Category Archives: Tracts from the Past

The Evolution of Evolution

Some of the most interesting things to read are old articles and papers that were typed up by brethren of the past.  One such article came from the typewriter of James D. Bales.  During his heyday, Bales was a highly-respected figure in the religious world, standing firm against evolution, communism, and other theories of belief that attacked the Bible.

We hope you find this article interesting.


James D. Bales, Ph.D. (University of California), Searcy, Arkansas

Evolution means development. Thus men sometimes speak of the evolution of the airplane; which development was, of course, the work of intelligence and not of the blind workings of the forces of nature. The hypothesis of evolution which is widely taught today assumes that as a result of the workings of natural forces, life developed from the non-living; and from the first form of life there developed all the different forms of life which exist today, including man. Using the term evolution in the sense of development let us see how the hypothesis of evolution originated and how it develops when it is consistently applied. In other words, we want to notice something of the origin and some of the results of the hypothesis of evolution.

Evolution did not originate in scientific research, but in the bias of certain men against the God of the Bible who created the heavens, the earth, life, and man. It is based on the assumption that all past events must be explained in terms of present-day processes; even if this cannot be scientifically established. By maintaining that all must be explained naturally, the first evolutionists in our period of time put God so far away from the universe and life that He either did not exist; or if He existed He would in no wise interfere with man and the workings of the laws of nature. Thus for all practical purposes they could forget about God without having any fear that they must someday face God in judgment. They could rule their own lives without having to be subjected to the will of God.

The doctrine that all must be explained naturally was popularized in the field of geology by Sir Charles Lyell. He wrote his book on geology in order to establish this principle of uniformity as the basic principle in geology and ultimately in life itself. He accepted the idea of God, but his bias against God as revealed in the Scriptures is indicated in his contention that Moses had brought great mischief and scandal into the science of geology; and he spoke of driving certain men “out of the Mosiac record.”

Charles Darwin was converted to the idea that all must be explained naturally; and, of course, as this belief grew upon him, his disbelief in the Bible grew. Since Darwin had decided that all must be explained naturally, the very truth of evolution itself was taken for granted. The only question was, since evolution must have taken place, what laws in nature are sufficient to account for life’s origin and manifold form. So deep-seated was Darwin’s bias against God that, although he never became an atheist, but was an agnostic, when reason led Darwin to God he savagely turned on reason and discredited reason. As he said in his autobiography written in 1876:

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man. which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”[1]

Again he wrote:

“Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”[2]

Reason led Darwin to God so Darwin killed reason! He trusted his mind when reasoning about evolution, but not when reasoning about God! Why should we trust anything in his writings if the human mind cannot be trusted? How could Darwin say that he fully believed in evolution when his position concerning the origin of mind made it impossible for him, when consistent, to fully believe in anything? How could Darwin continue to cling to evolution, which led him to discredit the mind, and to do so on supposedly scientific grounds? If the mind cannot be trusted at all, science is impossible. Although Darwin admitted that one could still believe in God, even if evolution were true, yet in his own life and the life of countless others faith in evolution has been the means of leading them from God. Although they may not become atheists, they usually put God so far away from man and the universe that He has not spoken and will not interfere with man in any way, including bringing man into judgment.

Darwin’s wife told her daughter, concerning the Descent of Man, that: “I think it will be very interesting, but that I shall dislike it very much as again putting God further off.”[3]

Thomas Henry Huxley, who helped fight many battles for Darwin, admitted that evolution was simply the outcome of applying the hypothesis that all must be explained naturally. He began to be converted to this idea when he was around 12 years of age. This led him to abandon the Bible as the word of God, and finally to accept evolution; because there was nothing else for a man to do once he has rejected the idea of creation by God.

There are numerous other illustrations of the fact that evolution was accepted because men wanted to get away from the idea of the God who creates. As Henry Fairfield Osborn, an evolutionist, put it: “In truth, from the period of the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature.”[4] This bias has been abundantly documented in the forthcoming book. Why Scientists Accept Evolution.

