PHILOSOPHICAL AND BIBLICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT by Shandon L.

Guthrie Preliminary Remarks Before covering the issues related to the topic of New Age philosophy, I believe it to be important to begin by explaining the purpose of this article. As I prepare this manuscript, it is my goal to respond to the accusations brought about by proponents of Neo-Gnosticism (a refurbished Second Century viewpoint that espouses the idea that Man is essentially divine in nature which is the springboard for the New Age Movement today) and to present the dissenting opinion from a Judeo-Christian standpoint. The New Age Movement is nothing new but rather an amalgamation of various Eastern thought such as New Thought, Christian Science, Unitarianism, Spiritism, Rosicrucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and similar Eastern religions. For the sake of brevity, I will not discuss every aspect of the New Age Movement. Instead, I will restrict the discussion to essential issues such as the nature of God, the nature of mankind, and the nature of the afterlife. Since there are differing views within New Age and Eastern philosophy I will discuss the claims that are the most prevalent. Finally, I do not write this in the spirit of intolerance but rather in the attitude of ideological disagreement for I believe that truth is not subjective and that the issues of our eternal destiny are worth uncovering. I hope that the readers will take to heart the criticisms in this article concerning the philosophical and biblical problems with the New Age Movement.

Eastern Philosophy's Assumptive Denial of Western Philosophy In the field of comparative religions, students learn that the primary difference between Eastern and Western thought begins with foundational principles upon which to ground one's perception of reality. This is to say that an Eastern philosopher (and New Age philosopher alike) may begin to assume that the Western concepts of the Laws of Logic are culturally dependent and do not enjoy objective applicability toward non-Western cultures. Eastern philosophers simply deny that there are laws for logical discourse and presume to be "enlightened" over and above such underlying assumptions. Such anti-Western speculations root themselves in ideas similar to Zen Buddhism where one begins to understand when one comprehends truth from contradiction. But is there any reason why Eastern philosophy cannot be put under the scrutiny of classical or Western philosophy? Some reasons suggest that the Laws of Logic transcend mere culture. In order to suppose what the Eastern philosopher is saying we must come to see that this philosopher is actually saying "Classical/Western philosophy does not apply to all cultures." What the careful reader must observe is that such a statement presupposes logic if it is to be maintained as objectively true (if it is merely subjectively true then it becomes vacuous in that no one else is obligated to believe it). By making such a statement she is implying that "A non-Classical/Western philosophy is applicable to other cultures" so that "Classical/Western philosophy is not objectively true." But think about this for a moment. This would mean that

the statement "Classical/Western philosophy is not objectively true" itself cannot be underscored by the Laws of Logic. Thus such a statement is neither true nor false according to the Eastern philosopher but simply a metaphysical assumption about reality. The Principle of Bivalence in classical logic (the Law of Excluded Middle) demands that a truth statement is either true or false. If claims of Eastern philosophers are not in submission to such logic then their claims are neither true nor false. But this betrays the original statement made here that "Classical/Western philosophy does not apply to all cultures." This statement cannot be true given the rejection of classical logic. So, if it is true then it is false and if it is false then it is false anyway. Let us look at it another way. Eastern philosophers say that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction are both false (implied in this blanket rejection of Western philosophy). This means that this statement along with its negation are both false and non-contradictory in the rejection of both the statement and its negation. That is, both statements that "The Law of Excluded Middle is false" and "The Law of Excluded Middle is true" are both false. But how can this be? This would mean that other metaphysical or epistemological claims such as "God exists" or "God is love" are compatible with "God does not exist" or "God is not love" in some way. This is just unintelligible and impossible to me. I, frankly, see no way anyone can construct a truth statement that be consistent with Eastern philosophy and devoid of any logical constraints. And this is not a mere anti-Eastern claim. Plotinus is a good example of a Westerner who utilized the same rejection of simple logic defined and defended by antecedent Greek philosophers. Therefore, I see no viable reason to reject the Laws of Logic as they intuitively apply to all areas of philosophical discourse. We cannot suppose that logic plays no role in discussing either philosophy in general or religion in particular despite some seemingly non-logical events (e.g. events inconsistent with what we would expect but not necessarily illogical). I think the Western philosopher ought not be concerned about Eastern philosophy's vilification of logical principles since such principles and laws are evident in and of themselves. With the Eastern-Western division out of the way in regard to logical discourse, we can now begin to undergo the task of evaluating Eastern philosophy's stepchild: The New Age Movement. The Nature of God Philosophers and thinkers for a long time have wrestled with the critical question of the existence of God. Philosophers from Aristotle to Plato and St. Augustine to Thomas Aquinas have suggested that the nature of the contingency of creation bespeaks the existence of God. In other schools of thought, various moral and ontological arguments have been proposed (think of Renee Descartes, John Hick, St. Anselm, and Alvin Plaintinga). For Descartes, the existence of God must be posited on which to base the contingency of the self's existence.[1] Psychologist Sigmund Freud declared that God was merely an objectification of mankind's desires not an ontological reality. God simply reflected the hopeful minds of those who longed for parental influence. In the philosophy of religion we take the God hypothesis to its next logical level: What kind of God exists? Where does this Being reside? Is this Being personal or impersonal, corporeal or incorporeal, finite or infinite, and mortal or immortal? I hope to bring some light on these questions by addressing the debate between New Age philosophy and proper philosophical analysis. As a Christian, I will supplement my material with biblical information. New Age advocates differ on the precise label of "God" so it will be important to cover the most popular and historical views held today. First, God is viewed as being impersonal. For example, Jane Roberts (who claimed to receive visitations from a disembodied spirit named

