Good afternoon Carl;
"Carl" <saints@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g01se3$7o4$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the final sermon in the series "No, that's NOT in the Bible", David
> Dyke's brings up the phrase "to thine own self be true" which, of course
> is from Shakespeare. It somewhat sums up the humanistic theology many
> have. In other words, concentrate on self. Well that's not Biblical when
> we should concentrate on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. David Dykes
> preaches on this in the following sermon.
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
> my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>
> ---
While I won't disagree on the individualism aspect, your phrase is
more
about the morals one impose upon themself and others. If the two match,
then one is an honest person. It's generally my experience that when
people
are brought up short by their own rules, the rules are changed. In
reality,
it's more about individualism. So much for honesty.
Cheers,
John
>
> To Thine Own Self Be True
> by David O. Dykes
>
> John 8:31-32
> 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my
> teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth,
> and the truth will set you free."
>
> This is the final message in the series, "No, that's NOT in the Bible."
> Since I've started this series, I've encountered several other "sayings"
> often mistakenly quoted as coming from the Bible. Here are some other
> sayings that aren't in the Bible: Charity begins at home; This too shall
> pass; Good things come to those who wait; All men are created equal
> (Declaration of Independence); Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust; Whosoever
> Will May Come (Hymn by Phillip Bliss). Not long ago someone asked me if
> the phrase "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless
> child" is from the Bible. No, that's from Shakespeare's King Lear.
>
> There are hundreds of sayings people think are in the Bible. Also in my
> study I came across some funny sayings you'll never mistake as coming
from
> the Bible: Time wounds all heels; He who laughs last thinks slowest; The
> shortest distance between two points is under construction; Love is
grand;
> divorce is fifty grand; A day without sun****ne is like, well, night.
>
> If this series has taught us anything, it is that we must study the
> scriptures and whenever someone flippantly says, "The Bible says..." We
> need to ask them to find chapter and verse before we accept it as coming
> from the Bible!
>
> Today we're going to examine the saying, "To thine own self be true."
No,
> that's NOT in the Bible. It comes from William Shakespeare's Hamlet, in
> which Polonius is giving some fatherly advice to his 18-year-old son,
> Laertes, before he departs for Paris. He has just told Laertes, "Neither
a
> lender or borrower be." (another phrase people think comes from the
Bible)
> In the next lines he comes to the pinnacle of his fatherly wisdom as he
> says, "This above all; to thine own self be true. And it must follow, as
> the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."
>
> I've saved this saying for last because I believe this phrase has become
> the motto of modern America. It combines two concepts that cannot be
> ignored: self and truth. Americans are involved in a continual love
affair
> with self. Our mantra has become: Take care of #1. Know yourself, love
> yourself, and be true to your self. Self has become the basic standard
for
> truth. Americans bow down at the altar of Sovereign Self. How far this
is
> from the words of Jesus spoken in Mark 8:34 when He said, "If anyone
would
> come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow
me."
> Today, we hear, love self; protect self; promote self-and Jesus said,
> "Deny your self." He wasn't talking about denying yourself some
thing-like
> going without food, or pleasure. He meant to deny self's desire to
> constantly climb onto the throne of your life. Let's examine the
dangerous
> implications of taking "To thine own self be true" literally.
>
> I. TRENDS THAT THREATEN OUR CULTURE
>
> In Wa****ngton Irving's classic tale Rip Van Winkle, Rip is a hen-pecked
> husband who wanders off in the Catskill Mountains. There he finds some
> strange little people with a strange drink. He drinks some of their brew
> and settles down to take a nap. When he wakes up he thinks someone has
> played a trick on him because his beard is long and his rifle is
rusty-and
> his trusted dog is nowhere to be found. He doesn't realize he's been
> asleep for 20 years and 2 days. When he went to sleep it was 1766, and
> America was a British colony and when he woke up it was a young nation.
As
> he wanders back into town, he is surprised to find that King George's
face
> on the tavern sign has been replaced by one that says "General
> Wa****ngton." It's really a story about how some people sleep through
major
> changes.
>
> I am here to announce that while many of us have been asleep something
has
> happened over the past two decades: America has moved from the "modern"
> age into the "post-modern" age. Americans have embraced a new set of
> values. Part of the reason you might have slept through it is because
East
> Texas is a little oasis of biblical morality and solid family values.
But
> while you were sleeping, our nation changed. Welcome to the postmodern
> world.
>
> The core value of post-modern thought can be summarized with this
> statement: Tolerance is more im****tant than truth! Like many words,
> "tolerance" has a definition and it has a different meaning. Words can
> have original definitions and different usages. For instance, the word
> "gay" originally meant "happy and carefree." That's the definition, but
> the current usage of the word is totally different, so I seldom say, "I
> feel so gay today!"
