# Self Denial vs. Enjoying the blessings



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 24, 2006)

Where do we draw the line between self-denial and enjoying the blessings God gives us in this life? To what extent should enjoying these blessings take up time in our life compared to the work of the kingdom? Would the standard be different for a Christian in a persecuted environment versus a peaceful environment?


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 24, 2006)

It's a good question Patrick. Remember Solomon was pursuing this very same question in Ecclesiastes. His observations may be a good place to start.

Eccles 3:9 What gain has the worker from his toil? 10 I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. 12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; 13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil"”this is God's gift to man.

Eccles 9:7 Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

8 Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.

9 Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.


----------



## tdowns (Feb 24, 2006)

*Great Question...*

I've thought of posting something along these lines before, but never quite knew how to phrase it, good job! 

I pondered these things during the "redeeming time" topics. I tend to lean toward enjoying the blessings fully, for you never know when the struggles will enter, and when they do, we should take heart in those the same. I find myself when I'm busy, which I always am, wishing to have some down time, but, then when I get it, feeling guilty, but I pray and allow God to give me peace to just rest, and relax, and enjoy the free time he's giving me.

To NOT fully enjoy times of peace, tranquility, wealth; and to sort of seek suffering, I think that is pretty much being discontent with God's blessings...if He is Blessing, we better not complain about it...Enjoy!, Rejoice!, Receive! 

It seems one extreme tends to be pessimistic; if it's good, it must be indulgence, and God is not in it, if it's bad, then God's working with us so it's good, and God is in it...This side seems to see life as a place to suffer, before the good stuff comes in eternity.

But then there is the extreme of Health and Wealth, like it all has to be good or God is not in it, bad times are due to God punishing, or sin, and they don't accept that in this world there will be trouble. 

I think God is in it all, so walk with Him in Joy in the wealth and in in Joy in the poverty....and recognize that eternity is already in play, we're already living the life of God's children, blessed and secure, and on a planet, that although corrupted, is one fantastic wonderfully created play-ground to enjoy.

Random thoughts, looking forward to hear others.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by tdowns007]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 24, 2006)

Interesting thoughts so far. Perhaps I will try to focus the issue a little more for the sake of discussion. 

In a land of plenty, as in our case, how does self denial fit when others don't enjoy the same blessings? In other words, how much should we be sacrificing of our own (legitimate) pleasures for the good of the Church? 

(I'm not trying to push for Chrisitan communism or anything like that so please don't even bring it up).


----------



## blhowes (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> In other words, how much should we be sacrificing of our own (legitimate) pleasures for the good of the Church?


Interesting thread.

Just so I understand what you're getting at, how would my not enjoying legitimate pleasures be for the good of the Church?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


It may involve you sacrificing extra time and/or money which might be otherwise invested in enjoying those legitimate pleasures.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> [It may involve you sacrificing extra time and/or money which might be otherwise invested in enjoying those legitimate pleasures.


gotcha


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 24, 2006)

Self-denial... that would be something like say-- abstaining from street racing...


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 24, 2006)

For the most part one serves, as a Christian, through their vocation. Are you a father/mother, husband/wife, school teacher/fast food worker, lawyer/laborer, doctor/police, clerk/soldier and etc...

These are the legitimate callings and gifts of God to society in which for the by and large part the Christian serves and loves his neighbor. And we begin to see the actual charity of heaven in the simple things we daily overlook. Sin makes us disdain the simple creature callings for "glorious" things. Why? We seek self fame.

I noticed this one day while waiting in line at a restaurant during my own lunch break. I go to a restaurant to spend money I've made to serve and feed my wife, children, feed, cloth and keep the warm, educate them. I purchase from a restaurant worker food to not just feed me but enjoy its flavor and taste that he/she made. Their labor would be a labor of love if understood and my buying it gives them economic return for which they in turn feed themselves, families, food clothing. And it is not just bare necessities that we have. For if that were the case then things would be rather gray, lifeless and drab. No things are not merely utilitarian. But food actually can taste good (this also destroys the dull argument over wines utilitarian lacking compared to food, its actually for enjoying). But in all this commerce and labor we work for each other and give each other and exchange with each other the gifts and talents we have been called to. This is a taste of the true goodness work was meant to be and the true charity it provided. 

