Christianity and Communism (1)

By James D. Bales

(Read Psa. 14:1-4.) Why should a Christian be interested in the subject of Communism? Is it not simply a political system? It has political manifestations — so do some religious bodies — but it is far more than politics. It is a philosophy of life, a way of destruction and death. We who are believers in God must be against a system, which denies God and endeavors to work for the destruction of faith in God. Communism is the largest atheistic organization the world has ever known–the Communist Parties throughout the world have over 35,000,000 members.

We who believe that Christ is the Savior and died for sinners must be against a system, which denies that Christ is the Savior and that man is a sinner in need of spiritual salvation.

We who believe that men are men for whom Christ died must be against a system, which views men as economic and class animals.

We who believe that it makes a difference what one believes can find in Communism an outstanding proof of this fact. It shows what men do who act on their belief than man is not a creature of God, but an evolved creature. It also shows that although atheism may be advocated by respectable men in America, who are upheld in their character by a religious background and influence, atheism in reality debases man.

One does not have to visit Russia in order to learn about Communism, any more than one has to visit Rome to learn about Roman Catholicism. People did not have to visit Hitler’s Germany to learn about Nazism. One can learn from a study of their writings what one could never learn by a tour through their countries–a conducted tour.

Contrast what the Communist leaders demand of Communists with that Christ demands of us. For example, the point on Communism as a totalitarian system. Also stress that Communism has its great commission– conquer the world by subversion, teaching and violence–while Christians are under the Great Commission to convert the world. Who is working the hardest at it? They circulate millions of copies of books on atheism. How many do we buy and read and circulate concerning faith in God, the Bible and the gospel?

 

Communism Versus Religion

 

Is permanent peaceful coexistence possible between Communism and religion? From time to time the Communists have tried to leave the impression that peaceful coexistence is possible. An understanding of Communism, however, proves that the Communists do not believe that peaceful coexistence can continue; instead, religion must be finally destroyed. Communism is basically antireligious. What in the philosophy of Communism shows the such is the case?

First, Communism is militant atheism. It is therefore antagonistic to faith in any Supreme Being. Karl Marx was an atheist before he became a Communist, and he made atheism an essential part of Communism. Lenin emphasized atheism in his pamphlet on Religion. At the Bandung Conference, Chou En-lai said: “We are still atheists.”

It must be kept in mind that the Communists emphasize the necessity of spreading their beliefs. Karl Mark, in the VIII Thesis on Feuerback, stated that they were not interested simply in understanding the world, but in changing the world. At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, Soviet Union in 1956, Krushchev said: “Revolutionary theory is not a collection of petrified dogmas and formulas, but a militant guide to action in transforming the world, in building communism.” (Report of the Central Committee, p. 116) This indicates that the Communist is determined to build a world, which will reflect his beliefs, and his beliefs include atheism

Second, Communism is against religion because Communism is a totalitarian system, which demands the undivided loyalty of its subjects. It endeavors to control the inner and outer life of man. Thus communism is in opposition to religion which says that there is a higher will, law and allegiance than that of the State or Party.

In his booklet on How To Be a Good Communist, Liu Shao-Chi emphasized three things. (a) The Communist must be thoroughly indoctrinated in Marxism-Leninism, which includes atheism. (b) He must be wholeheartedly dedicated to the Party. (c) He must be willing to do anything demanded by the Party leadership. The claim of this totalitarian system on the whole of the life of its followers is summed up in Lenin’s statement that the Party is the mind, the honor and the conscience of this epoch. Since Communists are called on to be totally committed to the world view of Marxism- Leninism, the Communists will not forever allow, in countries which they control, any religion, for all religions have a world view which is contrary to Communism.

Third, Communism is anti-religious because Communism claims to be a Scientific World View. Religion, Communism claims, is a superstitious survival from an unscientific and anti-scientific worldview. As Stalin put it: “The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and it does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science.” (Leninism, Vol. 1, p. 386)

Communism claims to be scientific socialism. It maintains that Marxism is the scientific understanding of nature and society. Religion is considered to be unscientific because religion does not agree with Marxism. Therefore, religion is to be opposed.