Seth) had declared that God was merely an "energy gestalt" that emanated from living and non-living beings. Roberts' view is that this "energy" is the underlying "consciousness" of all things.[2] Secondly, the New Age doctrine of God is essentially pantheistic (the belief that God is not distinct from the universe). This idea comes from one aspect of Hindu philosophy that suggests that God (Brahma) is the underlying substance of all that exists. Usually this concept is believed in addition to a monistic view of the universe (that all is one). Finally, it is believed by New Age advocates that the above views are supported by the Bible (both Old and New Testaments). Some of these texts include Ephesians 1:23 (where the Apostle Paul declares that God "fills all in all") and John 17:22 (where Jesus prays for the "oneness" of all believers with God). New Age advocates maintain lip service to their acknowledgment of the biblical record, but true inspiration of Scripture is not upheld by them. Quite often the Bible is translated through the lens of mysticism (or esotericism) so that deep, hidden meanings can be extracted from a text whether or not it was originally intended as such. Mary Baker Eddy of the Christian Science movement held to this form of interpretation. Furthermore, the New Age concept of God is empirically based. That is, God is defined in terms of experience and by each person's opinions concerning this Being. This is obviously indicative of the relativistic portrait New Agers paint in the real world. The Nature of Man The New Age Movement places a tremendous significance on the nature and abilities of man. They maintain a humanistic attitude that makes man the measure of all and an Existentialist attitude about self-sufficiency. Most New Age advocates attempt to make mankind a step below deification (the act of becoming a god) with the only obstacle being the preconceptions of mankind themselves. Furthermore, it is not so much that man must "atone" for any "sins" one commits but that she must realize that believing we are separate from deity is an illusion. Hinduism identifies this sad state of Man's affairs as moksha. While denying mankind's inherent proclivity to sin (the theological view that human beings have transgressed the moral laws of God), New Age advocates agree that man can and does achieve a higher level of self-awareness. This achievement, if reached, puts one in perfect unity with the "Cosmic Consciousness" (discussed later) also referred to as Nirvana. From this, time becomes a key element in personal deification for if she cannot cleanse herself physically, mentally, and spiritually in this lifetime, she must return to this earth and be physically born again. This rebirth, or reincarnation, will occur numerous times until one has managed to clear her thoughts and acts of separation from God. It is the goal of every New Ager to realize that she has intrinsic qualities of deity by which she can become an Ascended Master. Quite properly this can be called spiritual evolution. Now, each birth one undergoes and the character and nature of the individual born are indicative of their actions in their previous lives. These actions, or what Eastern mystics call Karma, will determine everything from why she is handicapped to why her eyes are brown instead of blue. To avoid bad Karma, one must spend time in meditation and trance-like states to separate from the carnal concept that all is not one. Conversely, those with bad Karma are to be left alone to their misery so that they may be "cleansed" of it. They, however, must also meditate so they can be released from their unfortunate state. While New Age advocates differ in the specifics in what has been mentioned above, all agree that Man is inherently good (and in most cases divine), all have the ability to achieve a higher state of enlightenment, and all will be given as many lifetimes as needed until personal "atonement" is successfully accomplished.

