Truth Magazine

By Jeff S. Smith

Self-help books have become among the most popular titles written and sold today. Authors inscribe what they believe are the cures for everything from addiction to marital strife. The ascendance of groups like Alcoholics Anonymous also shows us that Americans are in the mood to have someone tell them how to solve their problems.

One thing that many of these books and programs have in common is a spiritual element. The author weaves his psychological remedy while reminding the patient to seek meaning from a higher being. That sounds good, but listen to the ecumenical tone of the language that yearns to apply to everyone while offending no one. It makes little difference if the reader is a Muslim, an earth worshiper, an agnostic, a Calvinist, or a New Testament Christian in the world of self-help’s “spiritual mosaic.” The reader imbibes the words and maneuvers his own god upon the author’s psycho-spiritual altar. Even the New Testament Christian can begin to think of God in the way the author portrays him rather than as God reveals himself in the Holy Scriptures.

This is where the line in the sand should be drawn, but more and more often, Christians are stumbling over that line and embracing psychological trends that either replace or abuse the Bible. The first question that should be raised and honestly answered is: Am I truly reading my Bible so much that I have time to seek spiritual growth in the philosophies and works of men (2 Tim. 2:15)? Another question that would require answer is: What do I expect to learn in this self-help book that I cannot learn from God’s own breath (2 Tim. 3:16)?

It is to be expected that a humanistic society should grow so dissatisfied with the Bible, perceived to be of no greater inspiration than War and Peace. Besides, the Bible has been “on the market” for 2000 years and modern man needs some new thing to excite his advanced intellect now (Acts 17:21). It seems as if this attitude originated with our generation, but it is hardly novel. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who were at least as enamored with their own thoughts and ideas as Americans today: “I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified . . . And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:2, 5). Ask again, are we reading our Bibles so much that we have time to pursue spiritual wisdom in the philosophies of men? What do we expect a man to tell us that is better than what Jesus said?

A book I picked up recently taps this desire for the “wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 1:20-22). Tim LaHaye’s Spirit-Controlled Temperament makes a deliberate approach to supplement the inspired teaching of God’s Holy Spirit contained in the Bible. The temperament doctrine is founded on what LaHaye concedes is a false premise. The great, though perhaps mythical, physician, Hippocrates, lived four hundred years before Christ and left medicine with its erstwhile Hippocratic Oath. He also dallied in psychology, attempting to explain the various personalities of men by tracing their characteristics to corresponding body fluids. He named the four categories Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy, and Phlegmatic to pattern the function of the blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. LaHaye rejects the biology but builds a philosophy around the categorization anyway. Having said all that, he admits that “no person is a single-temperament type” (10). He then describes all men as crossbred in varying unknown temperament percentages. This doctrine strikes an enticing chord of validity (Col. 2:23)  all have distinct personalities and everyone is different, after all. He goes so far as to categorize Bible characters: Peter is a Sanguine, Paul is a Choleric, Moses is a Melancholy, and Abraham is a Phlegmatic (88). The reader is left to wonder where Jesus would fit into this system.

Tim LaHaye is a Baptist preacher and his false and subjective ideas about the Holy Spirit invade every nook and cranny of his temperament control doctrine. He expands Jesus’ promise to the apostles of supernatural ability by the Comforter to personally and miraculously enable all “disciples.” After explaining and recounting the events of Pentecost and the apostles’ immediate abilities to “witness in his power,” LaHaye promises that “we too can expect to have power to witness when filled with the Holy Spirit” (60). Actually, he gives the Holy Spirit a special job, that of curing “Temperament Weaknesses.” LaHaye writes on page 114: “The Holy Spirit does not automatically indwell every human being. On the contrary, He indwells only those who have received Jesus Christ by faith as Savior from sin.” LaHaye’s concept of the Holy Spirit is that of miraculously and personally indwelling every believer. Then the Spirit can begin to direct the believer, with or without the word.