Marxism, however, is not scientific. A1though a communist may do scientific work in some particular field of scientific research yet he cannot have the scientific frame of mind. For the scientific mind is open to truth regardless of the direction from which it may come. But the Communist must toe the Party line when so demanded, as is indicated by the Lysenko era in Russian biology.

The Communist must ignore or deny the evidence for the reality of the spiritual life. This is being unscientific.

Communism involves atheism. Atheism is not scientific. Atheism assumes that nonliving matter created life; that non-conscious matter created consciousness; that non- religious matter created man with his religious aspirations; that non-moral matter created man with his moral sensitivity and his sense of duty; that non-thinking matter created man with thinking ability. For all of this there is not only no scientific evidence, but all the evidence we have points to the fact that life comes from life, etc.

If atheism is true, matter in motion is the only reality, and thus, as Lenin maintained, thought is but matter in motion, which has been set in motion by internal and external physical pressures. If this is true, how can one claim that the thoughts, which matter forces us to think are rational. One could not have any grounds on which to claim that anything, including Communism, is rational. Materialism must deny that man can reach any conclusions on the basis of the evaluation of evidence and of logical thinking. For all that exists is but matter reacting -to matter.

Marxism has not been established by the scientific method; it has never been proven by experimentation or on the basis of the study of nature and of society.

No great scientific discovery has taken place as a result of the application of dialectical materialism.

According to dialectical materialism, the clash between opposites should produce progress. However it may produce a stalemate, mutual destruction or a backward step.

If Marxism is scientific, as they claim, it should have enabled them to make scientific predictions based on the Marxism analysis of society. Instead, however, things have not worked according to the way that Marxism says they must work.

According to Marxism, the first communist revolution should have taken place in an advanced capitalistic country, but instead it took place in Russia, which was not an advanced capitalistic and industrialized country.

According to Marxism, the worker in an advanced capitalistic country should be getting poorer and poorer; but in the most advanced capitalistic country in the world, America, the workingman has the highest standard of living in that this world has ever known. He has material prosperity, and what is better, he has freedom.

According to Marxism, a change of economic system results in a change of ideas and not the other way around. And yet, the ideas of Marx and Lenin resulted in a change of economic system in Russia so that today they have an extreme form of State Monopoly Capitalism under the control of a ruthless dictatorship.

According to Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat builds up a classless society, whereas in reality they have created a ruthless and new exploiting class–as Djilas has pointed out in his book The New Class.

According to Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat builds a worker’s paradise, but as a matter of fact it has built an iron curtain and a bamboo curtain to keep the workers from fleeing from the so-called worker’s State.

Marxism originally taught that when the dictatorship of the proletariat established socialism, the dictatorship withers away; but in reality it is the people who wither away under the dictatorship. In Hungary the proletariat tried to overthrow the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, and they were crushed by Russian imperialists.

Marxism, we conclude, is not a scientific analysis of society.

Fourth, Communism is anti-religious because it maintains that religion is the tool of the ruling class and the opiate of the masses. The rulers use religion to protect their interest (The Communist Manifesto), and to paralyze the will of the masses so that they will not overthrow the rulers (V. J. Jerome, “Let Us Grasp the Weapon of Culture.” Political Affairs, February, 1951, p. 207). The rulers promise the people a reward in the world to come, in order to dope the people so that they will be content to let the rulers have the material things of life while the people dream of the rewards in the world to come. Religion, said Marx, is an opiate whereby the masses deaden themselves to the misery of their existence. Khrushchev recently reiterated the Communist claim that religion is an opiate (see also V. I. Lenin, Religion, p. 12).

It is true that religion may be perverted and become a tool and an opiate. But such is not the essence of religion. Anything may be used by someone as a tool. Communists, in fact, try to use religion as a tool in order to conquer the world. Thus the leadership of Russian Orthodox Church in Russia constitutes one of the mouthpieces of Soviet home and foreign policy.

The philosophy of Communism is the opiate which the Russian Communist Imperialists use in order to give them power over the members of the Party. While promising the members of the Party that in a few years they will live in a Communist Society, the Communist leaders use these people for their own selfish purposes. In a few years there will be peace and prosperity, if you will let the Party direct your lives and determine how material goods are to be used now. This is the promise of the Party Leaders. But it is a promise, which they do not fulfill. On Oct. 2, 1920, Lenin promised the generation “which is now fifteen years old” that they would be “living in a Communist society” in “ten or twenty years time.” (V. I. Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953, p. 37). But what was happening in 1940, which was twenty years after? Some of these same Communists were in their grave, having been put there at Stalin’s orders. And Stalin was on the throne, ruling ruthlessly. Even Khrushchev admitted, in February, 1956, that Stalin had done some very cruel and ruthless things even against members of the Party.

