K     Falsehood, or lying, is another attribute of selfishness.  Lying may be objective or subjective.  Objective lying is something that stands opposed to truth.  Subjective lying is a heart conformed to error and to objective lying.  Subjective lying is an attribute of selfishness.  It is the will in the attitude of resisting truth and embracing error and lies.  This must always be an attribute of selfishness. 
     Selfishness consists in choosing an end that is opposed to all truth, and proceeds to realize that end by using error and lies instead of the truth.  If, at any time, selfishness seizes on some truth, as it often does, it is with an intention that is at war with the truth. 
     If any sinner, at any time, and under any circumstances, tells the truth, it is for a selfish reason; it is to embrace his false end.  He has a lie in his heart, and a lie in his right hand.  He stands on falsehood.  He lives for it, and if he does not uniformly and openly falsify the truth, it is because the objective truth is consistent with his subjective falsehood.  His heart is false, as false as it can be.  His heart has embraced and sold itself to the greatest lie in the universe.  The selfish man has practically proclaimed that his good is the supreme good; in fact, that there is no other good but his own; that there are no other rights but his own, that all are bound to serve him, and that all interests are to yield to his interests.  Now all this, as I said, is the greatest falsehood that ever was or can be.  Yet, this is the solemn practical declaration of every sinner.  His choice maintains that God has no rights; that no one should love and obey God; and that God has no right to govern the universe.  Instead, God and every living creature should obey and serve him.  Can there be a greater, a more shameless falsehood than all of this?  And shall that person pretend to regard the truth?  The very thought of this only illustrates the truth that falsehood is an essential element of his character. 
     If every sinner on earth does not openly falsify the truth all the time, it is not because of the truthfulness in his heart, but he tells the truth for some purely selfish reason.  This must be.  His heart is completely false.  It is impossible that, as long as he remains a sinner, he should have any true regard for the truth.  He is a liar in his heart.  This is an essential and an eternal attribute of his character.  It is true that his mind condemns falsehood and justifies truth.  It is true that there are times when a deep impression is made on his soul in favor of the truth.  But if his heart is unchanged, his heart holds on to lies, and perseveres in the proclaiming some of the greatest lies in the universe, such as, God should not to be trusted.  Christ is not worthy of confidence; One’s own interest is the supreme good; and all other interests should be treated as having less importance than one’s own interests.  

L     Pride is another attribute of selfishness.  Pride is a desire to exalt self above others, to rise higher than one’s proper place on the ladder of life, and to climb up over the heads of our equals or superiors.  Pride is a type of injustice on one hand, and is similar to ambition on the other.  It is not as extensive in significance as either injustice or ambition.  It is closely related to both injustice and ambition but it is not identical with either.  It is a kind of self‑praise, self‑worship, self‑flattery, self‑adulation, a spirit of self‑consequence, and self‑importance.  It is a tendency to exalt, not merely one’s own interest, but one’s person above others, and above God, and above all other beings.  A proud person supremely regards himself.  He reigns on the throne of his own little universe.  He worships and can worship no one but himself.  As long as he remains selfish, he cannot admit that there is any one as good and as worthy as he is.  He aims at bestowing supreme favor on himself, and denies that anyone in the universe can do any good, if that person interferes with his own desires.  He can stoop to give preference to the interest, the reputation, the authority of no one, no, not even of God Himself, except outwardly and in appearance.  His inward language is, “Who is Jehovah, that I should bow down to Him?”  It is impossible that a selfish soul should be humbled.  Sinners are represented in the Bible as proud, as “flattering themselves in their own eyes” (Isaiah 5:21) 
     Pride is not a vice separate from selfishness, but it is only a form of selfishness.  Selfishness is the root from which every form of sin develops.  Many don’t even consider selfishness to be a vice, much less as constituting the whole of vice.  As a result, when selfishness has been most apparent, many believe and assume that there might be along with it many forms of virtue.  It is for this reason that I am trying to show you what the essential elements of selfishness are.  Many believe that selfishness can exist in any heart without implying every form of sin.  Many believe that a man might be selfish and yet not be proud.  In short, many overlook the fact that, where selfishness is, there must be every form of sin; that where one form of selfishness is manifested, it is a virtual breach of every commandment of God, and implies, in fact, the real existence of every possible form of sin and abomination in the heart.  My object is to develop fully the great truth that where selfishness is, there must be, either in a developed or an undeveloped state, every form of sin that exists in earth or hell; that all sin is a unit, and consists of some form of selfishness; and that where this is, all sin virtually is and must be. 
     The only reason that pride, as a form of selfishness, does not appear in all sinners in its most disgusting forms is because their constitutional behavior and providential circumstances are such that they spend most of their time developing some other attribute of selfishness.  It is important to remember, that where any one form of unqualified sin exists, there selfishness must exist, and there, of course, every form of sin must exist, at least like an embryo waiting only for circumstances to develop it.  Therefore, when you see any form of sin, you can know for sure that selfishness, which is the root, is there; and if selfishness continues, don’t expect to see anything else than to see, one after another, every form of sin develop as the opportunity presents itself. 
     Selfishness is a volcano.  It is sometimes smothered, but it must vent.  The providence of God presents opportunities by which its lava‑tides will burst forth and carry desolation before them. 
     We know and admit that all these forms of sin exist.  But it doesn’t appear to me that many have rightly considered the philosophy of sin.  It is important that we should get at the fundamental or basic form of sin, that form which includes and implies all other forms of sin, or, more properly, which consti­tutes the whole of sin.  Such is selfishness.  “Let it be written with the point of a diamond and engraved in the rock forever” (Jer. 17:1), that it may be known, that where selfishness is, there every precept of the law is violated, there is the whole of sin.  Its guilt and ill desert must depend on the light that surrounds the selfish mind.  But sin, the whole of sin, is there.  The very nature of selfishness is such that it only needs the right opportunities without restraint, and it will show itself to have embodied within it, like an embryo, every form of iniquity. 