Evolution is a faith which they accept even though they do not have adequate evidence for this faith. As A. L. Kroeber, at the Darwin Centennial, said: “Overwhelmingly, biologists had been accepting evolution because there was nothing else for them to do; but they had not proved it to their own satisfaction.”[5] He thought that the situation had improved today. Charles Darwin himself admitted that when one descended to details, and of course scientists must descend to details, evolution could not be proved.[6]

William L. Straus, Jr. said: “I wish to emphasize that I am under no illusion that the theory of human ancestry which I favor at the present time, can in any way be regarded as proven. It is at best merely a working hypothesis whose final evaluation must be left to the future.”[7]

The hypothesis of evolution is so far from being scientifically proved that a widely used text book in biology said: “The piecing together of the evolution story is comparable to the reconstruction of an atom-bombed metropolitan telephone exchange by a child who has only seen a few telephone receivers. We know something about living plants and animals, and we have some fossil remnants to go on. Extensive study of the evidence available plus ingenious hypothesis, most of which cannot be adequately tested, have given us a sort of a trial schedule of the possible directions of evolution of living organisms. ”[8]

However, so deep-seated is the bias in favor of evolution that Professor Paul Shorey stated: “An ambitious young professor may safely assail Christianity or the Constitution of the United States or George Washington or female chastity or marriage or private property… But he must not apologize for Bryan… It is not done.”[9] One does not have to accept every interpretation of the Bible made by Bryan in order to realize that thorough-going evolution contradicts the Bible.

Why is it that some scientists, who demand scientific proof in various other areas, are determined at all costs to hold to the hypothesis of evolution as being scientifically proved? They know full well, if they are acquainted with the evidence and the meaning of “scientifically proved”, that evolution has not been scientifically established.

Originating in man’s effort to get away from the God who creates and who has spoken to man in the Bible, it is obvious that the influence of evolution would be to undermine faith in the Bible. There are, of course, some individuals who think that evolution has been scientifically established and that therefore they must try to harmonize the Bible with evolution. They hold to evolution and still want to hold to the Bible. However, any hypothesis of evolution that maintains that all can be explained in terms of the workings of present-day processes must come into conflict with the Bible whether they realize this or not. As a result of the influence of the hypothesis of evolution, as well as some other influences, a great deal of the religious world has reconstructed the Bible so as to conform to evolution. Thus there are those who maintain that there was no first human pair, that there was no real fall of man, that God did not miraculously intervene in human history as recorded in the Bible, and that Jesus Christ is thus the product of evolutionary development. If an individual maintains that God did intervene as the Bible says, and that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, they have admitted divine intervention in redemption so why should they rule out divine intervention in creation?

The hypothesis of evolution has had an adverse impact upon morality. If all must be explained in harmony with natural laws then there is no moral realm different from the natural realm. After evolutionists get through explaining the origin of the conscience and moral sensitivity of man, they have in reality explained away morality. To maintain that animals do certain things, and therefore we see in them the beginning of the development of moral conscience, does not prove that I am obligated to do anything. To jump from a description of something that has happened to the conclusion that we are obligated to do this or that is to draw a conclusion that is not justified by their starting point. If men are but highly evolved animals, what right does anyone have to say that one ought to do or ought not to do a certain thing? In fact, to say that one “ought to do something” is no more speaking morally than to say that someone itches. In both cases you are describing a physical sensation. To say that a certain course of conduct would lead to social progress —however progress may be defined — is not the same thing as saying that I am obligated to follow that course of conduct. Every evolutionist must abandon evolution in order to stand for the reality and the binding nature of morality. William F. Quillian, Jr., in The Moral Theory of Evolutionary Naturalism[10] has shown the inability of the evolutionists to establish morality on a consistent naturalistic evolutionary world view.

Darwin viewed morality, religion, and everything else as traceable to something in animals. As he told a cousin: “I look upon all human feeling as traceable to some germ in the animals.”[11]

Darwin’s antagonism to religion increased as the years went on so that he was more antagonistic to religion after many religious leaders had accepted him than before.[12]

Communists pay high tribute to Darwin. In fact Karl Marx wanted to dedicate to Darwin the English translation of Marx’s book on Capital. Darwin refused because he thought it would give pain to some in his family.[13] Karl Marx on December 19, 1860 wrote to Engels that Darwin’s book “is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”[14] On January 16, 1861 he said: “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”[15]

If man is but an evolved animal, there is no moral grounds on which you can condemn the Communists for wanting to establish animal farms, as it were. If morality is simply the evolved customs of man, the Communists have as much right as anybody else to evolve their own moral customs, and there is no moral law in the light of which we can say that they are wrong and we are right. If the survival of the fittest is the way of progress, then those who survive are the fittest by mere virtue of the fact that they survive. In other words, might makes right.

These, then, are some of the consequences that logically flow from naturalistic evolution. There are those, of course, who try to explain the origin and manifold forms of life naturally while maintaining that God is and that is more than an animal and more than matter. If this is true then God has supernaturally intervened in some way to make man more than matter. Once we grant this supernatural intervention we have destroyed the naturalistic hypothesis of evolution. If we are going to say that God super naturally intervened in some way in the creation of man, why not accept the Biblical account of the supernatural intervention?

