.

Man has a great problem mastering himself. Those who willfully engage in sin have not learned to control them-selves. Those who are overcome in a moment of temptation have a problem (at least for the moment) with self-control. When we get angry and let our tempers flare and our words fly, our character is then flawed due to not practicing self-discipline. We exhibit a lack of will power when we overeat, are lazy, or are addicted to alcohol, tobacco or some other drug. Thus, mastering self requires constant work for all of us. The difference in us is that we may need to work on it in different areas of our lives.

Shakespeare wrote, “Brave Conquerors! for so you are, that war against your own affections and the huge army of the world’s desires.” John Sterling said, “The worst education which teaches self-denial is better than the best which teaches everything else, and not that.”

There are more passages that imply the principle of self-denial than we may think at first. To learn and grow in self-denial is to grow in heart, in soul, and in character. This is one quality that we can use every moment of every day in every place.

With this article we begin a series of five articles on mastering self.

Defining Self-Denial

1. Different words used in the New Testament. There are three different words or phrases used in the Bible that point to the same concept of denying or controlling self. (a) Jesus used the phrase “deny himself ” (Mark 8:34). (b) The NKJV uses the words “self-control” in 2 Peter 1:6, Titus 1:8. (c) The word “temperance” or “temperate” is used in the KJV in 2 Peter 1:6, 1 Corinthians 9:25, and Titus 2:2.

2. “Deny self” means “to forget oneself, lose sight of oneself and one’s own interest” (Thayer, p. 54). Liter-ally it means to say “No!” to yourself. It is hard to say no to others, but even harder to say no to ourselves.

3. “Temperance” means “self-government” (Thayer). Strong’s says the original words translated “temperance” comes from a word that means “to be strong in a thing (i.e., masterful).” It means dominion, power or strength.

Thus, temperance means to have power of dominion over self. William Barclay suggests that it is the “ability to take a grip of oneself.”

4. Aristotle proposed that there are four states of man with reference to the battle between reason and passion. (a) Perfect Temperance: This is where reason rules over passion. The fight is won. (b) On the other end of the spectrum is Unbridled Lust: This is where passion rules over reason. The fight is lost. In between these two states is where the battle within ourselves takes place. (c) Incontinence: This is where reason fights, but passion prevails. The battle is on, but at the moment reason is losing. (d) Self-Control: This is where passion fights against reason, but reason prevails. The battle is still on, but at the moment reason is winning. (Taken from Barclay’s comments on 2 Pet. 1:6.)

The principle of self-denial or self-control deals with the reality of life. The Bible does not picture the Christian void of all passion, drained of all desires or detached from all temptation. Rather, it envisions that all of his appetites, and desires remain, but he keeps them under control and mastery. With self-control man becomes the master and not the slave of his passions.

Passages That Require Self-Denial

1. Passages that specifically mention self-denial or self-control. Jesus said that those desiring to be his disciples must deny self (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). Paul preached to Felix about righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come (Acts 24:25). Peter lists “temperance” as one of the “Christian graces” which we are to add to our faith (2 Pet. 1:6). The fruit of the Spirit includes self-control (Gal. 5:23). Those who run the race and compete for the crown must be temperate in all things (1 Cor. 9:5). The comparison in this text is that we are to be self-controlled and self-disciplined just as athletes are. Elders are to have self-control (Tit. 1:8) and aged men should be temperate (Tit. 2:8).

2. Passages which deal with self-denial and self-control in principle. Paul urged the Romans not to continue in sin (cf. Rom. 6:1) by telling them not to let sin reign in their bodies (Rom.6:12ff). That requires self-control. The same writer said that it was no longer himself, but Christ who lives in him (Gal. 2:20). He had said “No!” to himself. Those who are God’s people willingly submit to Christ in everything (Eph. 5:24). That implies self-denial.

