Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

A television drama features a man and woman who have an almost magnetic attraction for each other. Each person experiences de javu, as only television drama can depict. Later the couple learns, through some mystic that each is the reincarnation of a spirit that existed years ago. They are so attracted to each other because they were lovers in their previous cycle of life. Romantics love the story, although it is filled with pagan concepts of life.

A few years ago, an autobiographical TV mini-series by Shirley Maclaine entitled “Out on a Limb,” taught the concept of reincarnation. In some respects she became the leading spokesperson for the concept of reincarnation. In response, F. LaGard Smith wrote a book entitled Out on a Broken Limb that identified the religious errors of reincarnation. As eastern religions invade the United States, it is important for us to understand what the doctrine of reincarnation is and how it contradicts the revealed word of God in the Bible.

What Is “Reincarnation”?

Reincarnation is defined as “the supposed translation of the soul after death into another substance or body than that which it occupied before” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature X:524). Sometimes reincarnation is referred to as the transmigration of souls.

McClintock and Strong continue, “So long, therefore, as the soul has not attained the condition of purity, it must be born again after the dissolution of the body to which it was allied: and the degree of its impurity at one of these various deaths determines the existence which it will assume in a subsequent life” (Ibid. 525).

John B. Noss wrote about reincarnation as follows: “In its Indo-Aryan form it runs like this: the soul of a man who dies does not, except in the single case of one who at death returns into indistinguishable oneness with Brahman, pass into a permanent state of being in heaven or hell or elsewhere; the soul, rather, is reborn into another existence that will terminate in due time and necessitate yet another birth. Rebirth follows rebirth, with the one exception named, in an endless chain. The successive births are not likely to be on the same plane of being. Rebirth may occur for a finite period of time in any of the series of heavens or hells, or upon earth in any of the forms of life, vegetable, animal, or human. It may thus be either higher or lower than the present or any past existence. A man of low social status now may be reborn as a rajah or a Brahmin, or which is more likely, as an out-caste, or even as an animal, a beetle, worm, vegetable, or soul in hell” (Man’s Religions 106-107).

Everett L. Cattel made these comments about reincarnation:

Two other essential concepts are the doctrines of karma (works) and transmigration. The laws of moral action are immutable. Wrong actions inevitably produce punishment, and good actions their reward. This is inescapable in an almost fatalistic sense, and to talk of forgiveness or the canceling of sin is completely unrealistic and does injustice to the noble moral law of cause and effect essential in the universe. Whatever of ill one bears in this life is the product of wrong action in a previous existence, and life’s blessings come from the good that was done. Our works set off reactions as cause and effect and they must work them-selves out to the bitter end. Salvation consists, not of having this canceled or interfered with, but through doing enough good gradually to evolve toward the highest, where one may then experience the enlightenment that we are essentially God. In Him there are no distinctions, even of good and evil, and thus one escapes from the ceaseless round of rebirths (“Hinduism,” Religions in a Changing World, Howard F. Vos, editor, 200).

Hence, reincarnation is not an isolated little idea that may be innocently accepted. Reincarnation is one doctrine in a non-Christian, pagan philosophy of life (Hinduism). It is part of a non-Christian religion that is full of idolatry and many false beliefs. It is tied to its own concept of works (karma) and its own concept of salvation (nirvana).

The Law of Karma

F. LaGard Smith wrote about the law of karma that governs reincarnation, “The doctrine of karma teaches that each soul is working its way to perfection by overcoming imperfections in previous lives. Based upon the clearly accurate observation that no one in this present life is perfect, it is correctly assumed that a person cannot, on his own, reach perfection in a single lifetime. The fallacious conclusion is then drawn that it must take many lifetimes in order for each soul to achieve that goal” (Out on a Broken Limb 71).

Understanding karma is essential to a proper under-standing of reincarnation. Karma teaches these two things: (a) The soul can evolve upward toward perfection until it finally reaches Nirvana (the merging of the soul with the universal soul or universe). (b) This soul can evolve downward. As the soul travels its cycle of re-birth, it evolves upward or downward based on whether one did good or evil in his lifetime. The logical consequences of accepting karma and reincarnation are important.