Thus we see that by promising their followers a prosperous tomorrow they control them for the selfish purposes of the Party leaders today.

Fifth, Communism is anti-religious because it views religion as a symbol of man’s alienation from himself. Religion leads man to look outside of himself for help, and thus keeps him from bringing about his own emancipation. It is true that religion asks man to look beyond himself because there is a spiritual realm and God does exist. It is not degrading to man to bow before the Absolute, but it is degrading to bow before the relative and make ourselves the slaves of the arbitrary whims of man. And yet, this is exactly what the Communist Party leaders require of their followers. Their followers must reject their own will and submit unquestionably to the will of the Party. This was emphasized by Liu Shao-Chi in How To Be a Good Communist. Communism is thus guilty of that of which it accuses religion, it is a symbol of man’s alienation from himself and of his abject submission to the will of the Party leaders.

Sixth, Communism is anti-religious because religion teaches the reality of moral law while Communism maintains that there is no moral law and that a thing is right if it serves the interest of a class. And, according to Communism, the interest of their class is determined by the decisions of the Party leaders.

The Communist Manifesto maintains that morality is but a mask behind which lurks in ambush the interest of the ruling class. A moral system is but a means whereby a class justifies its interests, protects its interests, and extends its interests. And Lenin put it: “In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality? In the sense in which it is preached to the bourgeoisie, who derived ethics from God’s commandments. We, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords and the bourgeoisie spoke in the name of God in pursuit of their own interests as exploiters. Or, instead of deriving ethics from the commandments of God, they derived it from idealists or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.”

“We repudiate all morality taken apart from human society and classes. We say that it is a deception, a fraud, a befogging of the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists.”

“We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”

“That is why we say that for us there is no such thing as morality apart from human society; it is a fraud. Morality for us is subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”

“What does this class struggle mean? It means overthrowing the tzar, overthrowing~ the capitalists, abolishing the capitalist class.” (V. I. Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953, pp. 20, 21, 22.)

This means that Communism utterly repudiates moral law. It further means that the Communists believe that anything–absolutely anything–is right if it carried out the will of the Party and overthrows those who oppose them. This means that Communism in its view of morality is in opposition to religion.

Their concept view of morality means that their moral system or scale of values will not only be different from but in opposition to ours, since they maintain that their class interests are in opposition to ours and morality must further class interests. Thus one of their leading philosophers in America wrote that opposing classes have values which are not only different but which are also in opposition. (Howard Selsarn, Philosophy In Revolution. New York: International Publishers, 1957, p. 137).

To illustrate what this means with reference to morality we can take three moral laws.

First, thou shalt not steal. The Communists maintain that this is but the law of a ruling, property-holding class, which enables them to protect their property. Of course, if theft be wrong, the institution of private property cannot be wrong. The Communists maintain that their interests are opposed to ours, therefore it is right to steal if it will help the Party. This does not mean that he will be an ordinary thief stealing the ten-cent store articles but that stealing is right if it helps the Party. The Communist revolution in Russia was financed in part by bank robberies (Bertram D. Wolfe, Three Who made a Revolution).

Second, thou shalt not commit adultery. The Communist maintains that this is based on the idea that the wife is the private property of the man. Thus this law is a means of protecting his private property. The Communists maintain that it is right to commit adultery if it will advance the interests of the Party. Thus Elizabeth Bentley, in her book Out of Bondage, tells of the use of women by Communists to trap men in order that they might blackmail them or so demoralize them that they can use them for Party purposes.

Third, honor thy father and thy mother. Communists maintain that this is based on the idea that the child is the private property of the parents and therefore should obey and honor them. The Communist Manifesto indicates that the family is based on the idea of private ownership and that when Communism finally arrives the family will be abolished. They believe that children should dishonor their parents if so commanded by the Party. Thus children in Communist countries are taught to tell the authorities if their parents have and express any ideas contrary to Communism or for religion. In some countries, such as Red China, this has led to the death of the parents, and the child has been held up in the classroom as a hero. In Red China today in some of the “People’s Communes” they are trying to destroy the family.