3. Any passage that forbids the following requires self-control: lust (2 Tim. 2:22; Matt. 5:28), lying (Eph. 4:25), immorality (1 Cor. 6:18), covetousness (Col. 3:5), retaliation (Rom. 12:17-21), laziness (Rom. 12:11; 2 Thess. 3:10), self-willed (Tit. 1:7) and hatred (Gal.5:20).

4. Any passage that commands the following requires self-control: meekness (Matt. 5:3), gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24), patience (2 Tim. 2:24), soberness (1 Pet. 1:13), contentment (Heb. 13:5), and chastity (Tit. 2:5).

This Is An Area In Which We

Need To Grow

The Christian life is a continual growing process. We should always be growing in grace and in knowledge of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:18). Each day and each year we should be gaining more and more spiritual maturity (Heb. 5:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No.24, p. 12-13
December 21, 1995

By Irvin Himmel

Many of us get worked up in our daily lives over things that are relatively inconsequential. If one is given to anxiety, the chances are that he worries over a lot of such things.

To some, social events are highly important. Others are much involved in sporting events. There are people who spend many years earning academic degrees. A business executive may set his goal on reaching the top rung of the corporate ladder. Others consume long hours and large sums of money on entertainment. Some are very fashion conscious. They like to keep up with the latest styles and newest customs. Some relish extensive travel. Then there are people who buy all the new electronic gadgets they can afford, and perhaps some which they really cannot afford.

Self-control is a relative matter. That is, there are varying degrees of temperance (self-control) just as there are with all of the “Christian graces” found in 2 Peter 1:5-10. None is perfect (without a flaw  cannot grow any more) in temperance. Furthermore, we never will be. The key to being acceptable to God is to work on self-control with “all diligence” (2 Pet. 1:5).

There are some areas of life where this quality is more easily practiced than in others. Easy or not, we must grow in self-control.

The greatest battle you will ever fight is fought within yourself.

When we stand before the Lord in judgment, as all of us will, the things that loom before us now as having such absorbing interest will not matter at all. In that day it will not matter how many degrees a person has, nor what kind of house he lived in, nor whether he wore plain clothes or the latest fashions, whether he drove an old clunker or a shiny new auto, and whether he was underpaid or earned a top salary. And the team that he rooted for will have no more fascination.

The things that will really matter then are the things that ought to matter now. Faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Cheerful obedience. Righteous living. Submission to divine authority. Love. Loyalty in worship and service to God. Eternal hope based on the grace of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 24, p. 13
December 21, 1995

 

By Jeff Himmel

There are many people who believe that Jesus was a good man, one of the greatest moral teachers who ever lived, but not the Son of God. Perhaps you have encountered some folks like these. Perhaps you are one. These people agree that Jesus taught principles which are undeniably good and right; but to say that he was God in the flesh is just too much to swallow. They say instead that after his death, Jesus’ followers made him out to be God’s Son, as is evidenced in the things they said and wrote about him.

Was Jesus a good man and nothing more? I believe the Bible, the book that tells his story, can answer that for us. All we need to do is examine Jesus’ own claims  not what others said about him, but what he said about himself.

Jesus claimed equality with God. In John 5:17-18, Jesus equated his own work with that of the Father. He professed to be something more than a man: “You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world” (John 8:23). In fact, Jesus even claimed to be God. During a discussion about the heritage of Abraham, he remarked, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). His opponents surely recognized “I AM” as the name by which God identified himself when he sent Moses to Egypt (Exod. 3:14). On another occasion Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). If he was just a man, then his words were nothing short of blasphemy!

Jesus claimed power to forgive sins. In front of a large crowd, he said to a paralyzed man, “Your sins are forgiven you” (Lk. 5:20). Jesus wasn’t pardoning this fellow for some personal offense; he was pronouncing forgiveness for all the man’s transgressions against God. This angered the Jewish leaders, who knew that no one but God himself could forgive sins (v. 21). Jesus’ statement would have been laugh-able, had it not been so serious.

