Truth Magazine

By Luther W. Martin

Reincarnation: “A rebirth of the soul in successive bodies; specifically, in Vedic religions, the becoming of an avatar again; one of the series in the transmigration of souls.”

Transmigration: “The act of transmigrating; especially, the assumed passing of the soul from one body, after death, to another; metempsychosis.”

Avatar: “In Hindu mythology, an incarnation; manifestation.”

Veda (noun), Vedic (adjective): “Literally, knowledge; the oldest sacred literature of the Hindus, especially one of the four holy books of the Hindus of which the Rig-Veda is the most important.”

Vedanta: “The Hindu orthodox school of philosophy based on the Vedic literature and teaching that pantheism must eventually result in skepticism.”

Metempsychosis: “Transmigration of souls from body to body.”

(1) The Oriental Religion that considers that the soul of the deceased person may return to earth again, and inhabit the body of a lower animal, such as the “sacred cows” of India. It is because these bovines may be “Uncle Ed” reincarnated, that they are not killed for food.

Upanishad: “Literally, a philosophical treatise; one of the treaties forming the third division of the Vedas, dealing with the nature of man and the universe.” (Each of the above definitions come from the Britannica World Language Dictionary).

There are at least two basically different false doctrines involved with the subject of reincarnation.

All of which reminds me of a lady in a Missouri town, whose husband had passed away. But, since, this lady believed in the “transmigration” of her former husband’s soul into the body of an animal, she always kept the overhead garage door (attached to the residence) raised some six inches from the garage floor, in case her husband came back in the form of a dog (canine), and needed shelter. I don’t know why she expected him to return as a dog, but that was her expectation.

(2) The other Oriental belief consists of the idea that the soul’s existence is manifested in a series of cycles or episodes, wherein my soul (let us suppose) once inhabited some other body or bodies in previous centuries; and, I very well may expect that my soul will continue these cycles in yet different bodies in the future. Thus, according to this (and I emphasize false) doctrine, the soul participates in any number of deaths or departures, as it blends with first one body and then another.

Back in the 1950s a popular novel was published, entitled The Search For Bridey Murphy, authored by Morey Bernstein. The fiction had to do with a Pueblo, Colorado housewife, who had supposedly lived previously in Ireland, in the early 1800s. She reportedly had knowledge of both the people and geography of Ireland, that she would not have possessed if she had not indeed, been “Bridey Murphy” and actually lived in that time and place, in Ireland.

However, there are numerous ways in which she could have acquired such knowledge and information, and thus in no way did this fictional work prove reincarnation!

A New Testament Passage That Stops Reincarnation Abruptly

“And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment”(Heb, 9:27). Mankind is limited to the separation of soul and body, once! Then, next in sequence is the judgment!

An Example of False Evidence For Reincarnation

One believer in reincarnation, refers us to Joshua 24:3 “and I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac” (KJV). In this version, the word “flood” is used, and the reincarnationist jumps on it, and proclaims: “See, Abraham lived before the flood, and then lived again, after the flood!

However, if some other translation is consulted, one will learn that in both the 2nd and 3rd verses, of this passage, the Euphrates River is under consideration. That God led Abraham from his former home, Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 15:7; Neh. 9:7), on the eastern side of the Euphrates, westward to the land of Canaan. Seasonally, the Euphrates rose to “flood-stage” and the King James Translators used the term “flood” not in reference to the Great Flood, but in reference to the annual Euphrates flooding. Thus, a correct understanding of the passage, totally removes any thought of Abraham’s having lived once before the Great Flood, and then a second time after the flood.

According to Herodotus, “The Egyptians were the first to assert the immortality of the soul, and that it passes on the death of the body into another animal; and when it has gone the round of all forms of life on land, in water, and in air, then it once more enters a human body born for it; and this cycle of the soul takes place in three thousand years” (ii. 123).

There were numerous and varied theories on this subject among the ancient peoples. It is thought that Egypt’s ability and skill in preserving the bodies of their death, was accomplished in order to retain the body of the deceased for the re-entry of the soul.

Bruhmanism and Buddhism In India

The doctrine of transmigration is not found in the oldest books of India, but in both the Brahman and Buddhist religions, it has become a basic ingredient.

Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins

The Rabbins held to two ideas of transmigration: (1) That the soul was restricted to a life-tenancy in a single body. (2) That souls may temporarily inhabit or “possess” a body, without going through the processes of birth and death.

During the time of miracles, when Christ was upon the earth, both the servants of God and the agents of Satan were empowered to accomplish supernatural actions, such as Christ healing the sick and raising the dead; and Satan being able to enter into the being of a person, causing the person to be “demon-possessed.”

This supernatural ability which prevailed for a forty-year period (30 A.D. to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. see Micah 7:15), contributed to the Jewish Rabbin’s acceptance of theories of transmigration of souls, as they rejected Christ!

Metempsychosis In the Middle Ages

The Manichaeans combined the ideas of the “wandering of souls” with their concept of eternal punishment. They concluded that the sinner was placed in a place of punishment, like “limbo” or “purgatory,” until a partial cleansing had occurred. The sinner was then reclaimed to the light and allowed another trial in the present world. The sinner was supposedly afforded ten such opportunities for reclamation, but if he was still unworthy or unfit for heaven’s bliss, he was then condemned forever.

Witchcraft and Transmigration

The departed soul was thought to stay around in the vicinity of the body’s burial, for some time after death. In many instances, the souls of persons who died a particularly violent death, were said to remain active on earth, until such time that the “death was avenged” (murder, in particular). Then, the soul of the deceased might “find peace,” and its earthly activities (particularly nocturnal) would cease. This has led to the superstitions about walking through or near a cemetery after dark. “Witches” and “sorcerers” supposedly have the ability or power to “possess” the bodies of animals.

Holy Scriptures and Witchcraft

At a time in the history of mankind, when most nations actively engaged in the acceptance of witchcraft, sorcery, enchanting, soothsaying, and the like, the Jews were being instructed to destroy witches and sorcerers; and have nothing to do with such practices.

“You shall not permit a sorcerer (witch) to live” (Exod. 22:18).

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord” (Deyt. 18:10-12).

“Also he (Manasseh) caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger” (2 Chron. 33:6). Manasseh was a king of Judah.

Witches, warlocks, fortune-tellers, and the like are condemned in the Bible, Reincarnation, transmigration, and such like, are subjects that are foreign to Holy Scripture. Fictional works that may speculate on such ideas may entertain the imagination, but have no place in the belief and conviction of Christians.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 17, pp. 528-529
September 6, 1990

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied” (Acts 9:31).

“Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19).

God, in his infinite wisdom, arranged Christians into autonomous local churches for edification and cooperation. A major advantage of this group arrangement is that it allows Christians to mutually edify (teach, support, encourage, comfort, correct and discipline) one another.

Each congregation’s effectiveness in the Lord’s work greatly depends on a combination of peace and edification. A church may enjoy peace without scriptural edification, but it can have very little effective edification without peace. This is why congregations must diligently eliminate disruptive influences from among them.

A divisive person must be dealt with firmly and swiftly. After the first and second admonition such a one is to be rejected (Tit. 3:10). It only takes one divisive, pre-eminence seeking, self-willed character like Diotrephes (cf. 3 Jn. 9) to completely destroy the peace of a good church.

False teachers bring in destructive heresies (factions or parties) by causing some to rally around their false doctrine to the detriment of both the purity and peace of churches (2 Pet. 2:1ff). Such teachers bear the responsibility for much of the strife among churches today.

However, not all strife is caused by those who teach “various and strange doctrines” (Heb. 13:9). Paul spoke of those who “indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife” (Phil. 1:15). While endorsing what they preached, even rejoicing in it (Phil. 1:18), he criticized their ulterior designs. Such often use their positions as teachers/preachers of the gospel (sound doctrine) as a means of gaining personal power among their brethren. One cannot fault what they teach. They may be paragons of doctrinal soundness, yet use the respect gained by their strong stand for the truth to rally naive brethren around them personally. They often find ways to discredit any whom they consider to be a threat to their pre-eminence among brethren. Some use the respect that they have gained for their doctrinal soundness as a power base to force the church to bow to their self-willed edicts in all matters of judgment – or face scorn from them and their party of loyal followers. These self-willed tyrants are as surely “heretic,” “factious” or “divisive,” needing to be rejected by the congregation, as the false teacher who brings in destructive heresies. ‘They needlessly disturb the peace of the church and create a climate “hat makes much needed edification extremely difficult – if not impossible.

