Let him deny himself...

[JM]

My homie Manton opens it up.

"Let him deny himself;' these are the words which I shall insist upon. And in them there are two things to be observed: the act - 'Let him deny;' the object - 'Himself.'

1. For the act, aparneisastho; the word being a compound is the more emphatical; it signifieth prorsus negare - Let him utterly deny himself. Denial properly belongeth to speeches, but by a metaphor it may be also applied to things. To speeches it is proper, as to propositions or requests. In propositions we are said to deny when we contradict that which is affirmed; in requests we deny when we refuse to grant what is desired of us. Now by an easy traduction it may also be applied to things, which we are said to deny when we neglect, slight, or oppose them; as denying the power of godliness, neglecting or opposing it; though with propriety enough the word may retain its original sense because all things are managed in the heart of man by rational debates, counsels, and suggestions, and we are said to deny when we refuse to give assent to fleshly dictates and counsels. The flesh, or corrupt self, hath its propositions, its motions in the soul; it speaks to us by our own thoughts, and puts us upon this or that work. Envy, lust, and corrupt motion have a voice, and an imperious voice, too, that grace is much put to it to give a strong negative. Envy bids Cain, Go kill thy brother; ambition bids Absalom rebel against his father; covetousness bids Judas betray his Lord and Master; so worldly affection bids us pursue present things with all our might. Now because we are wedded to our opinions, and these are the suggestions of our own hearts, therefore they are called self; and we are said to deny when we enter our dissent, and deny the motion. Flesh, what have I to do with thee? I am not 'a debtor to the flesh,' Rom. 8.12. I will hazard all for Christ, and make it my work to get into covenant with God. This for the act - 'Let him deny.”

Excerpt From: Manton, Thomas. “A Treatise of Self Denial.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[twin1954]

My homie Manton opens it up.

"Let him deny himself;' these are the words which I shall insist upon. And in them there are two things to be observed: the act - 'Let him deny;' the object - 'Himself.'

1. For the act, aparneisastho; the word being a compound is the more emphatical; it signifieth prorsus negare - Let him utterly deny himself. Denial properly belongeth to speeches, but by a metaphor it may be also applied to things. To speeches it is proper, as to propositions or requests. In propositions we are said to deny when we contradict that which is affirmed; in requests we deny when we refuse to grant what is desired of us. Now by an easy traduction it may also be applied to things, which we are said to deny when we neglect, slight, or oppose them; as denying the power of godliness, neglecting or opposing it; though with propriety enough the word may retain its original sense because all things are managed in the heart of man by rational debates, counsels, and suggestions, and we are said to deny when we refuse to give assent to fleshly dictates and counsels. The flesh, or corrupt self, hath its propositions, its motions in the soul; it speaks to us by our own thoughts, and puts us upon this or that work. Envy, lust, and corrupt motion have a voice, and an imperious voice, too, that grace is much put to it to give a strong negative. Envy bids Cain, Go kill thy brother; ambition bids Absalom rebel against his father; covetousness bids Judas betray his Lord and Master; so worldly affection bids us pursue present things with all our might. Now because we are wedded to our opinions, and these are the suggestions of our own hearts, therefore they are called self; and we are said to deny when we enter our dissent, and deny the motion. Flesh, what have I to do with thee? I am not 'a debtor to the flesh,' Rom. 8.12. I will hazard all for Christ, and make it my work to get into covenant with God. This for the act - 'Let him deny.”

Excerpt From: Manton, Thomas. “A Treatise of Self Denial.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

This is true and very helpful but I think it may have a much deeper meaning to deny self. Saving faith is denying self. We deny any hope in ourselves to any extent. Resting in Christ is denying all our good works or righteousness as a means of earning favor with God. Denying self is to truly grasp that we have nothing that isn't Christ in us the hope of glory. Denying self is to lay hold of the fact that God does not require anything of you nor will accept anything from you that isn't already done by Christ for you. Denying self is to understand that Christ is all in all and that He is enough.