The Nature of Jesus Christ Although the historical record is well known as to the life and times of Jesus Christ, New Age advocates have placed a new twist on him. New Agers, such as David Spangler and Benjamin Creme, have rejected the historical Jesus in favor of a different one. The New Age Jesus is not exclusively the Son of God, he did not come to earth to die for the sins of humanity, and did not return to any metaphysical place called Heaven (Creme makes mention of this in his book, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom). As a matter of fact, to refer to the Jesus of the New Age Movement as Jesus Christ itself has semantic problems for Jesus was the man and the Christ is a cosmic principle (or consciousness) found in those who can achieve it. In fact, there was a time when Jesus was not always the Christ. David Spangler writes, "The true birth of the Christ was not the birth of Jesus. Jesus was an individual who himself had to recapitulate certain stages...He had to, in his consciousness, touch the Christ pattern" (Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, Moray, Scotland: Findhorn publications, 1978, p. 13). The New Age Jesus was a man who provided an excellent example on how we as fellow human beings can receive the Christ principle into our own lives. Incidentally, the Christ principle is sometimes referred to as a "universal Love" (Levi, The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, Santa Monica, Calif.: DeVorss & Co., 1907, p. 100) by which we may look to Jesus as its personification. Now, there are many additional avenues that can be taken on this point (such as the issue of whether or not Jesus was an Essene, whether or not there really are lost teachings of Jesus, and so on), but suffice it to say the primary concern lies with the New Age concept and not with its defense of the nature of Jesus. It is to the nature of Jesus to which we direct our attention and it's evidence in Scripture. Now that we have seen the New Age concept of God, Man, and other pertinent issues, it is my intent to focus in on responding to these profound errors marking the deficit that is in New Age philosophy evident. The following is a philosophical and biblical analysis of the aforementioned doctrines.

The Reality of God Upon investigation of the New Age Movement, I discovered the vast similarities between Eastern mysticism and New Age thought. During my studies on the Indian philosophy of mind I had submitted several papers dealing with the problems of the existence of the Hindu God, the errors of Buddhism, and the incoherent views of reincarnation and karma. Thus, I will utilize the information of Eastern Indian philosophy to analyze the doctrines of the New Age Movement since these concepts are relatively tantamount. The first problem with the New Age concept of God is the idea that God is impersonal, even to the point of being an "energy gestalt." I submit that if God were impersonal, then there

could not be intent, purpose, or even direction for mankind (whether the New Age advocate believed that this Being created us or not). Consider a real universe where an impersonal entity acts as a substance for the origin of all things. Granted this reality, it seems that there must still be an Originator for we merely have a foundation and not a Founder. Given the impersonal source (God), it seems that the New Age advocate must answer the idea that minds have occurred without a previous Mind. Atheism and agnosticism suffer the same dilemmas whereby we know that the debate for life from non-life remains in the ring for round two. But to summarize the evidence of the impossibility of life from non-life I present this statement by Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland:

...the evolution of life from non-life runs into problems with the second law of thermodynamics. Second-Law calculations show that such a reaction is immensely improbable by chance, roughly one chance in 10^40,000. Selfordering tendencies in matter are not adequate to overcome these odds or generate the information needed for living molecules from the simple order of inorganic materials resting on clay catalyses. Further, the fact that the earth was an open system does not refute the second-law argument, for raw energy cannot bring order or information out of chaos any more than one can form a Boeing 747 by dropping a bomb on a machine shop. Raw energy needs a blueprint (such as DNA) to direct it and an energy-converting mechanism (such as the digestive system in animals) to convert the form of energy so it will be usable. But blueprints and energy-converting mechanisms are themselves produced by life, so the process is in a catch-22 (Scaling the Secular City, Baker Book House Company, 1987, p. 221).