Jesus claimed to be the path to salvation. In contrast to many religious philosophers, Jesus bluntly said that only he could bring people into a right relationship with God. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). He claimed to be the sole source of truth in the world: “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12). Very arrogant statements for a mere man!

Jesus claimed sinlessness. He asked his enemies, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46) Jesus professed to have no moral defect. For any ordinary man to do so would be impossible; to say so would be openly hypocritical.

Jesus claimed to be the Christ. God’s prophets had promised Israel a deliverer, his “anointed one.” The Jews called him “Messiah.” Jesus said, “I who speak to you am he” (John 4:26). Many people who heard Jesus believed that he was the prophesied Savior. His closest disciples believed it. When he asked them who they thought he was, Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus blessed him for saying so. If Jesus was not the Messiah, then he played falsely on the dreams of an entire nation.

Jesus claimed to be atonement for sin. Jesus said that when he died his life would be “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28), and his blood would be shed for many for the re-mission of sins (Matt. 26:28). He declared that his death would be the sacrifice before God that would make possible the forgiveness of all men’s sins. Imagine a man saying that his life could atone for the wrongs of the whole world! Surely such a man would be a fanatic. Yet Jesus not only said it, but apparently believed it himself, because he willingly died for his claim.

Conclusion

Now, it is not hard to see that if Jesus was nothing more than a man, then none of these statements could possibly be true. That means one of two things: (1) Jesus was a liar. He knew his claims were false, yet continued to deceive people with them. His act has fooled millions into placing their faith in him. (2) Jesus was a madman. He was so deluded that he actually believed these in-credible claims, and even died for them.

If Jesus was either a fraud or a lunatic, then it would be grossly incorrect to call him a great moral teacher. Likewise, if we reject the notion that he was either lying or insane, then only one conclusion remains: he was who he said he was! So to all those who would demote Jesus Christ to the status of “great moral teacher,” I offer the evidence of his claims and the conclusions to which they must lead. And, in the words of C.S. Lewis, I offer this choice: “You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 24, p. 8
December 21, 1995

By Larry Ray Hafley

Forrest L. Keener is a well known Baptist preacher and author. In his paper, The Baptist Watchman, he wrote an article entitled, “God’s Man Of Salvation” (March 1995, p. 1-3). While this is not intended to be a review of that article, sample statements of his principle point will help us in our study. In the prologue to his essay, Keener reveals that the design of his article is that it be a:

SETTING FORTH THE TRUTH THAT SALVATION IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY A GOD MADE UNION BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE BELIEVER, AND NOT THE HUMAN EXECUTION OF A “BIBLE PLAN.”

Mr. Keener ridicules “hundreds of tracts and written discourses. . .(which have) the title or at least the general theme, `God’s Plan of Salvation.’ He says that such “plans” are flawed because they “require human acts.” Further, he says, “Salvation does not lie in a plan that is to be activated or executed by man.” The reason that Keener gives for there not being a “plan of salvation” is rooted in his theology. He is a Calvinist. He does not believe that a sinner has the ability to respond to a “plan of salvation.” Says he, “It has been rightly stated . . . that man, due to his depravity cannot of his natural accord repent and believe …. This is completely accurate.”

Because of this alleged, inherent depravity, Keener argues that the Lord “never gave a `plan of salvation, . . . nor did Paul, nor did Peter, nor did any other Bible writer.” Thus, he concludes that one must be born again before he is enabled to respond to the overtures, incentives and inducements of God. Said he, “It is only in the New Birth that man’s depraved inability is overcome.” He contends that if a sinner can understand a “plan of salvation,” then it must be “human, not divine.” As proof thereof, note his words, “A `Plan of Salvation’ that can be understood by the natural man, (no matter how many scriptures may be contained within it) is human, not divine.”