 

[JM]

Saving faith is denying self. We deny any hope in ourselves to any extent. Resting in Christ is denying all our good works or righteousness as a means of earning favor with God. Denying self is to truly grasp that we have nothing that isn't Christ in us the hope of glory. Denying self is to lay hold of the fact that God does not require anything of you nor will accept anything from you that isn't already done by Christ for you. Denying self is to understand that Christ is all in all and that He is enough.

Excellent points brother. Does that mean I can throw away my rosary?

 

[gord44]

Rosary? You old papist you....

I have a rosary too. Haven't used it in years, but it's pretty.

 

[JM]

Rosary? You old papist you....

I have a rosary too. Haven't used it in years, but it's pretty.

Just a weak attempt at humour. Better get into a sanctificed state so I can be justified now..."Hail Mary full of grace.."

That's better. SAVED again.

 

[abacabb3]

I really liked the observation about denying ourselves is more than money and physical things, but even our own tendency to seek justifying ourselves and instead lean on God totally and completely.

But, let me talk about money.

We "Christians" have become slaves to our money. Let me talk about myself. I struggle with seeing the money that I am compensated with for the job God has given me chiefly as the means in which I am to do God's will in supporting the preaching of the Gospel and of course taking care of my family's needs.

Hence, money does not exist for our own edification, but ultimately it is a means of edifying others and serving the Lord.

Before we jump on the "you're a legalist!" bandwagon, let's take a non-exhaustive look at Christian saints in the Scripture and see how they lived.

-Macedonian converts, though in "poverty" gave money to Paul to preach in Greece (2 Cor 8:1-4), sent provisions to him when imprisoned (Phil 4:14), and gave to fellow poor people in Judea (Rom 15:26-27).

-More well to do Greek converts were expected by the Jerusalem Church, and Paul himself to share with the less fortunate in Judea (Gal 2:10, Rom 15:31)

-Early converts in the Jerusalem Church sold everything they had and held it in common (Acts 4:32). I have heard this explained, "Well, they did this because many of the converts on Pentecost that did not return to their lands and preach the Gospel had to start a new life in Jerusalem." That theoretically sounds good, but the Scripture never tells us that. In fact, it actually gives us a specific reasoning so we are not required to speculate: "For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need" (Acts 4:34-35). So, the reason given was that they did so to show love and support one another, it was not due to practical considerations and from what we know about Annias and Sapphira in Acts 5 it was not even a requirement. Hence, if it is not a requirement or practical consideration, it is a good example of how Christian saints in the Scripture expressed love with their possessions.

-Inspired writers of Scripture, and God Himself, have frequent warnings about the accrual of wealth. James writes, "The rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with a scorching wind and withers the grass...so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away" (James 1:10-11). Jesus Christ warns, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt 19:23-24).

-Zacchaeus the tax collector in Luke 19:8 did not give away his whole fortune, but half of it and promised to pay four times the indemnity of anyone he defrauded (which is close to the maximum amount required in the Law, Ex 22:1). Now, many of us read this as Zacchaeus still having half his fortune left. It is sad our minds would even go in such a direction, as it is clear that Zacchaeus is not making statement that permits the line of reasoning, "Well, God gets half and I get to keep half." That's not where his heart is. His heart is no longer with his treasure, but with the Lord. However, to disprove any notions of Zacchaeus maintaining fortunes requires an elementary understanding of tax collecting. Tax collectors would bid for the right to collect taxes. That money essentially is what greased the Roman government's mechanisms, they did not directly collect taxes, they collected revenues from tax collectors. The tax collectors then had to recoup on what they bid at the "tax collector auction" and in order to pay their own bills collect even more money on top of that. Obviously, the whole system was built upon fraud, just as the Mafia's means of collecting "protection money" would be today. So, if Zacchaeus restored four times to everyone he defrauded, he would probably have nothing left.