But when we fell we did not seek the baser things too much but the higher things, namely to know good and evil for ourselves, to be like God, which is another way of saying at length, "to be my own god" (atheism, my own god, is the logical conclusion to man's religious fraud).

But most of the time the answer is quit local to us. Do you have a family member in need? Who else needs more than children before adulthood? Elderly family members should be cared for by their family members if they are around so that those without family and in need can be reduced for the church to care for as a body. Does your neighbor need your help? And etc...

Nothing wrong at all with investing time and money as one can in farther and more foreign endeavors and especially as a church body, but every single person has differing stages and times of their callings in life. This changes as we live. One time I'm single, next I'm married, next I'm a parent, I'm also a son, I'm also a friend, I'm also a neighbor, etc...

One cannot approach it in a legal way but a gospel way using wisdom, not legally, but under grace. Of course we cannot forget the ever present sin in our lives that will conflict and vex us until we die. But in a sense it is very simple and not so complicated. Our sin struggle, struggling with fellow simultaneously just and sinful brothers and sisters, and struggling with unbelievers all complicates in in this time what is otherwise joyful work and joyful charity.

Hope that helps some,

Larry


----------



## py3ak (Feb 25, 2006)

I think there has to be a reason for the self-denial. It is not asceticism for the sake of holiness, for instance. It is rather that in order to accomplish some good we deny ourselves something legitimate. I believe it was John Berridge who gave up eating all meat in order to have more money to give to the poor. It was not because meat was 'evil' (he ordered the butcher to deliver some when he had a guest preacher filling in for him); it was because he saw a need and felt constrained to meet it.
Now as to the question of degree, I think it's going to be a matter of circumstances (what can you do and what needs are you faced with) and after that a matter for personal decision.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Now as to the question of degree, I think it's going to be a matter of circumstances (what can you do and what needs are you faced with) and after that a matter for personal decision.



This in abstract sounds good. But let's put it in some context. We all live in places where there is some need I'm sure. What should our reaction be? Many times there are needs all around us, but we just have blinders on, or we don't take the time to find out what our neighbor needs. 

Another aspect to this question, could our enjoyment of particular blessings, (i.e. hobbies of some sorts etc.) be turned to a self-denying end, cheifly, used to build relationships with unbelievers and eventually evangelize rather than just purely for our own enjoyment?


----------



## Augusta (Feb 25, 2006)

This is a really great "rubber meets the road" topic. Very good comments so far.


----------



## satz (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> This is a really great "rubber meets the road" topic. Very good comments so far.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 25, 2006)

I think the first step may be learning to share what you have (or don't have). Some friends of mine, for instance, have gone through times where they were down to their last $30 (missionaries in Mexico). Well, if people are at their house around mealtime they still get asked to eat. Of course, there's more ways than with money to deny yourself (not to asperse it, of course, even our Lord appears to have had the custom of giving money to the poor). Helping a struggling family with some babysitting can be very self-denying, given the noisomeness of the brats (I like kids, by the way) but needn't cost money.


----------



## satz (Feb 25, 2006)

Even apart from self denial in order to fulfil any needs, i think there is a sense that self denial is good for our spiritual well being. We are told to keep our minds on things above, and overindulgence in the allowable pleasures of this earth, even if not sinful in itself, can begin to cause us to become more earthly minded. So i think there is a limited sense in which self denial for self denial's sake is good.

Regarding denying ourselves in order to fulfill the needs of others, i would agree with Ruben when he says



> Now as to the question of degree, I think it's going to be a matter of circumstances (what can you do and what needs are you faced with) and after that a matter for personal decision.



I know that it can be frustrating to have such a ambiguous answer, but i truely believe that when the bible is not explicit on something, it should be left to the conscience of each christian before God. When encouraging the corinthians to give, Paul appealed to christian prinicples as well as the needs of others, but he never sets minimum levels of giving nor maximum 'lifestyle' levels for them.

As harsh as it seems, i think it is simply a fact that God has ordained this present age so that there will be rich and poor. Whilst christian charity demands that we ensure all our brothers in Christ have all their necessary needs met (food, shelter,clothing, medical care etc etc) it is not our christian duty to eliminate the poor, even amongst fellow christians and certainly not amongst unbelievers. Verses like 1 Tim 6:17-18 imply, i think, that there will not only continue to be rich christians, but that it is the natural scheme of things that the rich will enjoy more of the physical pleasure of this life than the poor. Remember that Jesus defined charity as giving water to those who were thristy, not giving wine to those who only had water.