The problem, though Keener does not recognize it, is not the degree of man’s depravity. The problem is that the gospel, “(no matter how many scriptures may be contained within it)” is not sufficient, not powerful enough to penetrate the depth of man’s natural state of depravity. This problem is the creation of Keener’s philosophy and theology. Man is so depraved that he is unable to react to the gospel, says Keener. Could God have constructed a gospel to which the sinner could respond? Yes, certainly. He could have done so, but, according to Baptist doctrine, he did not do so. Hence, the fault lies in the weakness of the gospel and not in the depravity of man. (Oh, how one should fear to face God having so impugned the gospel!)

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Lk. 8:11, 12; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 1:13; 6:17; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). Baptist doctrine forever undermines that concept. It says that man is depraved and that God did not provide a gospel with sufficient power to save him. Hence, Keener decries the need for “a plan of salvation.”

God’s Drunk Driving Laws

Essentially, the central issues of this discussion are: (1) the nature of man, (2) the nature of God, and (3) the nature of the gospel (See The Gospel Preacher, Benjamin Franklin, Vols. I, II). That Keener recognizes this is shown in the following convoluted statement:

“The great mistake of many has been to conclude that these truths were paradoxical and to make one of two errors. (What are “these truths” to which Keener refers? They are `that man, due to his depravity, cannot of his natural accord repent and believe though he is eternally responsible to do so . . . man is responsible to repent and believe. … On the other hand, that he cannot do so is equally obvious”  quoting Keener, defining `these truths’  LRH). One school uses man’s depravity and subsequent inability to his responsibility, to proclaim him to be like an animal, without free moral agency, or volition…. The other error is to use his Bible stated responsibility and free moral agency to deny man’s depravity and to acclaim him a creature of free will who may, at his will, will to repent, believe, re-form…. This is equally wrong.

“Free moral agency does not equal free will or deny human depravity. Human depravity does not equal innocence nor cancel responsibility. Responsibility does not equal ability nor is man rendered `not responsible’ in the eyes of God because he is unable. If you would accuse the consistency of this, consider man’s own law. Is a drunk responsible to drive safely, behave decently, etc.? Certainly! Is he able to do so? Certainly not! What then makes his ability less than his rightful responsibility? His drunkenness. What makes man’s natural ability less than his responsibility? His sinful depravity. Whatever else you do not understand about this, you should soon realize that no human plan or series of religious acts (such as “repent, believe, reform, etc.,” i.e., a plan of salvation  LRH) can change it.”

In other words, man is so disabled by his depravity that he is incapable of doing that which he is responsible and accountable to do; namely, repent and believe. Note Keener’s illustration of the drunk who is “responsible to drive safely,” but who is unable to do so. This illustrates the dilemma of man according to Baptist Keener. Man is responsible to repent and believe, but he is unable to do so because of his depraved nature. As we shall shortly see, this Baptist drunk driver turns and runs over Mr. Keener.

The drunk man is the depraved man. The traffic laws to which the drunk is held accountable represent the laws of God. Now, how did this drunk (depraved) man get in his condition of drunkenness (depravity)? A physical drunk gets that way by deliberate choice, but the illustration fails at this point and swerves into Mr. Keener, wrecking his argument’s vehicle completely. The depraved man, who rep-resents the drunk in the illustration, does not choose to deprave or intoxicate himself. Through no fault of his own, he is born that way (drunk, or, as in the illustration, depraved). Still, God holds him responsible. Keener would have a more correct parallel if he attempted to apply the traffic laws to those who are born drunk. If all men were born drunk, would there be such traffic laws as now exist regarding the responsibility of the drunk driver? No, and yet this is how he portrays and displays the rule of God. God gave the traffic laws. He holds all men responsible to obey them. Then, God fixed it so that all men would be born totally, hereditarily drunk, unable to obey those laws. Born totally drunk, they disobey God’s traffic laws. God’s traffic ticket is eternity in hell for all those who were born totally unable to obey the laws they were still required to obey! Who can believe it?!