The prevalent dilemma in New Age philosophy is that either life came from non-life (as Moreland considers to be problematic) or life came from an impersonal God who physically created it. As mentioned before, an impersonal God cannot formulate, design, articulate, direct, or do anything. Therefore, we must reject the absence of reason in New Age philosophy. Furthermore, the New Age concepts of God contradict each other. For example, one advocate (such as Jane Roberts) might believe that God is impersonal and merely energy

while another advocate sustains the idea that God is a "universal consciousness." The relativistic nature of the New Age Movement allows for these contradictions to occur since God is believed to be whatever one believes God to be (because in a relativistic society, truth is relative. On this I shall have more to say). Nonetheless, it is difficult to take the New Age concept of God seriously. The second problem with the New Age concept of God is the problem of juxtaposing this God with the God of the Holy Scriptures. Before addressing some of the misquoted texts used by some New Agers about God (mentioned above), I shall first present the biblical record of the nature and essence of God. Beginning in the Old Testament, evidence of the character and nature of God begin to manifest themselves in His work in creation. It was His desire to make all things "good" (Genesis 1:31). Two things can be noted in this segment alone: 1) God is an entity that can create and 2) God is a benevolent being to make all things good. For any serious student of the Bible, the nature of God is quite simple to comprehend. The God of the Bible is much more than an "energy gestalt" that is merely some ethereal origin of all things. Perhaps the most profound identity of God in the Bible is this great commandment, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29). From this forms the existential doctrine of the Trinity (that within the nature of the one God, there are three Persons who are coequal, coeternal, and coexistent). Obviously, God's nature is much different than that of the New Age Movement. But before I proceed to far, I will outline some biblical texts that demonstrably prove the true nature of God. 1) God is a personal being. This is evident from the burning bush experience when Moses asked how he may identify the true God. God's response was, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am has sent me unto you" (Exodus 3:14) and further declares that "this is my name for ever and my memorial to all generations" (v. 15). The significance of identifying Himself as the "I Am" is to denote His nature as eternal and self-contained. 2) God is a personal spirit. The Scriptures emphatically state that "God is a spirit" who we must worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). 3) God has reflective memory. Jeremiah 29:11 mentions God's knowledge of His plans for His people, something only a personal being can do (also see 1 John 3:20). 4) God has intention. We are reminded of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6 where every believer is told to request that "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (v. 10). Jesus Himself was subject to the will of God while on the earth (Hebrews 10:7). 5) God is the judge of all that is. In Ezekiel 34:20 and Acts 17:31 we are reminded that God alone reserves judgment on both the righteous and the wicked. 6) God is a triune being (Trinity). Evidence of this is found in passages such as Zechariah 12:10; John 1:1, 14; 20:28; and Acts 5:3, 4. It is in these passages where Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are declared God. When this is understood in the light that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 1 Corinthians 8:4), it becomes evident that the identity of each Person of the Godhead is one in essence and nature with each other.

Now, I have only scratched the surface on the nature of God but suffice it to say that the above attributes demonstrate the fine contrast between the God of the New Age and the God of the Bible. Furthermore, our perception of God, according to the Bible, ought not be relative for He is an objective Being with clear descriptions of His nature. In addition, New Age advocates often cite Scriptures out of context to bolster their philosophically incoherent view of God. The two mentioned above (Ephesians 1:23 and John 17:22) are prime examples, but further investigation compels us to reject the New Age interpretation. In Ephesians 1:23, the Apostle Paul declares that God "fills all in all" which is supposedly proving the idea that God is an impersonal energy that composes all living and non-living things. The problem here is that verses 18-22 are speaking of the empowering of the saints in the church. God "fills all in all" through the saints and by occupying heaven and earth with His presence (Jeremiah 23:24). It is God's omnipresence and omnipotence that are being spoken of, not His essence. Further, nothing in the text indicates God's non-personality. In fact, quite the opposite is espoused for in these verses we see that God calls His saints (v. 18), He raised Jesus from the dead (v. 20), and has put all things under His feet (v. 22). These are hardly indicative of an impersonal energy. It is in the same light that we see the fallacious defense of monistic and pantheistic unity of all people buttressed by New Agers by misquoting John 17:22. In this text Jesus prays, "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one." There are three things to be said about this. First, the nature of the prayer is for believers only. It does not dictate that all beings, both living and non-living, are of one nature. Second, Jesus prays that "they may be one" and not that they are currently one. Third, the context of "one" is not in reference to one in nature but rather in reference to one in unity (much like a nation uniting as one for a common cause--see v. 23). Furthermore, Jesus sets a dichotomy between the believers and Himself where it is not possible for all to be one in nature. In verse 24, Jesus continues by granting the saints' allowance to behold His glory by being with Him. This would be meaningless rhetoric if all is one and all is God. Therefore, these texts do not support New Age doctrine.