Off course inspite of all of this we must still remember that God loves a cheerful giver, and from those to whom much has been given, more will be required. We should always be seeking to give more, be it in terms of money, time or other things, remembering that whilst physical riches and pleasures will pass away, things done for God's kingdom will endure forever.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 25, 2006)

Perhaps we can go a step further. How do we "redeem the time" while at the same time enjoying God's gifts? How should a rich man be managing his wealth and comforts in light of the fact that "he can't take it with him" and that there are many in the Church in need? Also keep in mind that to be "rich" back in Jesus' day meant that you owned more than one set of clothes and could afford food for a week (that should humble us Westerners especially).

I'd would also like to see some pastors/elders respond on this subject. 

[Edited on 2-26-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## py3ak (Feb 25, 2006)

Mark,

I don't want to turn this into a debate or detract from Patrick's thread, so I will just say this here and leave it at that, with further posting being directed towards answering 'practical' questions about how self-denial is practiced, insofar as I think I may have any light upon it. Self-denial always has a reason; it may be to break a bad or at least unhelpful habit; it may be in consideration for others; it may be because of necessity (e.g, I really _can't_ afford the DVD of my favorite movie right now, type of thing). If we practice self-denial without a specific godly purpose in an attempt at mortification I believe we run the risk of falling into a self-congratulating asceticism. The obstacle to taking this absolutely is the Biblical practice of fasting. As far as mortification goes, I think there are probably enough aggravators of impatience, resentment, despite or envy in the average person's day that they don't need to go looking for ways to crucify the flesh; how much mortification would get done if we crucified a sinful thought/desire of some kind every time it showed up?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Self-denial always has a reason; it may be to break a bad or at least unhelpful habit; it may be in consideration for others; it may be because of necessity (e.g, I really _can't_ afford the DVD of my favorite movie right now, type of thing). If we practice self-denial without a specific godly purpose in an attempt at mortification I believe we run the risk of falling into a self-congratulating asceticism.


Perhaps we can clarify self-denial then. I understand it as the surrender of our wills to the will of God, no longer letting our lives be autonomous. It involves taking up our cross to follow Jesus. Yet, even for Jesus, it was not a life of total misery or asceticism, which I too often forget. He ate and drank, fellowshipped, attended gatherings of weddings and feasts. He had no problem eating and drinking with sinners. I confess, I am too often a stereotypical Puritan prune when it comes to this, and I think it has affected me to my detriment. Many of my hobbies I once enjoyed I have let slip partially because I felt them to be vain, and partially because I simply don't have time anymore. But now, looking back, I wish I would have kept up with some of them because these hobbies could lead to opportunites to build relationships with unbelievers and evangelize. So in this thread I'm really thinking out loud here. I don't want to waste my time on vanity, of which there is sooooo much in our culture these days. Yet I don't want to cut myself off from having anything meaningful to engage believers with either. We need doors to peoples lives in order to bring them the gospel. If all we do is study our Bible (and play on Puritanboard  ) then we probably wont meet too many unbelievers or help even believers with day to day problems. I don't know. Again I'm just thinking out loud here. Any more thoughts folks? 



> The obstacle to taking this absolutely is the Biblical practice of fasting.


Yes, this would be a good aspect to explore, perhaps in another thread. It certainly involves self-denial but is a topic all on it's own. 



> As far as mortification goes, I think there are probably enough aggravators of impatience, resentment, despite or envy in the average person's day that they don't need to go looking for ways to crucify the flesh; how much mortification would get done if we crucified a sinful thought/desire of some kind every time it showed up?


A truly sobering thought. What if we took mortification of our thoughts seriously? Imagine how transformed our life would be? Imagine how much more productive our mind would be when it is not wasted in entertaining sin? But I suppose this should be saved for another thread.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Feb 25, 2006)

What about all the poor people, even pastors in Russia and China, and other missionaries, who could use the $20 that we might so frivolously spend?