Further, and worse yet, one cannot choose to become sober on his own. It takes a direct “drying-out” operation of the Spirit (called the “New Birth”) to bring the drunk to sobriety. Without this miraculous working of God, the one born drunk must remain drunk all of his life. He cannot choose a clinic in which to be treated, for it is a natural state into which he has been born. He cannot be appealed to and summoned to a treatment center, “(no matter how many scriptures may be contained within it).” If God does not see fit to choose this totally, hereditarily drunk man and per-form a miraculous, immediate work upon his heart, he will live and die a drunk. At death, God will cast him into the eternal “drunk tank” of hell because he was born drunk andunable to obey God’s traffic laws. Again, who can believe it?!

How sober was Mr. Keener when he made such an illustration that so evilly and despicably reflects on the nature and character of God?

Is man a passive, inactive recipient of salvation? Keener says he is. If so, why did Jesus say, “Come unto me, . . . and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28)? Jesus did not say, “Ye cannot come to me.” He said, “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (Jn. 5:40). Jesus did not say, “What I say to you cannot save you, for you are impervious to my words.” He said, “These things I say that ye might be saved” (Jn. 5:34). “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jn. 6:63). That one should “continue in my (Jesus’) word,” and that he should “know the truth” in order to be made free from sin, does not sound like Keener’s premise that man is a passive recipient of redemption (Jn. 8:31, 32).

“Preach Jesus Christ”

Under the heading above, Keener concludes: “Preachers, do not preach a plan, preach Christ! Witnesses, do not talk plan, witness of Christ! Teachers, do not teach plans, speak of Christ! … Salvation is not in a Plan, it is in a man, `The Man, Christ Jesus.”‘

Apparently devoid of the total taint of Calvinism, brethren (C. Leonard Allen, Bill Love, and others) have made similar appeals. They have condemned the preaching of Benjamin Franklin, T.W. Brents, J.W. McGarvey, N.B. Hardeman, and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. as giving a disproportion-ate emphasis to the “plan of salvation” while neglecting the preaching of “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Though their conclusions may not completely echo those of Calvin and Keener, and though they may be a little off key, they are nonetheless humming their tune; they are singing their song. It is a dangerous business, for our actions soon imitate our music (cf. Prov. 4:23).

Keener assumes what some of our brethren have presumed; namely, that one may preach the gospel plan of salvation without preaching Christ. Before proceeding, if one endeavors to “preach Christ,” but preaches error concerning him, how would we correct the preacher? Would we have to resort to “the plan,” the word of God, to correct the preacher’s errors regarding “the man, Christ Jesus”? If we correct a preacher by using “the plan” to guide him in his efforts to preach “the man,” would we be “preaching Christ” when we did so? Those who believe that we are preaching “baptism” or the “church,” rather than “preaching Christ,” might find it easier to smile and dismiss that question than to answer it. But, then, there is this. How does a man go about “preaching Christ”? Does he use the word of God, the plan, to do it? If so, is he preaching the plan and not the man? Tell us, all ye that “preach Christ” and do not “preach a plan,” do you use the word of God, the plan, when you “preach Christ”? If so, are you preaching the man when you use his plan to preach his person? Again, it is easier to shrug and wave a hand in dismay than it is to answer those questions.

2 Chronicles 13, The Man and the Plan

In 2 Chronicles 13, we shall see, first, that surrender to God and his person includes surrender to his word and his plan or pattern. Second, we shall see that failure to submit to one or more “right things” or “right doctrines” is equivalent to forsaking God and his person. They cannot be separated.

(1) When Jereboam rebelled against God’s anointed, appointed king, he rebelled against God himself  “Jereboam . . . rebelled against his lord . . . (hence, he, and the children of Israel were fighting) against the Lord God” (vv. 6, 12). To fight against the “plan” of earthly kingship was to fight “against the Lord God,” against his person. When Abijah accused Jereboam of rebellion against the Davidic kingship, was he speaking of “commitment to a human line of kings” and forgetting the “commitment to a person,” the Divine, eternal King, God? No, and because of v. 12, it would be unfair to so charge him in verse 6.