M   Enmity against God is also an attribute of selfishness. 
     Enmity is hatred.  Hatred may exist either as an emotion or as an attitude of our will.  Of course, I am now going to speak of hatred of heart or will.  Hatred or enmity of heart is selfishness viewed in its relationship to God.  The fact that selfishness is hatred against God will appear:      

1 From the Bible.  The apostle Paul clearly says, “the carnal mind (minding the flesh) is enmity against God” (Romans 8:7)  It is clear that when the apostle talks about a carnal mind, he means a mind that obeys or yields to the desires of the flesh.  This is selfishness.

2 Selfishness is directly opposed to the will of God as expressed in His law.  God’s law requires unselfish love.  Selfishness is just the opposite and therefore it is hatred against the Lawgiver.  

3 Selfishness is as hostile to God’s government as it can be.  It is directly opposed to every law, and principle, and measure of His government. 

4 Selfishness is opposed to God’s existence.  Opposition to a government is opposition to the will of the governor.  Selfishness is opposed to God’s existence as governor.  It is, and must be, hatred against the existence of the ruler as a ruler.  Selfishness must be hatred against the existence of God’s government, and since He is our Sovereign Ruler, selfishness must be enmity against His existence as governor.  Selfishness will not restrain itself from securing its own end.  There is nothing in the universe that it will not sacrifice for self.  If this is not true, it is not selfishness.  If God’s happiness, or government, or being, comes into conflict with selfishness, then those things must be sacrificed if possible.  God is the uncompromising enemy of selfishness.  Selfishness is the abominable thing that God hates.  God is opposed to selfishness more than anyone else is.  His opposition of selfishness is, and must be, supreme and perfect.  That selfishness is mortal hatred against God is not left to conjecture, or to a mere deduction or inference.  God once took to Himself human nature, and brought Divine love into conflict with human selfishness.  Men could not accept His presence on earth, and they did not rest until they had murdered Him. 
     We can overcome hatred against anybody or anything besides God more easily than hatred against Him.  Kindness and a change of circumstances can overcome every earthly hatred; but what kindness, what change of circumstances, can change the human heart, can overcome the selfishness or hatred against God that reigns there?  Selfishness provides all kinds of ways and every possible degree of resistance to God.  It disregards God’s commands.  It condemns His authority.  It spurns His mercy.  It outrages His feelings.  It provokes His forbearance.  Selfishness, in short, is the universal antagonist and adversary of God.  It can no more be reconciled to His law, than it can cease to be selfish. 