That evolution has not been scientifically proved can be illustrated by the fact that it would be a rare scientist indeed who would sign the following proposition: Resolved that the evolutionary origin of life and of man has been scientifically proved. If you know of a scientist who will sign this affirmation, we shall be happy to debate him, the Lord willing.

[1] Francis Darwin, Editor, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898, Vol. 1, p. 282.

[2] Ibid., Vol. 1. p. 285

[3] As quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, London: Chatto & Windus, 1959, p. 316.

[4] Henry Fairfield Osborn, The Origin and Evolution of Life, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918, pp. ix-x.

[5] Sol Tax. Editor, Evolution of Man, p. 2

[6] The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 210.

[7] The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 1949, p. 220.

[8] Relis B. Brown, Biology, Second Edition, Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1961, p. 531.

[9] Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 142, Oct. 1928, p. 478.

[10] New Haven: Yale University Press, 1945.

[11] Himmelfarb, op. cit., p. 317.

[12] Ibid., p. 319.

[13] Ibid., p. 316.

[14] Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, 1846-1895, New York: International Publishers, 1936. p. 126. Translated by Dona Torr.

[15] Ibid., p. 125.

Is Baptism Essential?


By Paul Simon, Minister.

Is baptism essential to the remission of our sins? It is a shame that there is so much confusion over this question on which the Bible is so plain. There are many proofs that baptism is necessary to the remission of sins to the person who has reached the mental age of account­ability. Howbeit, I will not burden your minds with all of these proofs, but rather suffice it with four—any one of which would be conclusive in and by itself.

Condition of Salvation

Baptism is one of the conditions of the remission of sins. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). It must be agreed that this baptism is water baptism and not Holy Spirit baptism, because even those who teach that the Holy Spirit bap­tism is to be sought today, teach that it is not essential to salvation, but is a “blessing to be desired.” Jesus here makes faith and baptism equally necessary to salvation. Do you believe a responsible person can be saved without faith? Why then do you think he can be saved with­out baptism?

For Remission of Sins

Jesus says, through His apostle Peter, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis­sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Jesus here makes repentance and baptism of equal importance. The preposition, for, means the same thing in connection with “be baptized” as it does with “repent,” that is, to obtain. God is here saying, “Re­pent everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins.” Can one be saved without repentance? Then neither can he be saved without baptism.

God Commands It

God commands baptism. “And he com­manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). (You) repent and (you) be baptized everyone of you (Acts 2:38).

Christ is going to punish those who obey not His commandments. II Thes. 1:7-9: “And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with ever­lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Therefore, baptism is essential.

All who obey His commandments are to be saved.Rev. 22:14: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

All agree that to get into Christ is essential. Baptism is one of the acts of obedience which puts us into Christ. Gal.

3:27: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” This could not be Holy Spirit baptism, because all agree that Holy Spirit baptism does not put one in Christ. Therefore, water baptism is essential. (Note: Some­one might say, “The preceding verse says that we are saved by faith.” It does, but it does not say “by faith only.”)

Part of The New Birth

Jesus said “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Practically all commentators agree that the birth of water, here mentioned, refers to baptism. See Abbott, Wesley, Milligan, Whitby, Theluck, Olshausen. Alford says, “All attempts to rid this have sprung from doctrinal prejudices.” Even Adam Clarke admits that it refers to baptism, and then tries to argue out of it. Therefore, baptism is essential.

And yet, the church of Christ, the Christian Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Second Adventist Church, Roman Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Church (with possibly some branch of the Holiness Church) are the only religious groups which teach and practice baptism as essential to the re­mission of sins.

Tracts from the Past – Foolishness of Evolution

One thing that we did before, which was somewhat popular with our readers, was offer up some “Tracts from the Past.”  These were tracts which have long-since been out of print, but that we thought were interesting and useful.  We will be bringing back this feature occasionally over the next few months.  Today’s tract from the past is…

Foolishness of Evolution

By Paul Simon, Minister

I can understand why Evolutionists try so hard to prove that the world has been in existence for millions of years; because, it would have taken man that long to have developed by the process of evolution — and then, impossible, because only life can impart life. One cannot give that which he, himself, does not possess. Only God can give life to dead matter; therefore, only God could have formed man out of dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. God is life and can give life. There are 600,000 recorded species of liv­ing invertebrates and 36,000 vertebrates. No one species can cross the line to another species. Evolutionists need to find, not one missing link between men and monkey, but 636,000 missing links. There is a missing link between every species and it always will be missing, because God has so decreed.