But the word of God says that the Spirit toils today by means of his great spiritual and literary feat, the Bible, that is, his sword (Eph. 6:10-20). He supplies the engrafted word which is able to save the souls of men (James 1:21) and justifies man by faith which comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 5:1; 10:17). The Spirit dwells in a saint as the other persons of the Godhead do (1 John 4:12; Rom. 8:10; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27)  not personally, but representatively through his word and its effect.

Our Calvinist author never misses a chance to extend the devil’s faith-only invitation, either. “If you are willing to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord of your life, then invite Him in or, as the Bible says, `Call upon the name of the Lord.’ Salvation is not a long and tedious process  it is an instantaneous experience” (114). Now, LaHaye’s temperament doctrine is founded on his own false premise. Salvation in the Bible is termed obedience (Rom. 16:26) and our example of calling on the Lord requires the supplicant to act, not simply experience. Ananias told Saul, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). LaHaye would lead the reader to confess belief and work on his temperament, but never move a muscle toward “tediously” obeying the gospel that Jesus preached (Mark 16:16, 1 Thess. 1:7-8).

Later, he recounts another “experience” in which he instructs a young man to get down on his knees and pray to be saved. “When he finished, he sat down and began to weep . . . Then it was that I saw the evidence of the working of God’s Spirit in his life as a new Christian . . .” (123). But Saul also sorrowed and even prayed, but was not yet saved, nor endowed with any power from the Holy Spirit, when Ananias asked him why he was waiting and told him to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16; cf. Acts 9:17-18). Without a single passage of Scripture and without invoking the gospel, “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom.1:16), LaHaye supposedly watches as the Holy Spirit invades this man’s heart and miraculously redirects its desires. Make no mistake, LaHaye teaches the temperament student that Bible study is helpful, but the Holy Spirit will find a way to change a man even without Scripture.

Like an infomercial, LaHaye packs the end of his tome with “before and after” testimonials to the power of his doctrine. He tells of using the temperament control of the Holy Spirit as a “supernatural source to change the angry disposition of man.” Another young man was healed in a single counseling session on marital problems. “As soon as he was seated, he went into an angry, 25-minute description of all the misery his wife had caused him and how psychotic she was. When he had finally unburdened him-self, I began to present to him the gospel of Jesus Christ in the form of the Four Spiritual Laws, which my 16-year-old daughter had introduced to me as the result of her training at a Campus Crusade for Christ conference. Because I had noticed that the Holy Spirit had used this method of presenting Christ in the lives of others, I wanted to try it” (122).

LaHaye accuses the Spirit of God of blending pop psychology with the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul preached “Christ and Him crucified” and excoriated those who “want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7). LaHaye says the Holy Spirit has adopted the temperaments in a latter day shift of doctrine for a faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

That brings up an interesting point. The father of temperaments, Hippocrates, lived 400 years before Christ, which gave the Holy Spirit plenty of time to study his doctrine and adopt its terminology and potential for God. Those 400 years were a time of silence, so surely he could have been listening and taking notes. The Holy Spirit uses all sorts of common situations as analogies and parables in the New Testament (1 Tim. 5:18). Even some of man’s poems and hymns are apparently introduced to illustrate divine principles (Tit. 1:12). Why then are the pages of the New Testament lacking descriptions like sanguine and choleric?

LaHaye begins to conclude The Spirit-Controlled Temperament by promising that the “Holy Spirit will automatically introduce new traits and characteristics into an individual’s nature” (126). It is not so much that we will grow as disciples of Christ by keeping his commandments (John 14:15) or by becoming good workmen through careful biblical study (2 Tim. 2:15). It is that we can simply let go and let God do the work. LaHaye’s Calvinistic tendencies win out in the end. Salvation, even self-help, is an automatic work of an invasive and hypnotic Holy Spirit.

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).

When it comes to books like The Spirit-Controlled Temperament, ask if you are really reading your Bible so much that you have time to seek spiritual growth in the philosophies of men. And what truth do you expect to find there that you cannot find in the Bible?