This shows what the Communists mean when they say that morality is but a means of furthering class interests and that since they represent a different and opposing class in society, according to them, their moral system is different from and in opposition to ours.

Seventh, Communism is against any religion, which teaches love and good will toward people of difference classes in society. Communism teaches that one must be ruthless and that he must hate and destroy all class enemies. And anyone is a class enemy if he is so resignated by the Party leadership. “Democratic and socialistic culture in Czechoslovakia was always imbued with the ideas of true humanism–that of the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. This is seen in the splendid thought of the Czechoslovak poet, Jeri Wolker, whose works sincerely and seriously reflect the problem of love for man. He says: ‘Let us assume that class hatred could disappear in a class society. Nothing could be more harmful to the working class than that. They would be degraded to a position of oxen under an eternal yoke, for it is only hate that helps to maintain the worker’s human dignity–class hate which one day will abolish all classes.”‘ (Shtoll, Ladislav: “The Class Struggle and Humanism,” World Marxist Review, Nov. 1958, p. 28)

Communism is against any religion, which teaches progress can come through good will, since Communism believes that revolution is inevitable and the way to true progress. The Communist Manifesto appeal to workers of the world to unite and to revolt against their governments is quoted with approval in a recent Communist publication. “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, Unite! ” (As quoted from the Manifesto in C. Obichkin, On The “Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955, p. 38). V. Koxlov declared that it is necessary to overthrow by revolution all capitalistic states (Bourgeois Nations and Socialists Nations. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954, p. 26). Mao Tse-tung said that revolution is necessary and inevitable, and that the period of peaceful coexistence is but the period before the bomb is ignited (On Contradiction. New York: International Publishers, 1953, p. 50). The period of peaceful coexistence is not a period wherein they endeavor to reach an understanding through good will with their class enemies. Instead they endeavor to do at least four things, which will hasten the coming of the revolution: (a) Consolidate their gains. (b) Divide their enemies. (c) Intensify subversion. (d) Conduct psychological warfare to lull their enemies to sleep with false hopes or to paralyze them with false fears.

Thus we see that in its emphasis on deceit, class hatred and violence Communism is opposed to any religion, which teaches integrity, good will and mercy.

It is in the light of these basic antagonisms between communism and religion that we can understand the statement of Earl Browder, a former chairman of the Communist Party of America. He said: -” . . . We Communists do not distinguish between good and^-bad religions, because we think they are all bad for the masses.” (What Is Communism? p.149)

When we understand this, we understand that there can be no peaceful coexistence between any vital religion and Communism. He who thinks that there can be does not understand either religion or Communism.

Truth Magazine, VI:2 pp. 4-9
November 1961

Prayer That Is Proper and Profitable

By Leslie Diestelkamp

In a recent article in this magazine I discussed the preciousness of prayer, emphasizing the great privilege, which we so often neglect and the amazing opportunity which s afforded every Christian to make his requests known to God. In this article I want to stress some things that often make prayer unprofitable because of improper attitudes, requests and conditions.

 

Attitudes

 

Some people may always have a wrong attitude regarding prayer, and almost all of us often have such. An improper attitude is manifested when we expect God to do everything and excuse ourselves from real participation in that which we desire should be brought to fruition. For instance, some will pray for health, but will not consult a doctor when their body is filled with pain, which is the natural warning of trouble. Others will ask for knowledge but will not devote themselves in study to learn. Wisdom is often requested by those who afterward insist upon following a hunch instead of diligently

engaging in serious meditation to try to help discern the proper way. Indeed our prayers should always be accompanied by the very action in us that would be intended to accomplish the thing requested, expecting that God will do what we cannot do, but that we must do what we can also.

An opposite extreme is the demanding attitude which does not include the sentiment, much less the expression, “Thy will be done.” Oh if we could learn to pray fervently as Jesus did (Lk. 22:42-44) for the sincere desires of our hearts and yet call upon the Father to grant what is right7 and not just what we ask. In such way we would demonstrate our recognition of the majesty of God and we would express our willingness to allow our own mind to be over-ruled from that divine source.