Evolutionists are not satisfied to guess what man looked like millions of years ago, and call that guess, “Science,” but are de­termined to guess how he will look a few years from now, and call that guess, “Sci­ence.” Roy Chapman Andrews writes under the title, “How We Are Going to Look” in Readers’ Digest, May, 1945 [Note: Items in parenthesis and italics are my comments]:

“Human beings, half a million years from now, would be caricatures in our eyes—something out of a bad dream. Big round heads, almost glob­ular, hairless as a billiard ball; even the women! Very clever these future people will be—much more intelligent than we are—but alas, at the expense of hearing, tast­ing, seeing, and smelling. Their faces will be smaller. But they will be taller prob­ably several inches. (He is not so sure about this bit of Science, but definitely so about the rest of it.) Though shorter bodies are predicted, with longer legs and only four toes.

“We might hesitate to invite one of those future humans to dinner, were he to appear now in advance of his time, except for his conversational brilliance. But he would have some physical advantages over us: no appendicitis! no sinus trouble; no fallen arches”

We should be the most happy people in the world! We were born just at the right time. Just think; had we been born a few million years ago, we should be squirming mud-dogs or baboons and had we not been born until half a million years later, we should have had large glob­ular heads, with no hair! It seems as though some of us do not have long to go—just think, 500,000 years from now I shall be as bald-head as a billiard ball. Alas, alas, poor me! And what are 500,000 years—to an Evo­lutionist?

Mr. Andrews continues,

“Such predic­tions aren’t guess work. They are based on the known progress of human evolution. Before us is the visible evidence of fossil human skeletons, beginning with that of the Java Ape Man, more than half a mil­lion years old, and progressing in a definite sequence up to the present day. We have every reason to believe (and yet, he does not give even one reason. I wonder why.) that the development or reduction of the same physical characteristics will con­tinue into the future. We can visualize some of these changes if we forget the paltry six thousand years of known civilization and think in terms of thousands of centuries.”

He says that those predictions are based on “known progress of human evolution.” You can see just how much of it is “known.” He has not made any of it known to us. Mr. An­drews admits that we have no knowledge (Science) of civilization prior to six thous­and years ago, but he had just said, “Before us is the visible evidence of fossil hu­man skeletons, beginning with that of the Java Ape Man, more than half a million years old…” How does he know that they are more than 500,000 years old and that they are skeletons of the Ape Man, if civilization is unknown beyond 6,000 years ago? But he goes further back than that. He goes beyond the knowable and tells us what happened 60 million years ago, for he says:

“It required 60 million years for the horse to change from the four-toed Eohippus, scarcely bigger than a fox, to the thor­oughbred of today.”

“Not long before the beginning of the Ice Age, say six or seven million years, (Which? He is a Scientist. He should tell us whether it was 6 or 7 million years. But what is a million years to an Evolutionist? It is quickly said. He reminds me of a cer­tain woman, who to a friend of mine, said, “Honey just say you got it and get up from there.” This friend was seeking the baptism of the Holy Ghost and replied, I haint got it and I haint gonna say I got it.”) he was a quadrupedal ape, swinging blithely through the tree tops like a present-day gibbon or chimpanzee. But he was an ape with possibilities. Some inner urge (What urge? I have never been able to learn how anything but a monkey can know why a monkey acts as he does.) impelled him to get up on two feet and free his hands for purposes other than locomotion. He did this in an incredibly short time, judged by evolutionary standards (What are they?). It required 60 million years for the horse to change … What will happen to him [man] mentally and spiritually we can only guess.”

Not all that glitters is gold. Not all that is called, “Science,” is Science.

Tracts from the Past – Noah’s Salvation and Ours

Continuing our series of “Tracts from the Past” written by Paul Simon (date and location unknown), we now present to you one dealing with types and antitypes that deal with Noah and ourselves.  Enjoy!


By PAUL SIMON, Minister

Noah’s salvation was very simi­lar to ours. Both were spiritual and physical. Although, first em­phasis was placed upon Noah’s physical salvation, he was also saved from the sins of the wicked by their being destroyed in the flood. First emphasis is placed on our spiritual salvation, and yet we are saved physically in that [generally speaking] he who lives a Christian life will live longer than he would have, had he lived an ungodly life.

Noah was saved by grace.

And the Lord said, ‘‘I will destroy man whom I have created from off the face of the earth, for it hath re­pented me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” (Gen. 6). We, too, are saved by grace. “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves.” — Eph. 2:8.

Noah was saved by faith.

By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with Godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (Heb. 11:7). We are saved by faith. “Wherefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:1). “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). Although these passages state that we are saved by faith, they do not say that we are saved by faith only.