Souls are not confined to human bodies. Souls inhabit every life form. A mouse has a soul of someone who has not progressed very highly on the way to nirvana, or who because of some great wickedness suffered a regression. That mouse you killed with D-con may have been your grandfather or that spider you kill may be your mother-in-law reincarnated. You can understand why scrupulous Hindu ascetics sweep the path in front of them as they walk lest they step on some animal and kill it.

The Law of Karma and the Indian Caste System The Hindu society in which reincarnation has thrived is a strict caste society. It is defined and defended by the law of karma and the reincarnation of souls. During the period around 500 B.C., the caste system was gradually developed. Over the years it evolved into these following five ranks: (a) Brahmins, (b) Kshatriyas, (c) Vaisyas; (d) Shudras. The last group (e) is the “out-castes,” the untouchables. These were the dregs of society, unclean and without any hope of ever rising on the social scale. Over the centuries, these five groups have fissured into many sub-castes, each forbidding intermarriage with the other. Note how the caste system is tied to the religious doctrine of karma, according to Noss:

When the caste system was linked up with the Law of Karma, the inequalities of life had at once a simple and comprehensive explanation. The existence of caste in the social structures immediately acquired a kind of moral justification. If a man was born a Shudra, it was because he had sinned in previous existence and deserved no better lot. A Brahmin, on the other hand, had every right to exalt his position and prerogatives; by good deeds in previous existences he had merited his present high station. . . . The social consequences of the moral justification of caste was apparent in another direction. Any attempt to level up the inequalities of society and lay a broader basis for social justice and reward now became either impious or morally wrong-headed. To question the operations of the Law of Karma, as fixing the just retribution for deeds in former lives, became the rankest of heresies (Noss 108).

You can understand why one reaches the conclusion that the law of karma and reincarnation are not harmless little doctrines for the rich and idle to play with. Here are some of the consequences of the law of karma.

1. The law of karma leads to fatalism. A person must accept his human condition because it is the repayment of how his soul lived in a previous existence. If he is in a lower caste in India, he should accept it rather than trying to improve his station in life. In contrast, the Scriptures teach human initiative: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might” (Eccl. 9:10).

2. The law of karma teaches a faulty responsibility for one’s actions. Every wrong deed will be accounted for, but not before the Judge of all the earth (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). Rather, it will be accounted for in the next cycle of the soul’s existence. A person yet to be born will reap what you sow.

3. The law of karma is a form of legalism. “Salvation” (defined as reaching nirvana) is attained through works. There is no concept of forgiveness. In contrast, Paul wrote, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). “Salvation” through works is the concept behind reincarnation and the law of karma.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 2
January 5, 1995

 

By J. Wiley Adams

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons” (Jas. 2:1).

“For there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

“Then Peter opened his mouth and said, of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

God does not respect the rich over the poor. He does not value the Jew more than the Gentile. He does not regard the white man over the black man. Earthly prestige carries no weight at all in God’s evaluation of a person who is his child.

In view of this, why do we who call ourselves Christians sometimes set different standards for some in the church than for others? Why do some cater to the educated and well-to-do to the neglect of the uneducated and not so well-to-do. It is self-evident that this often takes place in some places. There are the haves and the have-nots. There are those among us who are still filled with racial bias. Brethren, these things ought not to be.

Preachers and their families are often the victims of a double standard. I mean by this that the brethren sometimes require more of the preacher and his family than of others in the congregation. If I understand it right there is one standard for all.

My children have always been taught that we do things because they are right and not because they are the preacher’s children. Being the preacher’s offspring does not mean there is a special manual for them to follow than for the others in the church.

Somebody once asked a preacher years ago why his children were so ornery. He replied that it could be that they played too much with the brethren’s children. Touche.

Why it is that some brethren can run around in scanty apparel but if the preacher and his family did this they would be subject to rebuke by the elders or others? Some brethren smoke but if the preacher or his wife smoked they might fire him. The brethren are often far less demanding of the elders than the preacher and his situation. Why? There is one standard for all. If it is right for one it is right for all. If it is wrong for one it is wrong for all. Elders themselves sometimes deal with the congregation at large with much tolerance but are more rigid on the preacher.