 

Request

 

Though they are absolutely sincere and have the very finest attitude of humility and subjectiveness, many people pray for that which is impractical and sometimes impossible. For instance, it is a very common thing for us to hear someone plead, “Lord we pray that what we have done here is pleasing to thee.” But sober reflection would cause us to know that if we had said or done anything wrong, all the prayers in the world would not make it right. Prayer will not change a lie into a truth, nor will it change other evils into right. Of course it would be correct for us to pray that if we have done wrong we may be able to understand that it was wrong so that we can repent and be forgiven. Let us always be careful to recognize that God’s law cannot be altered to suit our desires or needs, nor can it be changed to meet the conditions that were caused by our carelessness.

Some people address their prayers to Christ, but instead, we must pray to the Father through Christ. Sometimes in prayers at the Lord’s Table we hear brethren confuse the Father and the Son. Often someone says, “We thank thee for this bread which represents thy body…” (But of course the body referred to was not that of the Father, but of his Son).

 

Conditions

 

Our prayers must be offered in the name of Jesus Christ. But prayer that is truly in Christ’s name is not always that prayer in which the name of Jesus is only mentioned, but rather it is the prayer in which the word of Christ is obeyed. That which is in the name of Christ must be by his authority.

To be fruitful, prayer must be, not only in the name of Jesus, but it must be accompanied by holiness in the life of the one who prays (1 Tim. 2:8 ) . If the deeds of our bodies, the words of our mouths and even the intents of our hearts are not in harmony with the petitions we offer to God, then there is no promise that he will hear. God said, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14). Indeed,

“Tis not enough to bend the knee
And words of prayer say,
The heart must with the lips agree
Or else we do not pray.”

Undoubtedly God has multitudes of blessings that he would gladly pour out upon his people today for our happiness and to enable us to be a more fruitful people in his service. What a pity it is that those who have the absolute right to call him “Father” do not utilize the great opportunity to sincerely seek for those things, which he is eager to bestow. By ritual and by rite public prayers are “said” while God listens intently for more prayers that should come from sincere hearts, expressed with fervency and in a purely scriptural way.

“Be sober and watch unto prayer” (I Pet. 4:7). Be “patient in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer” (Rom. 12:12). Jesus said, “Men ought always to pray and not to faint.”

Truth Magazine, VI:2, pp. 9-10
November 1961

The Life That Now Is

By C. R. Holland

In the beginning God made man a dual being. This being is called the inward man and the outward man (2 Cor. 4:16). The body is not the inward (spiritual) man, for that man can exist apart from the body (outward man) (2 Cor. 12:2-3). The -body is an essential part of the dual man. Therefore the redeemed spiritual man will have a redeemed spiritual body. In the resurrection, our bodies (that is, the bodies of obedient believers) will be resurrected glorified bodies.

“As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (I Cor. 15:49). “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). The adoption and redemption here mentioned is conditional. The salvation of the body is what is hoped for in verse 24. The body of the believer will be resurrected to a spiritual life. “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies in His Spirit that dwells in you” (Rom. 8: 11). The resurrection of the body is not conditional, but the adopted and redeemed body is conditional. If the Spirit of Christ (Holy Spirit) is dwelling in us at the time we depart from this body, we have full assurance of a quickened and redeemed body resurrected to life (John 5:29; Rom. 8:23).

Death is the separation of the soul (the spiritual part of man) from the body (the fleshly part). Spiritual death is the separation of man from God. Adam died on the day he disobeyed God (Gen. 2:17). Through Adam’s sin, all mankind lost the right to put forth his hand and take of the tree of life to live forever. Therefore1 Adam lost both spiritual and physical life, the body ceasing to function and turning to dust. However, all that believe and obey Christ gain back what they lost in Adam.

Death is opposite of life, but it never de-notes non-existence. As spiritual life is conscious existence in relationship with God, so spiritual death is conscious existence in separation from God. Thus, when the spirit (or inner man) comes into relationship with God that is life from the dead; the spirit is redeemed, resurrected to life. It then passes from death unto life (John 5:24). The body also is redeemed and resurrected to life (John 5:29; Rom. 8:23). “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (I Cor. 15:44). What is said here applies only to Christians. Paul is writing to brethren (15: 1). John 5: 28-29 applies both to those resurrected to life and to those resurrected to damnation.