Noah was saved by obedience.

By faith Noah being warned of God, concerning things not seen as yet, moved with Godly fear pre­pared an ark (obeyed) to the sav­ing of his house” (Heb. 11:7). We too are saved            by obedience. “Though he were a son, learned he obedience through the things which he suf­fered, and being made perfect he became the author of eternal sal­vation unto all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5:8-9). “To you who are troubled rest with us. When the Lord Jesus Christ shall be re­vealed from heaven with his migh­ty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thes. 1:7-9). “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev 22:14).

Noah was saved by water.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins: the just for the unjust that he might bring us unto God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which some­time were disobedient when once the long suffering of God waited in the day of Noah while the ark was a preparing, wherein few: that is, eight souls were saved by wat­er” (I Peter 3:18-20). Likewise we are saved by water in baptism. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (I Peter 3:21).

Noah was saved in the ark.

We are saved in the spiritual ark, the church. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). “Wives sub­mit yourselves unto your own hus­bands as unto the Lord; for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ also is the head of the church and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ so let the wives be to their own hus­bands. Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he may present it unto himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:22-27). “Take heed therefore unto yourselves and unto all the church over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers to feed the church of God which he pur­chased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

More examples:

  • Noah built the ark. Christ built the church.
  • Noah built but one ark. Christ built but one Church.
  • The ark was Noah’s ark. The Church is Christ’s Church.
  • There was only one family in the ark, Noah’s family. There is but one family in the Church, God’s fami­ly.
  • All of Noah’s family was in the ark. All of God’s family is in the church.
  • All in the ark were Noah’s family. All in the church are God’s family.
  • Only Noah’s children were in the ark. Only God’s children are in the Church.
  • All of Noah’s children were in the ark. All of God’s children are in the church.
  • All in the ark wore one name, Noah’s. All in the church wore one name, Christ’s.
  • All the righteous were in the ark. All the righteous are in the church.
  • All out of the ark were disobedient to God. All out of the church are disobedient to God.
  • All in the ark were saved. All in church are saved.
  • All out of the ark were lost. All out of the church will be lost.
  • Had Noah and his family not entered the ark, or left the ark before God told them to, they would have been lost. All who refuse to enter the church, having obtained unto the age of accountability, will be lost and those who enter the church but refuse to remain faithful to the church will be lost.
  • There was but one entrance into the ark: the door. There is but one entrance into the Church: Christ.
  • There was but one source of light in the ark, the window. There is but one source of spiritual light in the church, the Bible.

You see how understanding our salvation is made simple by com­paring it with Noah’s salvation by the flood.

Tracts from the Past – Principles In Christian Conduct

Like last week, we are posting another tract by a preacher named Paul Simon (date unknown, location unknown).  Many times it helps us to consider topics in short “tract-sized” form.  Often, preachers get overly wordy in trying to explain something when fewer words will do.

Principles In Christian Conduct

By PAUL SIMON, Minister

“Pray without ceasing” (1 Thes. 5:22).

God is not here commanding us to pray at every breath; to pray continuously, but is giving a principle: To pray always, in all things. We should continue to pray and never let the time come in our lives that we no longer pray to God, asking His blessings on us. Great men and women of history have been men and women who realized the need of prayer.

Prayer is not overcoming God’s reluc­tance; it is laying hold of his highest willingness.” — Trench.

Abraham Lin­coln said, “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me, seemed insufficient for the day.

I know no blessing so small as to be reasonably expected without prayer, nor any so great but may be attained by it.”—South.

I think I should have been swept away by the flood of French infidelity, if it had not been for one thing: the remem­brance of times when my sainted mother used to make me kneel by her side, taking my little hands in hers, and caused me to repeat the Lord’s prayer.”—John Randolph.

Jeremy Taylor once said. “The body of our prayer is the sum of our duty; and as we must ask of God whatso­ever we need, so we must watch and labor for all that we ask. Whatsoever we beg of God, let us also work for it.”

Although Jean Inglelow, English author, realized the need of prayer, she also realized the folly of her prayers, when she said, “I have lived to thank God that not all my prayers have been answered.”

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures…” (Matthew 6:19)

Matt. 6:19-34, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light: But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If there­fore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mam­mon. Therefore, I say unto you. Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink: nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat and the body more than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns: yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you, by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you. That even Solomon, in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Where­fore. if God so clothed the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore, take no thought, saying, What shall we eat, or What shall we drink, or Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

Jesus is not, here, commanding us to refuse to save against old age, sickness, or accident: neither is He saying that it is wrong to plan to wear a certain dress, or suit of clothes Sunday, or to eat beans and corn bread for dinner tomorrow—because nothing is done without planning ahead. Jesus is laying down a principle: Put first things first: give spiritual matters first place in your life. Those who fail to abide by this principle of putting God first cannot be happy; neither here, nor hereafter.