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 14-15
August 1, 1996

By Paul K. Williams

“Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12, NASB).

Tupos, the Greek word translated “example,” is an interesting word. Liddell & Scott define it: a blow; the mark of a blow, the impress of a seal, the stamp of a coin, a print mark of any kind; tupoistibou the prints or tracks of footsteps.

This pictures an interesting process. An engraver wishes to leave the impression of something, let’s say the outline of a horse, in clay. The artisan fashions the “type” (one meaning of tupos) in metal and fixes it on the end of a piece of wood. He positions the engraving over the unhardened clay and hits the wood a sharp blow. When he takes away the metal, he finds an impression of the horse in the clay. This is an “example.”

If the clay is without flaw and of the right consistency, and if nothing causes the type to slide when it is hit, the outline of the horse will be very good. It will be almost a perfect likeness of the type.

Paul commands Timothy to be the example. Christ is theone who presses down the type, while the word of God is the form which makes the impression on his heart. If he allows his heart to be soft and open to the impression of the word, the result will be an almost perfect replication of what a Christian should be  an example in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity. Timothy will be an example of what Christ intends to form in us all.

By being such an example, Timothy will show to others what they also can and should be. They can look at him and see Christ. Paul wrote, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

Every Christian should be a tupos. But if we harden ourselves, the word of God will not impress itself on us and change us as it should. If we slide around and do not allow the word of God to be applied exactly as it should be, we will not be a good example. It is up to us to be open to what God’s word says and allow it to shape our lives in every respect. Then we will be examples in speech, con-duct, love, faith, and purity to those who believe.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 9
August 1, 1996

By H. Osby Weaver

The Bible has many passages that condemn the sin of lasciviousness. It is mentioned as an evil to which men surrender who are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of ignorance and a hardened heart. They are pictured as being past feeling and having given themselves up to this sin, they work all uncleanness (Eph. 4:18, 19). This is certainly an ugly picture of a depraved class of people. Any evil, so degenerating to one’s character, surely ought to be diligently avoided.

Bible writers further tell us that the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were turned into ashes be-cause ten righteous souls could not be found within their limits, were leading lascivious lives (2 Pet. 2:7). In Galatians 5:19-21, we find a number of sins cataloged as the “works of the flesh,” among which is the sin of lasciviousness. Then we are further told that “they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” One does not have to be guilty of all the sins mentioned in these verses in order to lose his inheritance, but just persist in any one of them.

Lasciviousness is a sin that can be committed by a child of God as well as by the hardened sinner. The apostle Paul addressed himself to those among them who had “sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.” Those who walk in lascivious ways are said to “think it strange that you run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:3, 4). Those of good moral character need not be surprised when the opposite kind make fun of, ridicule, and characterize them as “strait-laced, holier-than-thou, etc.” They cannot under-stand the Christian’s conduct and wonder what he gets out of life. Let them have their “kicks” and if they continue in it, one day their laughter and ridicule will be turned into “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:42, 43).

To many, lasciviousness is just a big word that is hard to say and still harder to spell. When asked its meaning, one replied, “I didn’t know that there was such a word.” What is lasciviousness? The word is translated from the Greek aselgeia which Thayer, the noted Greek lexicographer, says is “wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females.” Webster defines it as “wanton; lewd; lustful. Tending to produce voluptuous or lewd emotions.” Winston Dictionary defines lasciviousness as “tending to excite lewd or wanton thoughts or emotions, as objects or pictures.”

The sin of lasciviousness can be committed in thought, word, and deed. Anything that is thought, spoken, or done that produces, or tends to produce lewd thoughts, lustful emotions, or wanton ideas is lasciviousness. It can be produced by objects, pictures, or persons. It can be induced in one person by another. When such is done, the one guilty of producing sinful lust bears responsiblity with the one in whom the sin is incited.