I have known of preacher’s children who became bitter because they were viewed as some kind of oddity by the other members. Some have seen their parents become victims of the double standard and have become furious and rebellious about religion. Indeed I have known of those who left the faith because of the resentment that had built up in them over the years. Is it any wonder that some young men with great ability do not go into preaching? They have seen and heard too much about the double standard.

Let me get on a `real’ touchy subject for a moment. Where a wife has died, after a reasonable period, some preachers found in that situation seek to remarry. Sometimes there are good brethren who have no problem with this provided both have a scriptural right to marry another. In other cases it is like dropping a bombshell.

Sometimes brethren, even elders, have a problem with this. Talk about living in a fish bowl! That couple really will be. The green-eyed monster of jealousy arouses some and the big mouths start talking. Meddling and busy-bodying become the dominant force with some who find this situation a juicy conversation piece. Elders sometimes lose their objectivity in such matters. The couple who is seeking a new happiness with each other instead are made to feel like outcasts. Excuse me but do the Scriptures teach us to rejoice with those who rejoice (Rom. 12:15)? Some who will weep with you find it difficult to rejoice with you. Why is this so?

I have stuck my neck out to write this article. Please let me hear from the readers on this. Correct me if I am wrong. Endorse me if I am right. I look for your response.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 3-4
January 5, 1995

By Randy Blackaby

Good people aren’t really that good unless they know how to practice healthy hate. That may seem a bizarre statement, especially from a Christian, but it is true. And, I’ll argue, the Bible sup-ports this position.

Let me explain.

Good people can’t love the way the Bible teaches without hating the way the Bible teaches. That’s paradoxical but true.

Now we’re not talking about malicious and unjustifiable feelings of animosity toward others. Rather, we’re talking about a deep, gutteral feeling of aversion toward what is evil or wrong.

I’m speaking of the sense of repugnance and disdain that wells up inside us when we hear of someone raping, molesting, murdering or maiming another person. This hatred is righteous and critically needed in our society.

The Bible says God hates. He hates idolatry (Jer. 44:2-5). In fact, Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that God hates. Those include prideful arrogance, liars, murderers, hearts that devise wickedness, people who love to do evil, false witnesses and those who sow discord.

So, if God hates, we ought to hate. We ought to hate every false way (Psalm 119:104). The old ’60s slogan that each person ought to “do his own thing” and leave the other guy alone is wrong and unloving.

The church in Ephesus was commended for hating (Rev. 2:6). Why? Because those persons and congregations of persons who are not opposed to wrong are supporting wrong.

As the result of perverted religious teaching that leads people to think love and hate can’t exist side by side, even good people have come to believe that it is unloving to condemn homosexuality, abortion, lying politicians, lazy people who won’t work, adulterers, filthy TV, pornographic movies and false religious teachers.

So, there is an awesome silence in America. As a result, the liberal minority in this nation holds sway. Our children are being inculcated with their anti-religious dogmas and politics. Good people stay quiet. Evil men seek to censor the few good ones who speak up.

It’s time we stir up our righteous hatred of all this evil. It’s time to let our righteous indignation be seen and heard. Our past silence has been an acquiescence to evil.

Now, one last point, lest all this be misunderstood or misapplied. Hatred must be focused on evil and not on people. We must hate evil behavior but love the people practicing it enough to stop them.

God hated sin enough to sacrifice his Son to eradicate it and forgive people who practiced it. He loved sinners enough to save us by the same sacrifice.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 1
January 5, 1995

By John T. Lewis  Reprinted from the Gospel Guardian

Anything that sounds like religious controversy in pulpits or papers gives a certain class of men spiritual meningitis. But the first martyr in the church was its first debater. The Bible was taken from the people by compromise but can never be restored by that method.

The question that forms the heading for this article is based on the stereotyped phrase heard by every gospel preacher in every “neck of the woods.” Its twin sister is “preach the gospel in love,” which is used to mean, preach nothing antagonistic to anybody. Of course, that kind of preaching will never save any one, not even the one that does the preaching. “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). By deceptive phrases the gospel too often suffers in the house of its friends.