The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said. This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, drink and be merry. But God said unto him. Thou fool! this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall these things be which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasures for himself and is not rich toward God.” — Luke 12:16-21. See, also, Luke 16:19-31.

Tracts from the Past – Can a Person be Saved Outside of the church of Christ?

In going through my office (which needs a thorough cleaning anyway), I ran across a hand-full of old, short tracts written by a preacher named Paul Simon.  I honestly don’t know anything about him outside of the fact that he wrote these tracts.

Previous “Tracts from the Past” posts have been very well-received, so we decided to post these here as well.  If you happen to know some background on Mr. Simon, please add it in the comments section or send us a message via our contact page.

Can A Person Be Saved Outside Of The Church Of Christ?

By PAUL SIMON, Minister.

Let us forget about denominationalism, and ask, “Can one be saved outside of the church?”

Some cannot see beyond “de­nominational Christiani­ty.” Some cannot conceive of the non-denominational New Testament Church. A defini­tion of the church will help us to arrive at the correct answer to our question. The church is a spiritual institution, com­posed of every Christian in the world. To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say, “One can be saved with­out becoming a Christian.”

Christ is the Savior of the church. “Wives, submit your­selves unto your husbands as unto the Lord: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church, and he is the savior of the body” (Eph. 5:22). To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say, “One can be saved without being saved.” “And the Lord added unto the church, daily, such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47).

Christ gave Himself for the church. “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25; see also Acts 20:28; 2 Pet. 1:18). To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say, “One can be saved without being purchased by the blood of Christ. Christ is no thief. He will receive unto Himself only that which He has purchased with His blood — the church.

The church is the bride of Christ. “Wherefore, my breth­ren, ye, also, are become dead to the law by the body of Christ: that ye should be mar­ried to another: even unto him that is raised from the dead, that ye should bring forth fruit unto God.” — (Rom. 7:4; see also 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 21:9-11).

The church is the kingdom of Christ. “Upon this rock will I build my church; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18; see also Col. 1:13-14). To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say, “One can be saved outside of the kingdom of Christ— without permitting Christ to reign over him.”

The church is the house, or household of God. “The house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15; see also Heb. 3:6; Isa. 2:2-3). To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say, “One can be saved outside of the household of God.”

One cannot be saved without being born again (John 3:3, 5). One cannot be born again with­out being born into the family of God. To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say, “One can be saved with­out being born again.”

One cannot be saved outside of Christ. “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made night by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). To be in Christ is to be in His spiritual body. His spiritual body is the church – “the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22-23; see also Col. 1:18, 24). To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say, “One can be saved outside of the spiritual body of Christ” (see Eph. 1.3, 7; 11 Tim. 2:10; 11 Cor. 5:17; Acts 4:12; John 15:1-8), and apart from His blood.

A responsible person cannot be saved without obeying from the heart the form of doctrine. “But God be thanked, that ye were the ser­vants of sin, but ye have obey­ed from the heart that form of doctrine which was deliv­ered unto you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). To say that a responsible per­son can be saved outside of the church is to say, ‘‘A respon­sible person can be saved with­out becoming a servant of God.”

A responsible person cannot be saved without eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53). The supper of His flesh and blood is in His kingdom for His chil­dren. “That ye may eat and drink at my table in my king­dom” (Luke 22:30).

You cannot be saved outside of the family of God. “Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3: 15). To say that one can be saved outside of the church is to say that one can be saved out of the family of God, com­posed of His children.

The word, church, comes from a Greek word, ekklesia, which means the called out. “God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13). To say that a respon­sible person can be saved outside of the church is to say that a responsible person can be saved in the kingdom of dark­ness.

Can A Person be Saved Outside the Church?

In the light of God’s word, can one be saved outside of the church? Saved out of which church? Whose church? About whose body, bride, kingdom, family, household, ekklesia, and church have we been Studying? Can a responsible person be saved outside of the church of Christ? This ques­tion you must answer before God.

Christianity and Labor/Management Relations (Christian Solutions to Modern Problems – Part Five)

In this, the conclusion of F.W. Mattox’s speech on Christian Solutions to Modern Problems, he tackles the issues of big business, and of Labor/Management relations.  It is incredible that something written primarily dealing with the social structure in the late 1940s is still so relevant to today’s social structure.  But, as Mattox said, whenever the principles of Christianity are put into place, it doesn’t matter what the social structure is–it makes each person and endeavor better.