The life that Adam lost was eternal (Gen. 3:22). The life we gain back in Christ is eternal. We come into possession of eternal life of the spirit when we are raised to walk a new life, if we live, as God would have us to; this life will never end, hence eternal. Therefore, to contend that we are still to hope for eternal life that applies to the inward man, saying we do not have (possess) it, is a serious charge against God’s word. We say the Bible is God’s word, and that it means what it says; and I, for one, believe that is true. Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath eternal life and cometh not unto judgment’ but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:25 R.V.)When does one pass out of death into life? We are buried and raised to walk this new life (Rom. 6:4). I cannot understand how a good gospel preacher can, in a debate, be pressured into such a position as to plainly deny John 5:24 and I John 5:10-13, and the only way he tries to explain these passages is by trying to array other passages against them. To me, they either mean what they say, or we have no way of knowing what they mean. I have fourteen different translations and they all use the terms, “hath,” “has,” or possess eternal life. In the Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words by W. E. Vine, page 336, it is explained thusly: “Eternal life is the present actual possession of the believer because of his relationship with Christ, John 5:24, I John 3:14, and that it will one day extend its domain to the sphere of the body is assured by the resurrection of Christ.”

A gospel preacher, one who teaches we do not possess eternal life now, suggested that I acquire a “Translation in the Language of the People” by Charles B. Williams. “This is a good translation,” said he, and I agree with him. However, how he can say that this is a “good translation” and not agree with what it teaches is a little hard for me to understand. Listen to this “good translation” in regard to eternal life: “Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his own heart. Whoever does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he hath not believed the testimony that God hath borne to His Son. And this testimony is that God has given us eternal life, and this life is given through union with His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son does not have life. I have written this to you who believe in the Son of God, so that you may know that you already have eternal life” (I John S: 10-13). Again, the same translation on John 5:24–“I most solemnly say to you, whoever listens to me and believes Him who has sent me possesses eternal life.” Now, do these words of Jesus and John sound like eternal life is only in promise (yet future) as it applies to the spiritual man? To deny having the life is to deny union with the Son. “Whoever does not have the Son does not have life” (latter part of v. 13).

What kind of life were we given when we were born (generated)? And what kind of life did we lose when we degenerated? Since God is the Father of our spirits, we are his offspring (Heb. 12:9; Acts 17:29). In the use of the word “Father,” he conveys the idea of origin. But like produces like. Adam begot a son in his own likeness (Gen. 5:3). “That which is born of flesh,” says Christ “is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). When a child is born into this world, it is born of flesh (generated of flesh) and born of Spirit (generated of Spirit). If this child dies (fleshly) before it degenerates (death of the Spirit), that life from the time it was born (generated) never ends, hence it is eternal life. But, if one reaches the age of accountability, the condition of spiritual life changes. Sin breaks the connections between the generator (God) and the- one who has been generated. Degeneration is the result (Isa. 59:2). This one is spiritually dead, and the death will last throughout eternity if not regenerated (born again). But, a way has been provided to make connection with the Generator of life again. This time it is not by flesh and Spirit, but water and Spirit (John 3:5).

One can have life and at the same time be dead spiritually (I Tim. 5:6). All that go down into Hades, the region of departed spirits of the lost, have this same sort of life. Spiritual life is far more than just existing. Godliness makes the difference in the two lives, it must be a life of complete devotion to God, for the life He gives He maintains (John 6:35, 63). Therefore, godliness involves a promise to uphold, support, and supply “the life that now is.” “Train yourself for godliness, because while physical training is to some benefit, godliness is beneficial all around, it holds promise for this present and for the future life” (I Tim. 4-8–Berkley Version). In this verse, we have two separate and distinct lives: one, the life of the Spirit which “now is” (Rom. 6:4). The other, the life of the body “which is to come” (John 5:24; Rom. 8:23; I Cor. 15:44). But if Christ lives in you, although your bodies must die because of sin, your spirits are now enjoying life because of right standing with God (Rom. 8:9–Charles B. Williams transation). “That which is born of flesh is flesh.” Therefore, the fleshly man is like his father. He is no part of the spiritual man, for the Father of our spirit is a different father. The spiritual man has no power to choose between good and bad, until he is accountable; then is able to evaluate things that pertain to life and godliness. He must then make his choice: God or the flesh, to walk after the Spirit or after the flesh. One is death; the other is life. “For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6).