N    Intemperance is also a form or attribute of selfishness. 
     Selfishness is self‑indulgence that our reason does not sanction.  Selfishness consists in committing our will to indulging in our fleshly desires.  Of course, one or more of these desires must take control of our will.  Generally, there is one ruling passion or desire, the influence of which becomes overshadowing, and overrules our will for its own gratification.  Sometimes it is greed, or the love of gain.  Sometimes it is gluttony.  Sometimes it is sexual love.  Sometimes it is the love of our own children.  Sometimes it is self‑esteem or a feeling of confidence in our selves.  Sometimes one and sometimes another of the great variety of desires becomes so largely developed that it becomes the ruling tyrant that lords itself over our will and over all our other desires.  It does not matter which of these desires, or whether their united influence gains the mastery of our will: whenever our will is subject to them, selfishness results.  This is the carnal mind. 
     Intemperance consists in the undue or unlawful indulgence of any desire.  It is, therefore, an essential element or attribute of selfishness.  All selfishness is intemperance: of course, it is an unlawful indulgence of ones desires. 
     Intemperance has as many forms as there are constitutional and artificial appetites to gratify those desires.  A selfish mind cannot be temperate.  If one or more of our desires is restrained, it is only restrained because of our undue and unlawful indulgence in another desire.  Sometimes our tendencies are intellectual, and we deny our physical appetites for the sake of gratifying our desire to study.  But this is no less intemperance and selfishness than sensual gratification, gluttony, or drunkenness.  Selfishness must always be intemperate.  It does not always develop every form of intemperance during our physical lifetime, but a spirit of self‑indulgence must manifest itself in the intemperate gratification of one or more of our desires. 
     Some people develop self‑indulgence most prominently in the form of intemperance in eating; others in sleeping; others in lounging and idleness; others are gossipers; others love exercise, and indulge in that desire; others study and impair their health, some indulgences can become so overwhelming that they can drive a person crazy, or seriously damage his nervous system.  Indeed, there is no end to the forms that intemperance takes on, because there is no end to the variety of desires, natural and artificial, that, in their turn, tries to get us to indulge in them. 
     Always remember, that any form of self‑indulgence is a form of selfishness and totally inconsistent with any degree of virtue in the heart.  But that does not mean that we must ignore our tastes, appetites, and desires.  These things are O.K. as long as we do not make gratifying them our goal or purpose in life, even for one moment.  In fact, there is a kind of regard for our appetites and desires, which is lawful and therefore virtue.  For example: I am on a journey for the service and glory of God.  Two ways are before me.  The first way provides nothing to please the senses; the second way takes me through colorful landscapes, sublime mountain passes, deep ravines; beside bubbling brooks and meandering streams; through beds of brilliant flowers and woods of rich foliage; through aromatic groves and forests singing with feathered songbirds.  The two paths are equal, and in all respects, have no bearing on the business I have to do.  Now, my reason dictates and demands that I should take the path that is most pleasing and enjoyable.  But this is not being governed by my desires, but by my reason.  It is the voice of reason that I hear and I listen to, when I take the scenic route.  The delights of this path are a real good.  As such, I should not despise or neglect them.  But, if taking this path would embarrass and hinder the purpose of my journey, I should not sacrifice the greater public good for a lesser one of my own.  My feelings must not guide me, but my reason and honest judgment in this situation and in every thing that I must do must guide me.  God has not given us desires to be our masters and to rule us, but to be our servants and to minister to our enjoyment when we obey the biddings of our reason and God.  They are given to make our duty pleasant, and as a reward for virtue, to make the ways of wisdom pleasurable.  Therefore, we should not despise our desires, nor should we seek to annihilate them.  Nor is it true that gratifying desires is always selfish, but when our reason sanc­tions and demands that I gratifying them, then gratifying them is not a sin but a virtue.  It is not selfishness but benevolence.  However, please remember that we must not seek the indulgence in obedience to our desires, but in obedience to the law of reason and of God.  When we do not consult our reason and the will of God, it must be selfishness. 
     Intemper­ance as a sin does not consist in the outward act of indulgence, but in the inward disposition.  A person with an ulcer may only be able to eat enough to survive, yet he may be an enormous glutton in his heart.  He may not only desire, but he may be willing, to eat everything before him if it wasn’t for the pain that he experiences when he eats.  He has a spirit of self‑indulgence.  He denies himself the amount of food he craves in order to gratify a stronger desire, which is the dread of pain.  Therefore, a man who has never been drunk in his entire life may be guilty of the crime of drunkenness every day.  Only a regard for his reputation or health may prevent that person from drinking excessively.  It is only because the greater power of some other desire prevents him from drinking.  If a man is in such a frame of mind, that he would give in to all his desires without restraint if it weren’t impossible because some of his indulgences are inconsistent with other indulgences, he is just as guilty as if he indulged in all of them.  For example: A man has a willful disposition to hoard property.  He has a greedy heart.  He also has a strong tendency to be extravagant, and a spendthrift.  These extravagant indulgences are inconsistent with the indulgence of hoarding.  But, if it weren’t for these contrary desires, he would indulge in both of them.  He wants to, but it’s impossible.  He is guilty of both those vices and just as blameworthy as if he had indulged in both of them. 
     Intemperance, as a crime, is a state of mind.  It is the attitude of the will.  It is an attribute of selfishness.  It consists in ones choice to gratify his desires, regardless of the law of love.  As far as he is concerned, this is intemperance.  Now, since his will is committed to self‑indulgence, and nothing but conflicts between opposing desires prevents him from indulging in all of them, it follows that every selfish sinner is charged, in the sight of God, with every kind of intemperance, actual or conceivable.  His lusts have full reign.  They turn him in whatever direction they lean.  He has sold himself to self‑indulgence.  If there is any form of self‑indulgence that is not actually developed in him, it is no thanks to him.  The providence of God often restrains his outward indulgences, while there has been, within him, a readiness to perpe­trate any sin and every sin, from which not even some overpowering fear of their consequences could deter him.  