Someone once said that if we bought used cars instead of new, it might amount to over $100k in savings over our lifetimes.

What if we didn't spend $45/mo on cable? 

What if we bought fewer CD's, electronic toys and gadgets, etc. and gave that money to people in say, Peru, where it could sustain a Christian family who is otherwise destitute?

I would think that if my heart were TRULY in those places, then my money would follow...

It looks like where I have my money really is an accurate measure of my heart. Not a pretty sight!
I hope the rest of you are doing better than I am in this area.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Feb 25, 2006)

I've not had much success with detailed budgets, but I think this is an area where such a budget could be very helpful. By predetermining what percentage of your money could be fairly spent on entertainment, eating out, etc. you could lessen the hard decision making needed on an item-by-item basis.

(Makes me want to get working on the budget again.)

[Edited on 2-26-2006 by CJ_Chelpka]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> I've not had much success with detailed budgets, but I think this is an area where such a budget could be very helpful. By predetermining what percentage of your money could be fairly spent on entertainment, eating out, etc. you could lessen the hard decision making needed on an item-by-item basis.
> 
> (Makes me want to get working on the budget again.)
> ...



This is well and good to control our finances as good stewards. But I think self-denial adds another dimension to it. You cite entertainment or eating out as some examples. I am not saying that's wrong at all. But what would be ways that these pleasures could be "sanctified"? Perhaps we could eat out with other beleivers, or invite other unbelievers. Perhaps in the entertainment category we could employ self-denial in using that opportunity to involve unbelievers with us, as an opportunity to build relationships, rather than using that time for our sole enjoyment alone. Again these are just some thoughts. Anyone else have some thoughts on this? 

And lets consider another aspect of self-denial, and that is the American ideal of self-sufficiency. We too often have the attitude of independence in a wrong way. We don't mind helping out a brother, but we are often too proud to ask for help ourselves. We think we don't need help when in fact we do. We are also defensive if people prod to close to our hearts and think "that's none of your business." Yet Scripture clearly teaches us that we absolutely need the fellowship of the saints. We are called to build one another up. That's hard to do is we don't allow others to see areas where we need work. So perhaps self-denial also involves this opening of ourselves to our brethren in order that we may enjoy the blessings of fellowship. 


[Edited on 2-27-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## satz (Feb 26, 2006)

> And lets consider another aspect of self-denial, and that is the American ideal of self-sufficiency. We too often have the attitude of independence in a wrong way. We don't mind helping out a brother, but we are often too proud to ask for help ourselves. We think we don't need help when in fact we do. We are also defensive if people prod to close to our hearts and think "that's none of your business." Yet Scripture clearly teaches us that we absolutely need the fellowship of the saints. We are called to build one another up. That's hard to do is we don't allow others to see areas where we need work. So perhaps self-denial also involves this opening of ourselves to our brethren in order that we may enjoy the blessings of fellowship.



I not sure if this would really count as self denial (of pride maybe?) but it is still a most excellent suggestion nonetheless!



> This is well and good to control our finances as good stewards. But I think self-denial adds another dimension to it. You cite entertainment or eating out as some examples. I am not saying that's wrong at all. But what would be ways that these pleasures could be "sanctified"? Perhaps we could eat out with other beleivers, or invite other unbelievers. Perhaps in the entertainment category we could employ self-denial in using that opportunity to involve unbelievers with us, as an opportunity to build relationships, rather than using that time for our sole enjoyment alone. Again these are just some thoughts. Anyone else have some thoughts on this?



The suggestion to include fellow brothers and sisters in our recreational activities is a good one, and will not only provide more opporunities for fellowship but make recreation more meaningful as well.However, i feel a little reserved regarding unbelievers. Evangelism is i think definitely one of the 'works' of a christian life and if we are engaging in recreation to rest or relax prehaps inviting unbelievers along might not be the best idea. After all, its prehaps impossible for a christian to truely be at rest when with unbelievers. I know that does sound a little selfish on one hand, but on the other hand i am convinced it is no sin to want a 'break' from the world now and then.

just my thoughts...