Some insist that John Calvin was correct when he said of Rom. 8: 11–“The quickening of the mortal body here cannot refer to the resurrection of the saints, but must mean a giving of life to the mortal bodies while here upon the earth, through the Spirit.” Reason would not possibly admit the explanation that this quickening occurs now, for these bodies are not yet dead, but are only subject to death. Therefore, quickening is a future experience. Hence, the resurrection of these mortal bodies, and the quickening of them by the Spirit, is that which is expressed in this text. When God saves and redeems men spiritually in this world from his past sins, he is then resurrected to spiritual life (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). This is a spiritual resurrection of the spirit to life. The body is physical and only subject to physical death. At the resurrection of the body, it will be given life, born of the Spirit designed from heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-2). “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you.” Notice Christ’s body was made alive after physical death. The Holy Spirit dwelling in the body is a Divine pledge of the redemption of our bodies at the resurrection (Rom. 8-23; Eph. 1:14; Phil. 3:21).

Truth Magazine VI 2, pp. 20-22
November 1961

A Christian and Christmas

By Clinton D. Hamilton

This season of the year to many is a joyous occasion that brings the whole family together in a festive spirit. To others this is a prosperous business season with sales on the boom. Commercialism is evident on every hand. Irreverence for things divine and holy can also be observed in the nature of the parties held, the activities engaged in and the spirit which people have their so-called “fun.” Still another group devoutly worship and have reverence for a day that they consider holy for they believe Christ was born on December 25. This great divergence of views is not uncommon in our complex and often materialistic society.

There is still another point of view that should be studied. What does the New Testament teach- about Christmas? Since the word Christmas does not occur in the Bible, it is rather evident that it has its origin somewhere else. The idea of the mass of Christ, from which the word Christmas comes, is not in the Bible. In fact, the New Testament knows nothing about masses of any description or kind.

Different dates have been set through the years for the observance of Christmas: January 6, March 25, and December 25. The last date has been observed for some years, but previous to the fifth century A. D., there was no general observance of Christmas at all. Since the observance of such a day has its origin years after the completion of the New Testament, one is forced to conclude that it is not a day designated by the Lord, but is one of human origin. To a Christian this means that it cannot be observed by the authority of Christ.

Details of the birth of Christ are given in the New Testament together with a picture of the joy and happiness attending the event of deity being clothed with flesh. One cannot tell from the scriptures the exact day of His birth. Emphasis in the New Testament is placed on His sacrifice for men, His resurrection and ascension to heaven to mediate for men. Accordingly, Christians, under direction and guidance of the apostles, met on the first day of the week to observe the memorial supper He left (Acts 20:7; 2:42; I Cor. 11:20-33). This supper showed forth His death. We are likewise to observe the memorial showing forth His death and anticipating His second coming.

Divine authority for the observance of any day other than the first day of the week is lacking. When one calls on another to celebrate Christmas as a holy day set apart by the Lord, he is calling on men to observe a day not commanded by the Lord. Those who observe such a day do so without divine authority. Every Christian rejoices in the birth of Christ; it was essential to His earthly ministry and His death. It is not irreverence when we refuse Christmas as a holy day, nor is it a refusal to rejoice in His birth. We are seeking to do what He instructed. This is the reason Christians meet each first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper. We are commemorating His great triumph over the devil and His great sacrifice for the sins of men. Christians want no man to judge them in respect of holy and feast days observed by human authority alone (Col. 2:16).

Any time of the year is appropriate to emphasize the spirit of giving so wonderfully illustrated in the life and death of Christ. Christians are happy to commend this spirit to men any time of the year. The exchange of gifts, the reunion of families, the stressing of the holy and noble purpose of life are certainly right within themselves and for this reason Christians engage in them. But it should be clearly understood that this is done as no observance of a holy day or as in honor of the actual birthday of Christ.

Let no Christian be guilty of doing the very thing the apostles warned the early Christians against: the observance of days and years without divine authority.

Truth Magazine VI: 3, p. 1
December 1961