O    Total moral depravity is implied in selfishness as one of its attributes.  By this, I mean that every selfish being is at every moment as wicked and as blameworthy as he can possibly be with the knowledge that he has.  Many assume that there are degrees of guilt; that some degrees of guilt are worse than others; and that the same individual may be more guilty at one time than at other times.  The same is true about virtue.  One person may be more virtuous than another, when both are truly virtuous.  Also, the same person may be more virtuous at one time than at another, although he may be virtuous all the time.  In other words, both our reason and revelation, affirm that there is such a thing as growth, both in virtue and vice. 
     Most people also assume that this same individual, with the same degree of light or knowledge, is more or less praise or blameworthy, depending on what he does.  In other words, he will pursue one course or another in order to accomplish his goal in life.  The same individual, with the same knowledge or light, is more or less virtuous or sinful, according to the kind of outward life he pursues. 
     I will attempt to show that these two assumptions are human prejudice, and a serious and most damaging error. 
     Most people generally assume that two or more individuals, having exactly the same degree of light or knowledge, and being both equally benevolent and selfish, may, nevertheless, differ in their degree of virtue or vice, because they pursue different courses of outward conduct.  I will attempt to show that this is also a fundamental error. 
     We can arrive at the truth of this subject only by clearly understanding how to measure our moral obligation and, of course, how to determine the degree of our virtue and sin.  The amount or degree of our virtue or vice, or of our praiseworthiness or blameworthiness, is and must be decided by referring to the degree of moral obligation.  And here I would remind you:  

1     That our moral obligation is based on the importance of the highest good of God and the universe, and: 

2     That the conditions of our obligation are that we possess the powers of a moral agent and light.  Light is the amount that we know about the end that we are to choose for its own sake.

3     Hence, it follows that we must measure our obligation by our mind’s honest judgment of the importance of the end we must choose.

P          This, and nothing else, is the rule or standard by which we must measure our obligation, as well as the guilt of violating our obligation.  This becomes obvious when we consider that:  

1     We cannot measure our obligation by the fact that God is infinite apart from the knowledge of the infinite importance of His interests.  God is an infinite being, and His good must have infinite importance.  But unless we know this, we cannot be under any obligation to will His good as an ultimate end.  If we know that it has some importance, we must choose it for that reason.  But the measure of our obligation must only be equal to how clearly we understand its importance. 
     Besides, if the fact that God is infinite, without referring to how much we know, is the rule by which our moral obligation must be measured, it would follow that moral obligation would be the same for everybody, and of course that the guilt of disobedience would also be the same in every situation.  But this contradicts both our reason and revelation.  Thus, it appears, that our moral obligation, and of course, our guilt, cannot be measured by the fact that God is infinite without referring to how much we know. 