Peace

If a congregation is to grow and function as it should, it needs to maintain a peaceful environment. Jesus Christ is our peace (Eph. 2:1-14). All men, Jew and Gentile alike, can be reconciled unto God and each other through him so making peace (Eph. 2:18). Without a peaceful relationship with God, congregational peace is meaningless. That peaceful relationship (“unity of the Spirit”) that was established by the Spirit (Eph. 2:18) must be guarded (or kept) by us (Eph. 4:3). In order to do this we must “walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering” (vv. 1,2). This includes “bearing with one another in love” (v. 2). The strong have to bear with the weak (Rom. 15:1-3). Without gentleness, longsuffering, and bearing with one another, it would be impossible for a group of Christians, all of whom make mistakes, to work together with any degree of peace. One who is doctrinally sound needs to be sure that his humility, gentleness, longsuffering and forbearance are also in order. Otherwise, he may make havoc of the church and destroy opportunities to save them that hear him.

If a church is to be effective, its meetings need to be conducted in peace rather than confusion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33,34). This goes for worship assemblies, Bible classes and business meetings. Too often, these meetings are turned into a forum for every radical to sound off – to the tearing down rather than building up of the church. Such continual wrangling will kill the morale of a church and drive good brethren away from the congregation. Sometimes serious differences may need to be aired in such meetings, but they should be done in a calm and brotherly fashion rather than the contentious spirit that is so often the case.

Edification

As suggested earlier, peace alone will not make a congregation truly effective in the Lord’s work. A church must receive good edification. A lack of peace is an immeasurable hindrance to edification, but a church may be at perfect peace with itself and be in shambles spiritually.

There are certain things that the Bible says edifies brethren, individually and collectively. Members of any congregation would do well to pursue these things.

Sound doctrine edifies (Eph. 4:11-16). Sound teaching such as was done by apostles and prophets and continues to be done by faithful evangelists, pastors, and teachers keep brethren from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine and results in the edification of the body (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-4:5; Tit. 1:9-13). All of us have our ability, to “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1-8). Such will edify the church.

Pure speech edifies (Eph. 4:29). Wholesome words that reflect and promote a high standard of morality, ethics, courtesy, and spirituality serve to edify one another. Our speech should always be the truth, whether it is the truth of the gospel or the truth about every day events in our lives. Error and lying tear down rather than edify.

Love edifies (1 Cor. 1:8). When Paul says that knowledge puffs up, he is not discouraging or degrading knowledge. However, knowledge alone, untempered by love, tends to puff one up. Without love, one knowledgeable of his lawful rights in Christ may run rough shod over his good, but weaker, brethren who have not yet reached his level of knowledge.

Some things that are lawful do not edify under some circumstances (1 Cor. 10:23). There are two kinds of lawful things – things required and things permitted by law. Those things required by law always edify. They must always be done. Things permitted by law may not always edify. Paul is discussing things permitted by law – specifically, eating meats offered to idols. Under some circumstances they could be eaten without harm but under other circumstances they would not edify but tear down. Love would cause the brother, knowing his right under the law of Christ to eat such meats, but not being required by law to eat them, not to eat them under circumstances that would hinder the edification of his brethren.

Love of brethren takes precedence over mere rights (not obligations) under the gospel. We may need to yield certain rights for the sake of peace and edification (1 Cor. 9). To promote peace and edification, we may need to yield personal judgment calls to the judgment of others. To preserve peace and advance edification we may need to be extra patient with certain scruples of others, especially if the thing in question is a matter of indifference to us (cf. Rom. 15:1,2).

It takes effort to build one another up in the faith. To do so each needs to follow things that make for peace and that edify each others.