The Genuine Jesus Christ of Orthodox Christianity There are primarily three questions that need to be resolved on the question of Jesus' identity. First, what is the Christ? Second, is Jesus the Christ? And finally, did Jesus atone for man's sins? Since the only apparatus of historical information on hand is the Bible (to which the New Age Movement claims as one of the many authoritative books on spiritual issues), I will quote from the testimonies of Jesus' eyewitnesses. Issue #1: What is the Christ? The term "Christ" ( or "christos" in the Greek) comes from the Hebrew word "messiah." The word itself means "anointed one" in reference to the prophetic redeemer to come. In Jewish history, it was anticipated that a great man from the tribe of Judah (in the lineage of King David) would someday deliver (as Moses did) the nation of Israel from bondage (some thought it was physical deliverance while others thought it was spiritual deliverance). Nonetheless, the meaning of "christos" was clearly a title for the redeemer of Israel. The New Testament unraveling of the Christ records this "anointed one"

as saving both Jew and Gentile (anyone not of Jewish descent). The ramifications of this title are spelled out in some 109 different prophecies (over 300 prophecies are given in the Old Testament concerning Christ but most are repeated). The Messiah was to defeat Satan (Genesis 3:15), be oppressed by the government (Isaiah 9:6), and remove us of our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5--to state a few). These are clear examples that what was indicative of the Christ was a person and not a principle. Issue #2: Is Jesus the Christ? Perhaps one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith aside from the resurrection is the issue of who is Jesus (Luke 9:20). The New Testament sheds profound light on the question of Jesus as the Christ such as found in the Gospel of John (John 7:2544). In fact, John goes to great length in his epistles to dispel the notion that Jesus is not the Christ when he begins by asking the Gnostic, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ" (1 John 2:22, NIV). John writes these words to keep the church from being led astray (v. 26). It is difficult to separate the fact that not only is Jesus "a Christ" or simply "a manifestation of the Christ principle" but rather "the Christ." The interesting thing is that one of the prophetic signs of the end times is believing that there are further manifestations of "the Christ" in other individuals (Matthew 24:4, 5). Issue #3: Did Jesus atone for man's sins? The Scriptures make it clear that Jesus (as the only Christ) came to earth in human form (John 1:1, 14; Philippians 2:5-8), suffered on a cross for the sins of the world once for all time (Luke 24:26-49; Hebrews 9:26; 10:10, 14; 1 John 1:7), and rose from the dead to seal His vicarious blood atonement (Leviticus 17:11; Luke 24:3644; John 20:19-31; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15). The testimony of the Scriptures is quite profound in their defense of Jesus' sacrifice that was once for all time. The burden of proof would be on the individual who believes Christ's atonement as insufficient. Therefore, the Jesus of the Bible is completely different from that of the New Age Movement and hardly a mere manifestation of "the Christ principle." The consistent warning in the Bible is that of false teachers and false christs (Matthew 24:4, 5, 10, 11; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4; 1 Timothy 4:1). Thus, we know that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He is.