----------



## py3ak (Feb 27, 2006)

Rest and recreation are legitimate --Christ told the disciples to come apart. Of course, on that occasion they wound up being followed by the crowd and so, without a word of complaint, Christ ministered to them. I would suggest that there was some self-denial.
One thing that is convicting to me is Edwards' resolution never to suffer the least motion of anger against an irrational creature. Trying to train the dog not to bark after 9:00 p.m. or before 9:00 a.m. can be frustrating. Trying to print on the printer I have here can make me feel like becoming a serial killer. 
I think Patrick's suggestion about involving others in our recreation is a good idea. If I could find a squash court it would be a great way to spend time with believers, unbelievers and extend some practical kindness to a very unhappy little boy. The danger to that, I think, would be when we start feeling sanctimonious about our entertainments. "Oh, look at *me*! *I* evangelize while *I* play squash. Are _you_ that dedicated?" Or feeling that our entertainments are meritorious; to some degree they are necessary; they are an opportunity to be thankful to God for His goodness; but they are not works of supererogation.

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by py3ak]


----------



## py3ak (Feb 27, 2006)

Patrick said: 



> Perhaps we can clarify self-denial then. I understand it as the surrender of our wills to the will of God, no longer letting our lives be autonomous. It involves taking up our cross to follow Jesus. Yet, even for Jesus, it was not a life of total misery or asceticism, which I too often forget.



I believe you are correct: in taking up our cross we crucify our old man, we deny our sinful self, we turn absolutely from the self-indulgence and self-absorption that characterize man in sin.

Bishop Davenant is worth quoting:


> t is the duty of Christians to imitate Christ, and to do those things spiritually which Christ did corporeally. For instance; Christ died; we ought in like manner to die to sin: Christ rose again; we ought also to rise to newness of life; Christ ascended into heaven; it is our duty to soar to heaven in mind.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 27, 2006)

I found these quotes from Calvin to be rather helpful today and relevant to our thread. 

Institutes, Bk. III, Ch. 7, sect. 5


> 5. How difficult it is to perform the duty of seeking the good of our neighbour! Unless you leave off all thought of yourself and in a manner cease to be yourself, you will never accomplish it. How can you exhibit those works of charity which Paul describes unless you renounce yourself, and become wholly devoted to others? "œCharity (says he, 1 Cor. 13:4) suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked," &c. Were it the only thing required of us to seek not our own, nature would not have the least power to comply: she so inclines us to love ourselves only, that she will not easily allow us carelessly to pass by ourselves and our own interests that we may watch over the interests of others, nay, spontaneously to yield our own rights and resign it to another. But Scripture, to conduct us to this, reminds us, that whatever we obtain from the Lord is granted on the condition of our employing it for the common good of the Church, and that, therefore, the legitimate use of all our gifts is a kind and liberal communication of them with others. There cannot be a surer rule, nor a stronger exhortation to the observance of it, than when we are taught that all the endowments which we possess are divine deposits entrusted to us for the very purpose of being distributed for the good of our neighbour. But Scripture proceeds still farther when it likens these endowments to the different members of the body (1 Cor. 12:12). No member has its function for itself, or applies it for its own private use, but transfers it to its fellow-members; nor does it derive any other advantage from it than that which it receives in common with the whole body. Thus, whatever the pious man can do, he is bound to do for his brethren, not consulting his own interest in any other way than by striving earnestly for the common edification of the Church. Let this, then, be our method of showing good-will and kindness, considering that, in regard to everything which God has bestowed upon us, and by which we can aid our neighbour, we are his stewards, and are bound to give account of our stewardship; moreover, that the only right mode of administration is that which is regulated by love. In this way, we shall not only unite the study of our neighbour´s advantage with a regard to our own, but make the latter subordinate to the former. And lest we should have omitted to perceive that this is the law for duly administering every gift which we receive from God, he of old applied that law to the minutest expressions of his own kindness. He commanded the first-fruits to be offered to him as an attestation by the people that it was impious to reap any advantage from goods not previously consecrated to him (Exod. 22:29; 23:19). But if the gifts of God are not sanctified to us until we have with our own hand dedicated them to the Giver, it must be a gross abuse that does not give signs of such dedication. It is in vain to contend that you cannot enrich the Lord by your offerings. Though, as the Psalmist says "œThou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not unto thee," yet you can extend it "œto the saints that are in the earth," (Ps. 16:2, 3); and therefore a comparison is drawn between sacred oblations and alms as now corresponding to the offerings under the Law.