It takes all the help, teaching, and encouragement we can get to make it. We need to work to keep the congregation, of which we are members, in a position to give such help by promoting edification and preserving peace. We all need to take advantage of what the congregational arrangement, as God ordained, has to offer.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 547-548
September 20, 1990

By Mike Willis

The Lord has revealed himself to man through various figures of speech. Jesus compared himself to the water of life (Jn. 4:14), bread of life (Jn. 6:35), light of the world (Jn. 8:12), door (Jn. 10:9), etc. In each of these, the Lord reveals something about himself to mankind. In the Old Testament, the Lord revealed himself to man as the Rock.

He is the Rock, his work is perfect (Deut. 32:4).

. . . he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation (Deut. 32:15).

The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer (Psa. 18:2).

The figure captured the minds of both the Old Testament poets and our own, as it reveals our God to us.

How fitting that Moses should be the first to describe God as his Rock. “On the rocks of Sinai was the Law proclaimed. In the rock cleft was Moses hidden. From the smitten rock the waters gushed forth. How natural for Moses to apply this figure to the eternal God! ” (The Pulpit Commentary: Deuteronomy, p. 504) Let us see what traits about God are revealed through this figure of speech.

The Eternity of God

Rocks endure the ravages of nature. They are not washed away as is the dirt. Consequently, the comparison of God to a rock reminds us of his eternity (cf. Psa. 90:1-3). He is the “Rock of Ages.”

The Immutability of God

To describe God as immutable points to his unchanging character. He is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8). Because of his unchanging character, we can rely upon our God. Everything else in life may change, but not our God. In “There Stands A Rock,” S.S. Journal contrasts the “ever drifting sand” on which some build their hopes with the immutable God.

There stands a Rock on shores of time,

That rears to heav’n its head sublime;

That Rock is cleft, and they are blest

Who find within this cleft a rest.

Some build their hopes on the ever drifting sand,

Some on their fame or their treasure or their land,

Mine’s on the Rock that forever stall stand,

Jesus, the “Rock of Ages.”

In contrast to God, the solid Rock, “all other ground is sinking sand.”

God, the Sheltering Rock

The figure of God as a rock also points to him as our shelter in the time of trouble. A rock was a place to hide in time of enemy invasion (Judg. 15:8,11,15; 1 Sam. 13:6). The shade of the rock protected those who hid under its shadow from the intense heat (Isa. 32:2). Hence, the description of God as a Rock emphasizes to us that he is our shelter and refuge (Psa. 32:7).

David said that God was “his hiding place” (Psa. 32:7). In Psalm 61 he wrote,

Hear my cry, O God;

Attend unto my prayer,

From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed:

Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

For thou hast been a shelter for me,

And a strong tower from the enemy (61:2-3).

Impressed with the figure of God as a rock “higher than I, ” William G. Fisher wrote “The Rock That Is Higher Than I.”

O, sometimes the shadows are deep,

And rough seems the path to the goal;

And sorrows, sometimes how they sweep

Like tempests down over the soul.

O, then to the Rock let me fly,

To the Rock that is higher than I;

O, then to the Rock let me fly, To the Rock that is higher than I

Others of our poets have caught the imagery of God as the sheltering rock, protecting those under its shadow from the intense heat or the thunderstorm. Here are some of their words:

The Lord’s our Rock, in Him we hide,

A shelter in the time of storm;

Secure whatever ill betide,

A shelter in the time of storm.

(Shelter in Time of Storm, V.J. Charlesworth)

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,

Let me hide myself in Thee.

(Rock of Ages, A.M. Toplady)

A Wonderful Savior is Jesus my Lord,

A wonderful Savior to me;

He hideth my soul in the cleft of the Rock,

Where rivers of pleaseure I see.

He hideth my soul in the cleft of the Rock

That shadows a dry, thirsty land;

He hideth my life in the depth of his love,

And covers me there with his hand.

(He Hideth My Soul, Fanny J. Crosby)

When enemies assault, the man who is protected by rock is safer than those in hiding in more vulnerable places (see the illustration of this in the Three Little Pigs fairy tale). The Lord is our strong defense, our impregnable Rock, in the face of the enemy. David said, “I will love thee, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower” (Psa. 15:1-2). He prayed to his God, “Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me. For thou art my rock and my fortress” (Psa. 31:2-3).