>
> The word "tolerance" has undergone the same change. Tolerance used to
> mean, "respecting the beliefs and practices of others without agreeing
> with them." The new use of the word tolerance means that I must not only
> allow but I must accept the beliefs and practices of those with whom I
> disagree. This new tolerance came to be in a postmodern world where
> objective truth no longer exists. There are only subjective opinions and
> if someone's truth differs from your truth you must accept it as being
as
> valid as your truth; if you don't, you are intolerant.
>
> George Barna has done extensive research into the moral and spiritual
> beliefs of Americans and he found: (1) 72% of Americans believe: "There
is
> no such thing as absolute truth; two people could define truth in
totally
> conflicting ways, but both could still be correct." (2) 71% of Americans
> believe: "There are no absolute standards that apply to everybody in all
> situations." (3) 64% of Americans believe: "Christians, Jews, Buddhists,
> Muslims and all others pray to the same God, even though they use
> different names for that God." (4) 64% of Americans believe: "All
> religions are equally good."
>
> In 1987 Allan Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind. He was a
> college professor, and he wasn't writing from a Christian perspective.
His
> thesis is that Americans replaced objective truth with the European
ideas
> of nihilism and despair. We have embraced moral relativism and disguised
> it as tolerance. He writes: "Almost every student entering the
university
> believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. They have been
> taught that the danger of 'absolutes' is not error but intolerance.
> Relativism is necessary to openness-and openness has become the 'great
> insight' of our times." (The Closing of the American Mind, p. 25)
>
> "To thine own self be true" has become the "life verse" for millions of
> young people who not only are ignorant of what the Bible says, but they
> don't think it's true anyway. These trends can be seen in three
different
> areas:
>
> (1) Civic individualism
>
> For years, Americans were willing to sacrifice the rights of the one,
for
> the good of the many. But today the value of cor****ate accountability
has
> been replaced with the cry for "personal liberty!" The essence of
> individualism is: What's true for you may not be true for me. Instead of
> asking questions like, "is this right or wrong?" the new question has
> become, "Is this right for ME or not?
>
> A few years ago, the senior at West End High School in Salt Lake City
were
> rehearsing for their graduation exercise. The high school choir was
going
> to sing two traditional songs. But one student in the choir objected
> because the songs contained the words "God" and "Lord." So instead of
> opting not to participate, she and her parents sued the school. And of
> course, you know what happened. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled that
> the songs couldn't be sung.
>
> Chuck Colson calls this "the tyranny of the individual-in which one
person
> can obstruct the rights of the majority." Colsen goes on to write: "If
the
> student had been requesting the right not to participate, that is
> something we can all agree upon. She could be excused, opt out as
> Christians often do in ***-education cl*****. But she was demanding
> something more: that the majority be prevented from singing songs she
> didn't agree with." (Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, The New Tolerance,
> p. 61)
>
> (2) Moral relativism
>
> In this postmodern age, there are no longer any moral absolutes. The
main
> question is no longer "Is this wrong or right?" The pertinent question
has
> become, "I this wrong for ME or right for ME?" For instance, if you
think
> having an abortion is wrong, then it is wrong for you, but if I think
it's
> right for me, then it's okay. After all, "To thine own self, be true."
>
> One youth pastor was speaking to teenagers about premarital ***. One of
> the girls spoke up and said, "If you feel it's okay, then there's
nothing
> wrong with it. Didn't Jesus say that what matters most is what you feel
in
> your heart?" The youth pastor went on to say that Jesus agreed with what
> Jeremiah wrote about the human heart, "It is deceitful above all things,
> desperately wicked, who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
>
> Moral relativism says something is right if it feels right for you.
Once,
> our nation was guided by good moral standards based on the Bible-today
> anything goes. The bizarre is even paraded before our eyes on daytime
talk
> shows. When we see enough people on television who have kissed their
best
> friends' sisters' boyfriend's pet, we tend to become hardened. It's easy
> to say, "Well, I'd never do anything like that, but if they want to,
> that's their own business." Harry Blarmes wrote: "Ours is an age in
which
> 'conclusions' are arrived at by distributing questionnaires to a
> cross-section of the population or by holding a microphone before the
lips
> of casually selected passers-by in the street...In the sphere of
religious
> and moral thinking we are rapidly heading for a state of intellectual
> anarchy in which the difference between truth and falsehood will no
longer
> be recognized. Indeed, it would seem possible that the words true and
> false will eventually (and logically) be replaced by the words likable
and
> dislikable." (The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think, p. 107).
>
> Young people, if a professor or a teacher tells you there are no moral
> absolutes, but right for you is what you think and feel is right, walk
up
> and stomp on their big toe. When they are getting ready to go berserk
hold
> up your hand and say, "I thought that was the right thing to do, and it
> sure felt like the right thing to do!" Don't really do that. Instead,
when
> they insist there are no moral absolutes, ask them, "Are you absolutely
> certain about that?"