The Vain and Illusionary Hope of the New Age Man New Age advocates maintain that man can achieve deification (meaning that man can reach godhood) by realizing that our thoughts and lives are illusions (often detachment from our thoughts and lives is achieved via meditation) and by sustaining a clean life. There are essentially two philosophical notions suggested here: 1) man can achieve a higher, infinite level; 2) It is possible for man to succeed in deification by his/her own efforts. Essentially, the problems with the above assumptions rest on the possibility of man achieving perfection and infinity. Hence, it is these issues to which our attention will focus. First, attempting to allow a finite human being to achieve an infinite level (a level where infinite knowledge is reached) is problematic. Such a theory presupposes the possibility of achieving an actual infinite. There are, however, entities that are potentially infinite such as numbers and universals. Yet, there are no actual infinites in existence in this life that can be traversed. The difference is simple. An actual infinite is complete where the entity possesses no end. A potential infinite is incomplete where the entity merely has the ability (the

potential) to be endless. For example, numbers are potential infinites because no matter how high one can count, one can always add an additional integer to increase the total count. If numbers were an actual infinite, then this could not be so for we would know the end result of counting. Let me now demonstrate the problem with the possibility of achieving an actual infinite. Assume that the distance from Las Vegas to Seattle is an actual infinite amount of miles (obviously presupposing the existence of an actual infinite). Also assume that you have an infinite amount of time to traverse this distance. The problem with this is that it would be impossible to reach your destination. No matter how far you drove, you could always drive another mile. In fact, it seems that if we suppose a one-to-one correspondence between miles and ordinal numbers we ultimately demand that the distance is unending. So, it makes no difference how much time exists, there is no possible way to travel an untraversable distance. Second, there are serious problems with believing that man can achieve perfection from imperfection. I submit that the axiom "nobody's perfect" reigns true. In order to understand why such a level is improbable to attain, we must first understand what it is that is being attained. Perfection is the act of being totally and completely without error (or in this case, bad karma). Also, bad karma includes bad thoughts (cf. Matt. 5:28), bad language (cf. James 3:2, 6), bad motives (cf. Matt. 6:5), bad actions (cf. Exodus 20:1-17), etc... The simple refutation of whether or not any man or woman can achieve perfection is self-explanatory. I challenge any human being to fulfill the above criteria. It simply is not possible for man cannot remain 100% pure in thought, 100% pure in language, 100% pure in motive, 100% pure in action, etc... Suffice it to say that if perfection merely meant to remain 100% pure in thought, then all men would fail 50 times a day! Thus, perfection is an unattainable feat. Such a burden would be up to the person who believes that perfection can be achieved. Finally, the biblical evidence is worth noting concerning the ability of man to achieve godhood. The Lord of the Scriptures makes it abundantly clear that man will never become deified for He declares that "apart from me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6, NIV) and that "before me no God was formed, nor will there be after me" (43:10). The futility of the New Age man's hope is rooted in the delusion that Adam and Eve suffered in the garden of Eden for Satan had tempted Eve with a promise of divinity, "You will not surely die...For God knows that when you eat of [the fruit] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:4). Such a pursuit occurred with Satan himself when he attempted to usurp God's throne (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-19). But not only is it impossible to achieve deification, it is also impossible to achieve perfection by ourselves. For the Christian, we are reminded that we "have been saved, through faith-not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8, 9, NIV). And again we have been saved "not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy" (Titus 3:5). The Bible is very explicit in its utterance to both Jew and Gentile that no one has the potential to achieve perfection (Psalm 14:1; Romans 3:23). For the Christian, justification is by faith in God as our deliverer and our savior (Romans 4:5; 5:1). In addition, the biblical prescription for salvation is "if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). This is true because "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (John 3:3). The reality of our imperfection is evidence of our fallen nature that can only be saved by Someone outside reaching in.

Salvation: By Regeneration or Recycling?