Many respond back with statements that clearly were not meant to be inferred by statement's such as that of Jesus. For example, "It is hard for a rich man to go to heaven, but not impossible." Or, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim 6:10), but not money itself!" Does not the Scripture teach, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be" (Matt 6:21), so if one's money is not tied up accruing "treasures in heaven" (Matt 6:19) would it not be fair to say it is accruing treasures on Earth, and so one's heart is in the wrong place? The Scripture does not lend itself to minimal obedience and loopholes...looking for the loopholes so you may continue enjoying your money for your own pursuits is legalism.


More on this later!

 

[abacabb3]

I really liked the observation about denying ourselves is more than money and physical things, but even our own tendency to seek justifying ourselves and instead lean on God totally and completely.

But, let me talk about money.

We "Christians" have become slaves to our money. Let me talk about myself. I struggle with seeing the money that I am compensated with for the job God has given me chiefly as the means in which I am to do God's will in supporting the preaching of the Gospel and of course taking care of my family's needs.

Hence, money does not exist for our own edification, but ultimately it is a means of edifying others and serving the Lord.

Before we jump on the "you're a legalist!" bandwagon, let's take a non-exhaustive look at Christian saints in the Scripture and see how they lived.

-Macedonian converts, though in "poverty" gave money to Paul to preach in Greece (2 Cor 8:1-4), sent provisions to him when imprisoned (Phil 4:14), and gave to fellow poor people in Judea (Rom 15:26-27).

-More well to do Greek converts were expected by the Jerusalem Church, and Paul himself to share with the less fortunate in Judea (Gal 2:10, Rom 15:31)

-Early converts in the Jerusalem Church sold everything they had and held it in common (Acts 4:32). I have heard this explained, "Well, they did this because many of the converts on Pentecost that did not return to their lands and preach the Gospel had to start a new life in Jerusalem." That theoretically sounds good, but the Scripture never tells us that. In fact, it actually gives us a specific reasoning so we are not required to speculate: "For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need" (Acts 4:34-35). So, the reason given was that they did so to show love and support one another, it was not due to practical considerations and from what we know about Annias and Sapphira in Acts 5 it was not even a requirement. Hence, if it is not a requirement or practical consideration, it is a good example of how Christian saints in the Scripture expressed love with their possessions.

-Inspired writers of Scripture, and God Himself, have frequent warnings about the accrual of wealth. James writes, "The rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with a scorching wind and withers the grass...so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away" (James 1:10-11). Jesus Christ warns, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt 19:23-24).

-Zacchaeus the tax collector in Luke 19:8 did not give away his whole fortune, but half of it and promised to pay four times the indemnity of anyone he defrauded (which is close to the maximum amount required in the Law, Ex 22:1). Now, many of us read this as Zacchaeus still having half his fortune left. It is sad our minds would even go in such a direction, as it is clear that Zacchaeus is not making statement that permits the line of reasoning, "Well, God gets half and I get to keep half." That's not where his heart is. His heart is no longer with his treasure, but with the Lord. However, to disprove any notions of Zacchaeus maintaining fortunes requires an elementary understanding of tax collecting. Tax collectors would bid for the right to collect taxes. That money essentially is what greased the Roman government's mechanisms, they did not directly collect taxes, they collected revenues from tax collectors. The tax collectors then had to recoup on what they bid at the "tax collector auction" and in order to pay their own bills collect even more money on top of that. Obviously, the whole system was built upon fraud, just as the Mafia's means of collecting "protection money" would be today. So, if Zacchaeus restored four times to everyone he defrauded, he would probably have nothing left.

Many respond back with statements that clearly were not meant to be inferred by statement's such as that of Jesus. For example, "It is hard for a rich man to go to heaven, but not impossible." Or, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim 6:10), but not money itself!" Does not the Scripture teach, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be" (Matt 6:21), so if one's money is not tied up accruing "treasures in heaven" (Matt 6:19) would it not be fair to say it is accruing treasures on Earth, and so one's heart is in the wrong place? The Scripture does not lend itself to minimal obedience and loopholes...looking for the loopholes so you may continue enjoying your money for your own pursuits is legalism.


More on this later!