>
> (3) Spiritual pluralism
>
> The theological platform of the postmodern mind is, "All spiritual
beliefs
> are equally true and equally valid." If anyone claims their belief is
> superior or that someone else is teaching error, they are labeled as
> intolerant. In this postmodern age, religion is like a cafeteria line.
You
> can choose the Christian way, the Jewish way, the Muslim way, the New
Age
> way, or you can choose your own way. Or, if you want, pick and choose,
and
> combine some of the major religions-it's okay because they are all
equal.
>
> After the 9/11 attack there was a service held in Yankee Stadium called
"A
> Prayer for America." That service was a postmodern model because it had
> every imaginable religious persuasion present. The roster included
leaders
> of local Muslim, Hindu and Sikh temples, black and white protestant
> pastors, Armenian and Greek orthodox archbishops, and male and female
> Jewish Rabbis. The perfect postmodern poster girl was the master of
> ceremonies-Oprah Winfrey. She slipped in her new age doctrine by saying,
> "When you lose a loved one you gain an angel whose name you know. On
Sept.
> 11, 6.000 angels were added to the roster." Ahh, that's nice, but is it
> true? The postmodern mind says, "It's true for her, so it's true."
>
> It can best be summarized by New Age guru ****rley MacLaine. She holds a
> typical postmodern perspective. In her book, Out on a Limb she asks
David,
> her spiritual guide, if he believes in reincarnation. He replies, "It's
> true if you believe it and that goes for anything." As followers of
Jesus
> Christ, we are commanded to share the good news with every person in the
> world-that's where we meet opposition. If we dare to insist we are
right,
> then we violate the spirit of the postmodern age: tolerance.
>
> A few years ago, Dear Abby wrote some remarks about discussing religious
> differences. She received a letter from a reader who disagreed with her
> approach. The letter said: Dear Abby: "Your answer to the woman who
> complained that her relatives were always arguing with her about
religion
> was ridiculous. You advised her to simply declare the subject
off-limits.
> Are you suggesting that people talk about only trivial, meaningless
> subjects so as to avoid a potential controversy?...It is arrogant to
tell
> people there are subjects they may not mention in your presence. You
could
> have suggested she learn enough about her relatives' cult to show them
the
> errors contained in its teaching." Now, I tend to agree with the author
of
> that letter. I think we should always be able to discuss our
differences.
> But Dear Abby didn't agree. Her reply was: "In my view, the height of
> arrogance is to attempt to show people the 'errors' in the religion of
> their choice." (Sept. 19, 1989)
>
> The best definition of tolerance I've found was spoken way back during
the
> age of reason in the last century. President John F. Kennedy said,
> "Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it
> condemns the oppression or persecution of others." I don't think people
> who disagree with me should be oppressed or persecuted. But I do want to
> have the chance to dialogue with them and to lovingly show them what I
> believe to be the truth. That leads to our next main point:
>
> II. THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO OUR CULTURE
>
> I believe these trends are dangerous. G. K. Chesterton, the English
author
> who strongly influenced the life and writing of C.S. Lewis, once said,
> "Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions." This statement
> alludes to one of the dire consequence of the new tolerance: the loss of
> conviction. So what are we going to do? The Psalmist asked the same
> question in Psalm 11:3: "When the FOUNDATIONS are being destroyed, what
> can the righteous do?" When our moral and spiritual foundations are
being
> destroyed, what can we do? Like Rip Van Winkle, the church has got to
wake
> up. We can't do church the way we did it way back in the 1990s! The
> problem is that some of you want to do church the way we did it back in
> the 1950s! So the first thing, I challenge you to do to is Wake up! Wake
> up! The world is different than it was when you went to sleep! Let me
> mention a couple of responses that are required:
>
> (1) We must speak the truth even when it's unpopular
>
> We've got to start by answering the question: Is there any objective
> truth? Or it is enough to say, "To thine own self be true?" Dr. Frances
> Shaeffer addressed that question: "If there is no absolute moral
standard,
> then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By
> absolute we mean that which always applies [to all people], that which
> provides a final or ultimate standard. If there is no absolute beyond
> man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals
> and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with
> conflicting opinions."
>
> The founders of our country believed there were some objective human
> truths that have always been true and will always be true. They wrote in
> our Declaration of Independence: We hold these Truths to be
self-evident,
> that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> with certain unalienable Rights..."
>
> Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to
the
> Father except through me." (John 14:6) Jesus didn't say He was one of
the
> ways, or one of the truths, and part of a life. The definite article in
> the original language denotes a one-and-only kind of claim. Jesus didn't
> claim to be one of the ways to come to God the Father; He clearly said
> there is no other way. Now, as Christians, we risk the danger of being
> labeled as intolerant, narrow-minded and bigoted because we believe
Jesus
> is the only way to heaven.