2     We cannot measure our moral obligation by His infinite authority without referring to how much we know, for the same reasons as above. 

3     Our moral obligation cannot be measured by His infinite moral excellence without referring, both to the infinite importance of His infinite interests, and to our knowledge.  We must choose God’s interests as an end, or because they are important, and if we don’t know how important they are, we can’t have an obligation; nor can our obligation exceed our knowledge of how important they are.  

4     If the infinite excellence of God, without reference to the knowledge that we possess, must be the rule by which we measure our moral obligation, it would follow that guilt, in all cases of disobedience, is and must be equal.  We have seen that this cannot be true.

5     We cannot measure our moral obligation by the importance of the good of God and the universe, without reference to our knowledge, for the same reason as above.

6     We cannot measure our moral obligation by the particular course of life that we pursue.  This will become clear if we consider that our moral obligation has nothing directly to do with our outward life.  Our moral obligation directly relates to our ultimate intention only, and that decides the course of our outward action or life.  The guilt of any outward action cannot be decided by simply looking at the kind of action, without looking at our intention; for the moral character of any act must is found in our intention, and not in our outward act or life.  This leads me to say that:  

7     We cannot properly estimate the degree of our moral obligation, and of course the degree of our guilt of disobedience, simply by referring to the nature of our intention, without considering the degree of our knowledge.  As we have seen, selfish intention is a unit, and is always the same; and if the nature of our intention were the standard that we must use to measure our degree of guilt, it would follow that our guilt is always the same.  This cannot be.  As moral agents, we must also consider the degree of our knowledge. 

8     Nor can we measure our obligation, or the degree of our guilt, by the tendency of sin.  All sin tends toward infinite evil.  All sin tends to ruin the sinner, and from its contagious nature, to spread and ruin the universe.  Nor can any finite mind know what the ultimate results of any sin may be, nor to what particular evil it may tend.  Since all sin tends to universal and eternal evil, if the tendency of sin was the criterion we must use to estimate our guilt, all sin would be equally guilty, which cannot be. 
     That the guilt of sin cannot be measured by the tendency of sin, is also seen from the fact that our moral obligation is not based on the tendency of our actions or intentions, but in the importance of the end we intend to pursue.  Measuring our sin or holiness by the mere tendency of our actions, is wrong.  Our moral obligation depends on choosing an end, and is based on the importance of that end, and is not based on the tendency of that ultimate choice to secure its end.  Therefore, tendency can never be the rule we use to measure our obligation, or the rule we use to estimate our guilt.

9     Nor can we measure our moral obligation by the results of a moral action or a course of action.  Our moral obligation is based on our intention and we cannot apply our moral obligation to results beyond those things that we intend to do.  A lot of good may result, as from the death of Christ, without any virtue in Judas, but with much guilt.  So much evil may result, as from the creation of the world, without guilt in the Creator, but with great virtue.  If our moral obligation is not based on results, it follows that we cannot measure our guilt by those results without referring to how much we know and our intentions. 

10     What has been said, I trust, makes it clear that we must measure our moral obligation by our mind’s honest understanding of the importance of the end we must choose, which is the highest good of God and the universe.  

Q         We should clearly understand that selfishness involves rejecting the interests of God and the universe, for the sake of one’s own interests.  Selfishness refuses to will good, except on the condition that it belongs to self.  Selfishness spurns God’s interests and the best interests of the universe, and seeks only self‑interest as its ultimate goal in life.  It must follow, that the selfish man’s guilt is equal to his knowledge of the importance of those interests he rejects.  This is undeniably the doctrine of the Bible.