Since I have presented the biblical prescription for salvation in the previous section, I am reserving this space for a rebuttal to the New Age concept of reincarnation. In addition, I wish to answer the biblical "prooftexts" that allegedly defend the reincarnation viewpoint. Reincarnation is itself a theory that has undergone many processes through everything from Hinduism and Buddhism to the occult and Humanism. Even though this is the case, there are several factors of agreement on this issue. First, it is the burden of each individual to "cleanse" herself from transgressing karma (although she may call on "ascended masters" and gurus to assist in the personal plight to perfection). Second, reincarnation presupposes a system of actions (karma) that can be considered "good" or "evil." Third, the purpose of reincarnation is to allow an individual an additional opportunity to purge oneself of bad karma (which supposedly explains the purpose of our current, imperfect state of being). Finally, there is no "one way" by which to follow for each person must decide in his own mind what is right and what is wrong. The first thing to be pointed out in the presentation of these four areas is the obvious contradiction between the second and fourth areas of agreement. Here, reincarnation suggests that men and women need to purge themselves of "evil" at the same time affirming ethical relativism. At this time I would like to briefly outline the implications of ethical relativism and what it is by answering the final claim first. Ethical relativism, which New Age philosophy affirms, is the ethical theory that morality is defined by the situation in which an act is occurring. For example, lying can be wrong or right depending upon the discretion of the agent. To say that something is intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong is false. My truth may not be your truth. What is wrong for John Doe may not be wrong for Jane Doe. Everything is relative and nothing is absolute. Finally, tolerance is viewed as an intrinsically good principle that defines the veracity of an action. Even though a discussion on ethical relativism deserves more attention, I believe there are a few relevant points that refute this theory as an adequate one. First, relativism is self-refuting. While affirming that there are not absolutes and that nothing is intrinsically good or bad, relativism declares that tolerance is an absolute that is intrinsically good. It is difficult to accept a philosophy that cannot fulfill its own criteria. Second, if truth is relative then there is no reason to declare ethical relativism as true. It may be that I believe in a non-consequential form of objective morality. But if this is true to me, then refutation of my position is meaningless for we are both correct despite the clear contrast of the two positions. Third, by advocating tolerance as an absolute, it seems difficult to reconcile this with subjective truth since we should view each person's beliefs as truth. That is, if tolerance is a given and everyone should accept it as an absolute standard, then what about the individual that believes intolerance is a good thing? His position cannot be refuted since "his truth is just as good as your truth." Yet, tolerating intolerance is self-defeating! Finally, there are good reasons to believe that objective morals and values exist as true. For example, "torturing infants is wrong" is universally accepted as true. At the same time,

helping your fellow man is universally a good thing. It seems difficult to believe that both of these statements about the world are morally neutral and, therefore, on the same level to be left up to the individual to decide whether they are right or wrong. There is just something intuitively wrong and demonstrably incorrect about believing that there is no absolute truth, especially when we are supposed to believe that this is absolutely true! It is clear that relativism provides no substantial criterion for truth. Further, it is internally inconsistent with the laws of logic and intuition. I submit that absolutes can be known and that the Bible, from which New Age advocates quote, acknowledges this. It is on this note that we now turn to the doctrine of reincarnation and its ramifications. Below, I will mention a few philosophical problems with reincarnation. First, the concept itself is self-defeating. Upon understanding that reincarnation is the additional chance to recompense for past lives, I must ask what accounts for her first life. That is, if my purpose for being here is to cleanse and purify myself from past sins (bad karma) I had committed, then what explains my imperfect first life? Second, reincarnation presupposes a system where purification can be achieved. As I have already noted in my section "The Vain and Illusionary Hope of the New Age Man," the process of self-purification is impossible and inconsistent. In retrospect, in order to attain perfection one must cleanse herself not only of obvious evils such as murder and lying (which, incidently, is denied as existing by the relativistic dogma of New Age Movement) but of evil thoughts, suggestions, and motivations. No one can achieve such a level for obvious reasons. Third, reincarnation is non-prejudicial. That is, New Age philosophy dictates that "all spokes lead to the same hub." This doctrine of tolerance suggests that all paths are equally beneficial and that as long as the individual selects one as right for her, her truth will allow her to attain enlightenment. There is no "one way" to enlightenment. But surely if all paths are equal, these must include evil ones too. Yet evil is what the agent is cleansing herself from! Thus, reincarnation is selective and grants a general "one way" path (that one must go the "good" way and not the "evil" way). Even in the New Age world, not everything is relative. Finally, the Bible rejects the reincarnation view of the New Age Movement. Evidence of this can be found in two phases. First, the positive assurance of what lies in the beyond; Second, the negative assurance that other ideas of the afterlife are acceptable. When we turn to the Gospel of Matthew, we see a different story then that of reincarnation. Matthew records the nature of the afterlife in chapter 25, verses 31 through 46. The scheme of "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" are penned in the texts of this and other passages (v. 46; cf. Jude 7, 21; Revelation 19:20; 20:15; 21:6). The fact that upon death, the individual is given the just reward for her acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ by meriting either heaven or hell (the lake of fire). It is difficult to conclude that reincarnation is being spoken of. Further, and perhaps disputable to New Age advocates, is the negative treatment of the existence of reincarnation in Hebrews 9:27. In this passage we find that reincarnation is automatically excluded from being advocated by Scripture for in this verse God declares that, "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." The issue in this passage is whether or not physical death or spiritual death is intended. There are several factors suggesting that this passage is referring to biological death. First, the verse refers to the occurrence of judgment immediately after this death (whereas mankind is guilty