>
> Sometimes people try to dismiss Jesus by saying He was simply a good
> teacher. C.S. Lewis wrote some strong words about the exclusivity of
> Jesus: If you had gone to Buddha and asked him, "Are you the son of
> Brahma?" he would have said, "My son, you are still in the veil of
> illusion." If you had gone to Socrates and asked, "Are you the son of
> Zeus?" he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and
> asked, "Are you the son of Allah?" he would first have rent his clothes
> and then cut your head off. If you had asked Con****ius, "Are you
Heaven?"
> I think he would have probably replied, "Remarks which are not in
> accordance with nature are in bad taste." The idea of a great moral
> teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion,
the
> only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete
> lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole
> mind of man. ("What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" God in the Dock:
> Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970). pp.
> 157-158.)
>
> Tolerance says, "Jesus is only one of the ways to God. It's your way,
and
> it's true for you, but it may not be true for me." Dorothy Sayers wrote:
> "In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair,
> the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know
> nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds
> purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there
is
> nothing for which it will die."
>
> In a postmodern age, we must stand up for Jesus while we still have a
> place to stand. We must speak the truth. But as Paul wrote in Ephesians
> 4:15, "We must speak the truth in love."
>
> (2) Choose to obey God rather than man
>
> In the Book of Acts, Peter and John were arrested and the Supreme Court
of
> Israel, the Sanhedrin, officially ordered them not to speak publicly
about
> Jesus anymore. It was fine if they wanted to believe it for themselves,
> but they were forbidden from trying to persuade anyone else to believe.
> Peter and John decided to obey God and to suffer the consequences. We
read
> in Acts 4:19, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight
to
> obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have
> seen and heard."
>
> That's exactly where we find ourselves today. The postmodern world tells
> us, "Keep your beliefs to yourself. It's fine if you want to believe
that,
> but don't you tell me I'm wrong." The time may soon come when there is a
> law passed that will prevent me from saying publicly that homo***ual
> behavior is wrong. There is already a law to that effect in Canada.
There
> are some who would say that such a statement constitutes a hate crime.
We
> are fast approaching a time when the only "bad people" are those who try
> to impose their moral standards on others.
>
> For instance, Ron Brown is an Assistant Football Coach at the University
> of Nebraska. He has impeccable academic and athletic credentials. He was
> one of the leading candidates for the head coaching job at Stanford
> University. But he was rejected because as an evangelical Christian he
> shared that in his candid opinion, homo***ual behavior was wrong. Brown,
> who is African-American, never identified the school, but it is common
> knowledge that he was being interviewed by Stanford. "If they had a
> problem with my skin color they never would have come out and said it,"
> Brown says. "They had a problem with my faith, and they had no problem
> saying that." The school later issued an explanation that said that his
> beliefs "had to be considered in the final evaluation."
>
> We're in the postmodern world and there's no going back. But if you
think
> this is an "ain't it awful" message, think again. I am tremendously
> excited about the op****tunity we have to share the gospel to a
postmodern
> world. People are going to find that they have a need for truth, and we
> can humbly say, "We know the truth-His name is Jesus." For the
> postmodernists, they are more interested in relation****ps than beliefs.
> And that's what we've got to offer: A relation****p with God and a
> relation****p with people who will love them. The future is bright for
the
> church that wakes up and realizes things have changed. Our message will
> never change, but the way we package the message has got to change.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> In "Fiddler on the Roof," Tevye is listening as some villagers debate a
> business transaction. The issue at stake is whether an animal is a horse
> or a mule. One villager asks Tevye to sup****t his side of the argument,
so
> Tevye says, "You're right!" At which, the other villager emphatically
> stresses his opposing argument to Tevye. Tevye shrugs his shoulders and
> says, "You're right." A third villager confronts Tevye and says, "But
> Tevye, they both cannot be right." Tevye thought for another moment and
> said, "You're right, also!" That's the spirit of this age. I'm right,
> you're right, we're all right, alright?
>
> Islam claims Jesus was simply a great prophet who never was crucified or
> resurrected. And the Bible claims Jesus died on the cross for our sins
and
> was buried and on the third day rose again. They both cannot be right.
> Only one is truth, and there is no way to say both Islam and
Christianity
> are truth. If Islam is true, then Christianity is a false religion and
we
> should turn this building into a mosque. If Christianity is truth; Islam
> is a false religion, and we should be lovingly sharing the good news
will
> the one billion Muslims on this planet.
>
> It's a new world. "To thine own self be true?" Is that truth? What you
> your "self" thinks? That's a pretty scary standard of truth! Should we
> say, "To thine own God be true?" No, we should hear the words of Jesus
> when He said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
> Then you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!" (John
> 8:31-32)
>
>
|