Enjoy this, the final installment of this series.  And if you want to download the entire tract as a single pdf file, simply click here.



There has been too much misunderstanding in regard to the place of big business in American life. Too long has it been pictured as a monster of evil. There is no ulterior motive for my defending it. I don’t own a penny’s worth of stock in any company. I have no special friends in the management of any big company. I’m just an ordinary college professor with a smaller than average income, but I listen to a fine radio— produced by big business. My food is preserved in a fine refrigerator. I drive my own car, take a trip on the train, or on occasions I travel the airlines, all made possible by big business. Last year I built a home. It contains a modern kitchen, automatic furnaces and three bath rooms. Where else in the world can a fellow like me enjoy such conveniences? And why can I afford it? Only because it is all inexpensive—thanks to the big business corporation, the American method that allows all of us to pool our strength. The keynotes of big business are economy of operation, maximum production and improvement of techniques so that lower selling costs will result. Most big business is owned by many stockholders who share in its profits. Stockholders invest money for tools that make the products all of us use. There is no reason for it to be corrupt just because it is big. There is no reason for it not having a heart. In fact it has.

In general, it works for the welfare of employees as well as stockholders. And in many companies, employees are also stock-holders.

The effort that some labor leaders and social planners are making to destroy harmony between management and labor is un-Christian. Big business will bring us increasing conveniences if those so engaged recognize they are a part of a great team. This mutual interest is the result of brotherhood and Christianity builds the most cohesive brotherhood known to man. The law of supply and demand regulates the type and quantity of production. Competition results, not only in better products at cheaper prices, but also in new products, expanded plants and more jobs. The results add up to a higher standard of living for all and this, too, is Christian. The government should serve only as a referee, and allow these natural laws to operate.


There is no limit to the practical applications of Christianity to modem life. No matter the sphere of activity in which one finds himself, he will be impressed with how accurately the Christian principles apply.

Let us consider the case of management in business. Christianity demands that modern management in business assume responsibility for the welfare of its employees. The manager of a business that employs a thousand men must say in his heart, “I am responsible for these families. I must see to it, if possible, that there is enough profit in this business to maintain continuous salaries at a living wage. This means that I must replace worn-out machines, and develop a backlog of capital that will see this business through recessions or depressions and take care of any adjustments made necessary by increased competition. I must not only provide for employees today, but look out for their future.”

This is a serious responsibility. It is a responsibility that labor has apparently failed to understand. Too many workers have the attitude that management is their enemy. This is truly unfortunate.

The gulf that has developed between management and labor is eliminated by the application of Christian principles. Management has the responsibility of assuring labor that both are friends and that the business is being operated in their behalf as well as in the behalf of stockholders and that the accumulation of “venture capital” is for their good.

Management has the responsibility of informing labor of the necessity for profits. From the Christian viewpoint, any business management that does not make profits sufficient to replace machines and provide a backlog of capital to care for plant expansion and enlargement so that sons of present employees might have some opportunity for employment, has not assumed its full Christian responsibility.

Christianity, therefore, demands that management assume responsibility for sound management. It is a serious matter to have a great number of human beings looking to you for food, clothing, and shelter. Christianity will cause this responsibility to be taken seriously. In view of these ideals, wages will be increased as much as is possible in the light of the above mentioned responsibilities. Working conditions will be improved in every manner possible, motivated by a feeling of brotherhood and mutual sharing of responsibilities.


Christianity gets down into the lives of every human and improves conditions and attitudes of all. The laborer must assume his share of responsibility, also. He must understand that if he receives $1.00 per hour for his work that he must create in that one hour, not only $1.00 in value that would come back in the form of reimbursement to his company, but he must create enough more than $1.00 in that hour to provide for the upkeep and replacement of his machinery, the upkeep and expansion of his plant, and additional value that will be stored back to provide for further emergencies in the time of depression or financial recession. This must come into the understanding of modern labor if there is ever to be harmony between labor and management. Christianity requires that labor assume these responsibilities.

In this, we see a formula for success that applies to every young man who wants to get ahead. Christianity would say to such a young man, “Your income can depend only upon the value that you create minus replacement of machines, required supervision, and a small deposit for insurance against future calamities.” The more a young man creates in value, and the more responsibility he assumes, the better care he takes of the machines, and the less supervision that is required to keep him on the job, the more income he can receive. In this way, a greater share of his creation of value belongs to him. Christianity gives one this feeling of responsibility.