of spiritual death at conception--Psalm 51:5). Since we are not judged until all appear at the seat of Christ, physical death must be intended (cf. Revelation 20:11-15). Secondly, the fact that the text uses the future tense of a passive verb ("destined" or "appointed") indicates that whatever death is referred to must be future. But, as mentioned before, spiritual death occurs at birth (Psalm 51:5). Thus, the only death that is future is biological. Finally, as was just discussed, the overall synopsis of the Bible condemns the idea of reincarnation. So even if this verse did not refer to physical death, this does not mean that reincarnation is not condemned in Scripture for it clearly is (also see 2 Samuel 12:22-23; John 19:2-3). Therefore, the testimony of the Scriptures and philosophical criticism both condemn the reincarnation view of the afterlife. What has not been touched upon in this paper are the additional textual allusions (Matthew 11:14; John 3:3; etc...) and the "evidences" of psychological recall. Let me add that I believe these claims are answerable and do not lend support for a reincarnation view of atonement. Thus, the Bible once again prevails in its veracity of justification before God.

Conclusion and a Final Warning The New Age Movement teaches many ideas about God, Jesus Christ, and mankind. God is merely an impersonal energy, Jesus is merely a supreme example of purity who is only one manifestation of the Christ principle, and mankind is a race that strives to atone for personal transgressions via reincarnation and meditation. However, philosophy forbids the possibility of existence of the New Age god and its hopeful mankind. Furthermore, the Holy Bible records a different account on the natures of God, man, and Jesus Christ. God is a personal, tri-une Being who came to earth in the form of a man to atone for man's sins who cannot themselves become pure by their own works. Thus, the New Age Movement is guilty of negligence of its beliefs and ignorant of the true God and plan of salvation espoused by the apostles and prophets. And now for one final note. The Apostle Paul warns of those who would distort the truths of God's Word by addressing the church of Galatia concerning false gospels: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! -Galatians 1:6-8 (NIV)

It is extremely important that when any person is seeking truth, she should go directly to the source of it. Truth can be sought in only one Person, Jesus Christ (John 5:39). The Bible does not leave it open for you to choose your own way for it may be the way of death (Proverbs 14:12). Thus, there is only one way to get to God and that is in the Person of Jesus (John 14:6; 1 Timothy 2:5). In order to know the real Jesus, one must confess that he or she is a sinner who cannot save him/herself (Psalm 14; Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:23). She must acknowledge that Jesus is God in human form who came to earth to atone for our sins on the cross and rose again on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 10:9). And finally, she must call upon the name of the Lord in order to be saved by believing in the finished work of the cross (John 3:16; Acts 4:12; Romans 4:5; 6:23; 10:9; Ephesians 2:8, 9). Jesus Himself offers open arms to those who are willing to accept Him. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes in Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (John 5:24; NASB).

"I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me whall never thirst" (John 6:35).

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come into him, and will dine with him, and he with Me" (Revelation 3:20). _________________________________________________________ END NOTES 1. See Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. IV (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993) pp. 100-105. 2. See Jane Roberts, The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth Book (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974).