The First Challenge

God created man an intelligent being, and recognized his intelligence by speaking to him and giving him a law, in the keeping of which the welfare of man was involved.

But no sooner had God spoken than his Satanic majesty appeared on the scene and challenged God’s word through the best medium at his command in that early age  the Serpent. God has spoken to man; the devil has challenged his word. This is the issue  the battleground. Around this fact the war has raged for six thousand years, with the defenders of God’s word on one side and the challengers on the other side. Therefore, ever since the creation of man these two great powers have been engaged in a life and death struggle for the mastery of man’s soul. It is well, therefore, to study their methods of approach. God approaches man only through his understanding, or reasoning faculties. The devil uses different methods of approach; his is through the emotional, and baser appeals to the lusts, passions, and weaknesses of man. The devil, therefore, has the advantage in the struggle in that he offers man anything he wants, whereas God offers only what is for man’s eternal good.

The Spirit of Compromise

The most deadly weapon the devil has ever used in this warfare has been the spirit of compromise, his last resort when all other methods have failed. There is a species of fish in the ocean which emits an inky substance that colors the water and conceals the movements of this fish when-ever an enemy approaches. Just so the enemies of the truth have saturated the church with the spirit of compromise which conceals their purposes from thousands of good conscientious people whose emotional nature predominates their reasoning faculties. Therefore, anything which smacks of religious controversy either in the pulpit or the papers gives that class of men spiritual meningitis, which so impairs their mental equilibrium on spiritual questions that they will blatantly declare and contend that the defenders of the truth are the “troublers in Israel.”

The First Debater

Just as the devil challenged God’s word as soon as he had spoken, so he assaulted the church as soon as it was established. The first efforts of the devil’s cohorts in religious discussion are recorded in Acts 6:8-10. “And Stephen full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people. But there arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he speak.” Their defeat was so crushing and humiliating in this controversy that the devil never has believed in debating since. His emissaries were so enraged over their defeat that they suborned, or hired, witnesses to swear away Stephen’s life. So Stephen, the first debater in the church became the first martyr in the church.

But because this is a fact shall we selfishly agree with the devil that religious controversy is wrong, and that Stephen was the “trouble in Israel?” Around the first altar was committed the first murder, but does this prove that religion is wrong?

The death of Stephen was the signal for the most determined and merciless persecution against the church that was ever waged against any institution on earth; but the persecution “fell out rather to the progress of the gospel.” The church was never hindered in its spiritual growth and development as long as the devil assumed the role of a lion and fought in the open. But it was an evil day for the church when the devil fled from the field of persecution and open controversy, and like a chameleon transformed himself into an angel of light, and fashioned his ministers into ministers of righteousness, draped in robes of humility and piety, and sent them down the corridors of time scattering his compromising propaganda. By this method he convinced the church that departure from God’s word was not an issue until he got the situation completely in hand. He then substituted for the elders of the church the Roman hierarchy, and for the church itself he substituted Roman Catholicism, which hung as a pall over a duped and deluded people for a thousand years.

It took the blood of martyrs to give the word of God back to the people. During this period of restoring the Bible to the people, we have the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day, in which “more than five thousand Protestants were murdered in cold blood, in the city of Paris alone, and about thirty thousand in all were killed. The news was received at Rome with joy, and a medal was struck having a picture of the pope on one side and on the other a rude representation of the massacre.” We also have the burning of Mrs. Elizabeth Gaunt, Anne Askew, John Bradley, James Bantam, and others at Smithfield. The bones of John Wickliffe, the morning star of the restoration, were dug up by orders of Pope Martin V, after they had rested in the dust of the dead for more than forty years, and scattered to the four winds of the earth. Thus, through blood, fire, and desecration of the dead, the Bible was restored to the people.

In this warfare I can only speak for “me and my house.” So long as God blesses me with health, strength, and vigor of mind, I shall make an issue of, and fight everything that detracts from the glory of the church, or challenges the present kingship of the Messiah. It makes no difference whether I am in the city or in the woods where the owls hoot at noon, the devil shall not gum up my weapon of warfare with his compromising glue.  Adapted from Gospel Guardian, February, 1936.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 9-10
January 5, 1995