Further, Abijah charged that Jereboam and his apostate allies were “withstand(ing) the kingdom of the Lord” (v. 8). Had Abijah forgotten the fact that their rebellion was also against the person of the Lord himself? Was he refer-ring to “commitment to the body or plan of a human kingdom” and forgetting “commitment to a person”? No, for he said, you are fighting “against the Lord God” (v. 12). To fight against one is to fight against the other.

The case of Paul is parallel to the point above. Paul “persecuted the church of God” (Acts 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13). When he did so, he persecuted Jesus, the person (Acts 9:4, 5). However, when Paul said that he had persecuted the church, had he forgotten that he was guilty of persecuting the person of Christ? Was Paul guilty of making the church “a substitute for Christ”?

Likewise, when the children of Israel “murmured against Moses,” they “murmured against the Lord” (Exod. 16:2, 7, 8; Num. 14:2, 27, 35). Moses was chosen and appointed by the Lord. When one rebelled against God’s plan for Moses, he was also rebelling against the very person of God. A griping, grumbling Israelite could not have pleaded innocence and said, “You misunderstood me; I am not murmuring against the Lord. I just do not like Moses,” for to resist God’s plan of work through Moses was to resist God him-self. To reject the ordinances of God, the plan of God in the word of God, is to reject God himself. To be “removed” from the person of God is to be disobedient to the plan orpattern of God (Cf. Gal. 1:6; 3:1; 5:7; 1 Cor. 11:1, 2).

(2) So, today, when we fight against premillennialism and charge that its advocates are fighting against the church, the kingdom of God, we are not making the church “a substitute for Christ” as some have charged that we do. Neither are we making premillennialism the sole symbol for soundness. As Paul did with the specific doctrine of “circumcision” and showed that its rebuke would lead some to be “sound in the faith,” so we may sharply rebuke some, “specially they of premillennialism,” “that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:9-13).

But back to 2 Chronicles in this regard. Abijah listed a number of Jereboam’s corruptions of the work, worship, and organization of the Lord’s people (vv. 9-11). He contrasted what they did with what he and his people did. He spoke of certain right things which he did and contrasted them with what Jereboam was doing. He contrasted human religion with divine religion. Was Abijah guilty of basing his primary confidence before God upon the doctrines which his kingdom did not teach; the way in which his kingdom was not organized? Was he not trusting in the person of God? Was he guilty of neglecting God’s person, and putting too much emphasis upon God’s plan or pattern? No, he was not, and neither are we making the church “a substitute for Christ” when we compare his church with the Baptist Church.

When Abijah documented Jereboam’s doctrinal errors and his apostasy from the Lord’s “plan” or pattern, and declared, in effect, that Jereboam was “unsound,” was Abijah basing soundness upon these items and forgetting about morality, benevolence, the attitude of one’s inner man, and the Sabbath? Had Abijah forgotten about love and loyalty to the person of God when he condemned Jereboam’s corruptions of the plan of God? No, Abijah was simply citing the most visible aspects of Jereboam’s apostasy. When Abijah sighted in on them and turned his guns of truth against them, he was not saying that these specific items constituted the sole criteria for soundness. Likewise, when we study with a member of a conservative Christian Church and focus our study on the music question, we are not neglecting the person of Christ, nor are we saying that “to play or not to play” is the single most important factor in faithfulness and soundness before God.

Salvation is in the person of Christ “unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8, 9). One is not saved by “the man” until he obeys “the plan” (Matt. 7:21; Lk. 6:46; Rom. 6:17, 18). Consequently, those who parrot Keener’s cry for “the man and not the plan,” for “the person and not the pattern,” should not be surprised if we occasionally pluck their feathers, too. While “birds of a feather” do not always “flock together,” gobbling like a turkey at Thanksgiving is not a safe thing for any bird to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 24, p. 16-18
December 21, 1995