Institutes, Bk. III, Ch. 19, sect. 9-10


> 9. It is, however, to be carefully observed, that Christian liberty is in all its parts a spiritual matter, the whole force of which consists in giving peace to trembling consciences, whether they are anxious and disquieted as to the forgiveness of sins, or as to whether their imperfect works, polluted by the infirmities of the flesh, are pleasing to God, or are perplexed as to the use of things indifferent. It is, therefore, perversely interpreted by those who use it as a cloak for their lusts, that they may licentiously abuse the good gifts of God, or who think there is no liberty unless it is used in the presence of men, and, accordingly, in using it pay no regard to their weak brethren. Under this head, the sins of the present age are more numerous. For there is scarcely any one whose means allow him to live sumptuously, who does not delight in feasting, and dress, and the luxurious grandeur of his house, who wishes not to surpass his neighbor in every kind of delicacy, and does not plume himself amazingly on his splendor. And all these things are defended under the pretext of Christian liberty. They say they are things indifferent: I admit it, provided they are used indifferently. But when they are too eagerly longed for, when they are proudly boasted of, when they are indulged in luxurious profusion, things which otherwise were in themselves lawful are certainly defiled by these vices. Paul makes an admirable distinction in regard to things indifferent: "œUnto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled" (Tit. 1:15). For why is a woe pronounced upon the rich who have received their consolation? (Luke 6:24), who are full, who laugh now, who "œlie upon beds of ivory and stretch themselves upon their couches;" "œjoin house to house," and "œlay field to field;" "œand the harp and the viol, the tablet and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts," (Amos 6:6; Isa. 5:8, 10). Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine. This is true, but when the means are supplied to roll and wallow in luxury, to intoxicate the mind and soul with present and be always hunting after new pleasures, is very far from a legitimate use of the gifts of God. Let them, therefore, suppress immoderate desire, immoderate profusion, vanity, and arrogance, that they may use the gifts of God purely with a pure conscience. When their mind is brought to this state of soberness, they will be able to regulate the legitimate use. On the other hand, when this moderation is wanting, even plebeian and ordinary delicacies are excessive. For it is a true saying, that a haughty mind often dwells in a coarse and homely garb, while true humility lurks under fine linen and purple. Let every one then live in his own station, poorly or moderately, or in splendor; but let all remember that the nourishment which God gives is for life, not luxury, and let them regard it as the law of Christian liberty, to learn with Paul in whatever state they are, "œtherewith to be content," to know "œboth how to be abased," and "œhow to abound," "œto be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need," (Phil. 4:11).
> 
> 10. Very many also err in this: as if their liberty were not safe and entire, without having men to witness it, they use it indiscriminately and imprudently, and in this way often give offense to weak brethren. You may see some in the present day who cannot think they possess their liberty unless they come into possession of it by eating flesh on Friday. Their eating I blame not, but this false notion must be driven from their minds: for they ought to think that their liberty gains nothing new by the sight of men, but is to be enjoyed before God, and consists as much in abstaining as in using. If they understand that it is of no consequence in the sight of God whether they eat flesh or eggs, whether they are clothed in red or in black, this is amply sufficient. The conscience to which the benefit of this liberty was due is loosed. Therefore, though they should afterwards, during their whole life, abstain from flesh, and constantly wear one color, they are not less free. Nay, just because they are free, they abstain with a free conscience. But they err most egregiously in paying no regard to the infirmity of their brethren, with which it becomes us to bear, so as not rashly to give them offense. But it is sometimes also of consequence that we should assert our liberty before men. This I admit: yet must we use great caution in the mode, lest we should cast off the care of the weak whom God has specially committed to us.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 6, 2007)

Thomas Manton, _A Treatise of Self-Denial_

Thomas Watons, _The Duty of Self-Denial_


----------



## ajrock2000 (Feb 6, 2007)

On the issue of self-denial, this verse seems to explain it perfectly for me anyways...



Matthew 13:44 said:


> The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 7, 2007)

Thanks Trevor. Very insightful piece. I think it would help if every Christians we understood that we were all missionaries whether we want to be or not. It's really a matter of how well you are doing it where you are at. Self-denial must be a big part of that for the sake of the gospel.


----------