Conclusion

There is no other God but Jehovah. He alone is man’s Rock. As Moses described Jehovah as his Rock, he said to Israel, “For their (the Gentiles) rock (god) is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges” (Deut. 32:31). He realized the uniqueness of Jehovah. When Hannah praised God for giving her a son name Samuel, she confessed, “There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God” (1 Sam. 2:2). “For who is God save the Lord? Or who is a rock save our God” (Psa. 18:31).

“The Lord liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted” (Psa. 18:46).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 546, 564
September 20, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

In an effort to improve their communication with the church, the elders here requested that the letter published below be sent to each family. The idea of some schedule changes discussed in the letter had been offered at a meeting of the elders with the other men of the congregation. Sometimes elders hesitate to conduct open meetings of this kind because they have bad memories of brethren bickering and haggling in open meetings conducted before elders were appointed. Such meetings can be productive if the elders preside and lead them properly. In six years here, there has not been an untoward incident of any kind in our open meetings. When brethren are accustomed to such meetings properly conducted on a regular basis, rather than being called only when the kettle has reached a boiling point, even criticisms and complaints can be handled in a more orderly fashion. Suggestions may be offered in these meetings which help to solve problems while they are small and before they reach the size where they provoke confrontations, bitterness, and factions.

This letter makes it clear that the elders are not forfeiting their God-given duties to the changing whims of a ballot box. The letter also makes it apparent that the elders are trying very hard to take into account the needs and wants of the church as a whole. There is no desire – or even appearance of a desire – to impose an arbitrary decision purely to suit the whims of the elders. When the elders announced their decision, it was obvious to those who agreed and to those who disagreed with the new schedule that the elders had been fair and open in the process of reaching a conclusion. Such a letter is certainly not necessary in making every decision, but it can be a valuable tool of open communication from time to time.

Letter from the Elders to Each Family in the Church at West Columbia

Dear Brethren,

The elders are continuing their efforts to maintain good communication with the church. This letter is being sent to every family in order to gather information on a suggestion offered by some of our men in the recent quarterly meeting. It was suggested that we might change the time of some or all of our assemblies.

This letter is not a ballot and the elders are not going to make decisions by asking you to vote. The decision will not be based on “majority rule” or “minority rule” but upon what we believe to be in the best interest of the church as a whole. As one part of gathering information before we make a decision, we want a response from each family and so we are asking you to return this letter. We want to consider the preference and convenience of the church as a whole. We want to know whether a change in the time of a service will work a hardship on anyone or make it impossible for them to come.

With each change suggested by some of the men, you will see the reason given. When you indicate your preference, please give the reason listed fair consideration and then feel free to indicate a reason for your preference if you wish to.

1. Some suggest an earlier time for Sunday morning services is better. They feel fresher and more alert earlier, which helps them get more out of the services. Children might do better if services did not run close to the noon meal time. There would be more time left for afternoon visits, trips, etc.

Check Your Preference for Sunday Morning Services:

_____ 9:00 A.M. Bible class, 10:00 worship

_____9:30 A.M. Bible class, 10:30 worship

_____ 10:00 A.M. Bible class, 11:00 worship.

If you wish to, give reasons for your preference:

2.Those who wish to will gather for a special 30 minute session on Sunday evenings before the regular worship period. One week the time will be devoted to memory work and other training for children (seated on the first two or three rows); the next week, the time will be used for our men to work on Bible reading, short lessons, leading songs and prayers. We will alternate these sessions week after week.

Check Your Preference for the Sunday Evening Services:

______ 5:30 P.M. session, 6:00 P.M. worship.

______6:00 P.M. session, 6:30 P.M. worship.

Some of the men prefer 6:00 P.M. session and 6:30 P.M. worship along with 9:00 A.M. classes and 10:00 A.M. worship to give a longer afternoon and time for supper before services. If you wish to, give reasons for your preference:

3. Someone suggested that since it gets dark earlier now, we might consider having Wednesday service at 7:00 P.M. through the winter, but this might make it hard for some people to attend after work. Check One: _____ 7:00 P.M.; ____ 7:30 P.M. Thank you for your cooperation and suggestions! Please sign.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 557
September 20, 1990