At this point, we usually call attention to the indecent dress of the women as that which produces lasciviousness. And so it does, but this sin is not confined to the women. Men can be as guilty in these matters as the women. Men ought to be as careful in their dress as the women should be, and equally as careful of the way they talk and act. If one causes another to have an impure, unholy thought by the way that he is dressed, by the way that he talks or acts, he is guilty of lasciviousness. Not only has his conduct been improper, but he has led another to sin. Jesus said, “It is impossible but that offences will come; but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:1-2).

The sin of lasciviousness is the sin that is involved in dancing, mixed swimming, wearing shorts, telling suggestive jokes, speech that has a “double meaning,” and the list goes on. It is no wonder that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 8
August 1, 1996

By Donald P. Ames

Frequently we approach a passage and see but one good lesson in it. 1 Kings 13 is often thusly used. But I’m convinced there are other lessons therein we also need to consider  all related to the horribleness of sin.

The Man Of God

The most popular character in this passage is a prophet whom we don’t even know. He is unnamed, but not unknown. God sent him to prophesy against the northern kingdom of Israel for their apostasy, and he set out from Judah to Bethel to fulfill God’s mission. God was indeed with him, and instructed him to cry out that the very altar upon which they offered their sacrifices to idols would be the place of sacrifice for the bodies of the pagan priests themselves. As proof of such, the altar was to be split in two  and was  as a sign from God. Jeroboam did not like the message, and ordered the prophet to be seized; but God withered up his hand so he was unable to move it. After entreating the man of God, the king’s hand was re-stored again. He sought to reward the prophet, and invited him home to a feast; but the prophet told Jeroboam God had ordered him to neither eat nor drink in the country and that he was also to return by a different route than he had come, and thus he departed  faithful to his instructions from God.

I’m sure an invitation by the king himself would have been a tempting offer, and one would be forced to weigh it very carefully before refusing, lest the king become even more upset. But this man of God was interested in pleasing someone even greater than King Jeroboam! He had courage and dedication, and for such is to be commended. He had faithfully completed his task of prophesying, and for that was also to be commended. It could have cost him his life, being imprisoned, or some other tragedy; but he had successfully resisted the temptation to worry about such, and had faithfully sought to do his duty. His message was plain, forceful, and unmistakable. Truly he had accomplished a great feat!

But, we must also remember the devil is not one to give up easily. Even though the man of God had met this big temptation to yield, resisted, and was now on his way home exactly as God had prescribed, Satan had a matter he also wanted to settle  he wanted to destroy this man of God who had so devastated his foothold! And he was not going to give up that easily! And with a great victory behind him, the man of God was on his way home “free.” That is when the other prophet got involved and invited him back to eat. He even lied (13:18), and said God said it was OK.

How many times do we meet the big temptations, only to get tripped up on the little ones later? The man of God for-got to ask God, and feeling he had done all God wanted (and perhaps even that this was God’s reward), returned to eat  and perished before he returned home for his disobedience. It did not matter that he had faithfully done all God said up to that point. It did not matter that the prophet had lied, and he apparently sincerely believed he was OK to return. It did not matter that he had acted in ignorance be-cause he had forgotten to ask God first (cf. Acts 3:17, 17:30-31). He perished because he had not remained faithful to the end!

He had not asked God about a change in plans previously made known (even though God had placed a warning there. If this prophet was speaking for God, why had God not used him instead to cry out against Israel?). He failed to be “faithful unto death” (Rev. 2:10).

Never underestimate the devil! He does not give up easily, and when we think we have done something great for God, he is still trying to throw a monkey wrench in the works. He knows the past will not save a man if he stumbles on down the road (Ezek. 18:24). And we cannot “balance the record” when such happens, nor point back to the great things we have done. We cannot argue, “God, I didn’t know;” for his word has clearly informed us of his will. And though we may take off and hope we can escape the consequences of our actions, “be not deceived, God is not mocked” (Gal. 6:7). This great man of God goes down nameless, but not forgotten. Let us truly learn his lesson today, lest we too come to the same sad end.

 

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 5
August 1, 1996