1     The book of Acts provides a good example.  The apostle Paul alludes to those past ages when the heathen nations had no written revelation from God, and said that “those times of ignorance God winked at” (Acts 17:30)  This does not mean that God did not consider that their conduct was not criminal at all, but it does mean that He regarded their conduct as a sin that had far less guilt, than it would have if that sin was committed today, if we turn away after we know that God has commanded us to repent.  True, sin is never a light thing; but some sins incur a lesser guilt, when compared with the greater guilt of other sins.  This is implied in the text just quoted.  “To him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”  (James 4:17)  This clearly suggests that our moral obligation requires a certain amount of knowledge, and the guilt of any sinner is always equal to the amount he knows about the subject.  Guilt always corresponds to the mind’s perception of the importance that one should have chosen, but rejected.  If a man knows he should do good, and yet he does not do it, to him this is sin.  The sin lies in the fact that he did not do good when he knew that he could do it; the amount of guilt he has is measured by the degree of that knowledge.     

2     Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, `We see.’  Therefore your sin remains.”  (John 9:41)  Here Christ states that men without knowledge would be without sin; and that men who have knowledge, and sin anyway, are held guilty.  This clearly reveals to us, that the presence of light or knowledge is required for sin to exist, and this obviously implies that the amount of knowledge that we have determines the amount of guilt we will experience.

3     It is remarkable that the Bible everywhere assumes first truths.  It does not stop to prove them, or even mention them, but the Bible simply assumes that everyone knows that they are true.                                                                                     

4     “And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he who did not know, yet committed things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few.  For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”  (Luke 12:47-48)  Here we have the doctrine laid down and the truth assumed that men should be punished according to their knowledge.  To whom much light is given, of him shall much obedience be required.  This is the principle that what God requires of men is based on the light they have.    

5     Selfishness is rejecting our entire moral obligation.  Selfish violates our entire obligation.  The guilt of selfishness depends on the amount of light that we have.  What can make selfishness greater with present light?  Can the course that selfishness takes to realize its goal moderate its guilt?  No.  Because whatever course it takes, it is for selfish reasons, and, therefore, selfishness can in no way lessen the guilt of the intention.  Can the course it takes to realize its end without more light increase the guilt of the sin?  No.  Because the sin lies exclusively in having that selfish intention and we can measure the guilt only by the degree of illumination or knowledge under which we form and maintain our intention.  The intention necessi­tates the use of means; and no matter what means the selfish person uses, it is to gratify himself.  If a selfish man were to preach the gospel, it would be only because it was most pleasing or gratifying to himself, and not out of the love of God and his neighbor as an end.  If he should become a robber, it would be because his pursuit is most pleasing or gratifying to himself, and not because his course is evil all by itself.  Whichever course he takes, he takes it for precisely the same ultimate reason; and with the same degree of light, it must involve the same degree of guilt.  Only if light increases will his guilt increase.  The proposition is that every selfish being is as blameworthy as he can be with his present knowledge.  Whatever course produces the most evil, no one can say.  We cannot measure guilt by unknown tendencies or results, but guilt belongs to our intention; and we must measure its degree only by our understanding of the obligation that we violate, namely, the importance of the good of God and the universe.  Selfishness rejects this.  Now, please remember, that whatever course the sinner takes to realize his end, he aims to accomplish his goal.  He intends the end.  If he becomes a preacher of the gospel for a selfish reason, he has no proper regard for God or his neighbor.  If he regards them at all, it is only as a means of obtaining his own good.  Therefore, if he becomes a robber, it is not from malice, or a disposition to do evil for its own sake, but simply to gratify himself.  If he has any regard at all to the evil he may do, it is only to gratify himself that he regards it.  Whether, therefore, he preaches or prays, or steals, he does it only for one purpose, that is, for precisely the same ultimate reason; and because of this, his sinfulness is complete in the sense that only varying light can vary its guilt.  This I know is contrary to common opinion and to what is generally taught in churches today but it is the truth, and it must be known.  It is most important that these fundamental truths of morality and of immorality should be held up before our minds.  

6     Should the sinner abstain from any vice because it is wicked, it cannot be because he loves God with all his heart, for this would contradict the supposition that he is selfish, or that he is a sinner.  If, when he sees that an act is wicked, he abstains from it, it must be for a selfish reason.  It may be in obedience to his emotions, or it may be because he is afraid of going to hell, or afraid of disgrace, or out of remorse.  No matter what it is, it must be for some selfish reason. 
     Total moral depravity is an attribute of selfishness, in the sense that every selfish person is at all times just as wicked and blameworthy as he can possibly be with the light and knowledge that he has.