There is no end to the applications of Christianity to modem life. The principles of honesty, fair dealing, sympathy, humility, as well as responsibility are applicable to every human being in every walk of life. A husband is a better husband for being a Christian. He is dependable, loyal, sympathetic, understanding, and kind. A wife is a better wife because of being a Christian on the same basis. Children are better children because of being Christians. Christianity lessens the harshness, the unkindness, and ill-will that has so marred human relations in the past and replaces these negative qualities with positive principles which improve human relations on every hand.

In society under the Caesars, human life was very cheap. Even those motivated by the very highest form of pre-Christian philosophy had not learned the value of a human life. The Roman Stoics, in their practice of slavery, would have no consideration for a slave who had become old and useless. There was no provision for his welfare and the only suggestion he would receive would be to take his own life. With the coming of Christianity into the world, every human institution felt its impact and through the years, society has come more and more into harmony with its idealism. Not only has the Christian idealism proved itself in practical applications, but stands ever ready to take humanity to still greater heights.

If modem society with its scientific know-how would work seriously to make Christian application to its social and economic problems, we would experience the dawn of a new day in which standards of living and human satisfactions would reach levels undreamed of in past generations. The challenge is to you to apply Christianity where you are today.

Christianity and Wealth (Christian Solutions to Modern Problems – Part Four)

With this installment of F.W. Mattox’s Christian Solutions to Modern Problems, the writer and professor at Harding College in the mid-1900s addresses the ideas that earning interest is sinful, and that poverty is the pinnacle of Christian virtue.



The critics of Christianity have left no stone unturned to bring it into discredit. It is being stated that the Bible opposed collecting interest on loans, and since the American system is based upon investment of capital for which a return is expected, the Bible is against the American system.

This criticism is based upon the following scripture quotations. In Psalm 15:5, the man that pleases God is described as a man who “putteth not out his money to interest.” In Ezekiel 18:8, the just man is spoken of as “he that hath not given forth upon interest, neither hath taken any increase.” These passages, upon first thought seem to prove the contention, but upon examination it is clearly seen that this prohibition is against taking interest from the poor to whom a loan has been granted in order to sustain life. In Ezekiel 8:17 it is stated that this just man, “hath given bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; that hath not withdrawn his hand from the poor, that hath not received interest or increase.” In Leviticus 25:35, this idea is even more clearly: stated: “And if thy brother is waxed poor, and his hand fail with thee; then shall thou uphold him …Take thou no interest of him or increase….Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, not give him thy victuals for increase.” This same principle applies to the passage in Nehemiah 5:3-13 which condemns the practice of some of the Jews who were taking away the lands of their poor and starving brethren through usury.

There is, however, another type of loan. The loans so far discussed were for subsistence purposes. There was no consideration here given to capital loans—or loans for the purpose of capital investment. This type of loan is made for the purpose of creating greater wealth, and justice would require that the person furnishing the money should share in the increase which his money makes possible. In Matthew 25:14-30 Jesus tells the story of the master who distributed talents to his servants. In this story the men who properly invested the money were rewarded and the man who did not was condemned for his failure. Although the story teaches a spiritual lesson the approval of Jesus for interest on capital investments is clearly seen. The language is as follows, “Wherefore givest thou not my money into the bank, and I at coming should have required it with interest.” Criticisms of the Bible are made by those who do not see the whole picture and accordingly, fail to make distinctions that alter completely premature concepts.


It has just been suggested that Christianity might be misunderstood to such an extent that the charge would be made that Christianity discourages the accumulation of wealth and sanctions poverty. It is unfortunate that any would so misinterpret the teachings of the New Testament. The statement of Jesus to the rich young ruler, “Go, sell what you have, give to the poor, and come follow me,” has been used as a proof text for such an idea. In this case, Jesus is not approving poverty but was dealing with a young man who had a love for possessions that was stronger than his devotion to God. It was this love of money (which the Apostle Paul tells Timothy is the root of all kinds of evil) that was the sin of his life. Evidence that this is correct is seen in the statement that Christians should “Maintain good works (honest occupations) for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.” (Titus 3:14.)

Another criticism stems from a statement in the 5th chapter of the Book of James where the rich are condemned. The passage reads, “Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten.” This passage has been used to prove that God is displeased with the rich. Such thinking overlooks entirely the 4th verse which gives a clear explanation of why the condemnation is given. It continues by saying, “Behold the hire of the laborers who mowed your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth out.” This is the key to the passage. The rich have a responsibility not to use their power as means of oppression. The passage in no way indicates a condemnation of wealth as such, but rather the un-Christian means used for making the money.

In this connection, some have misunderstood the commendation of Jesus for the widow who gave her last penny into the treasury. In this case, Jesus made the statement that she had given more than they all. But this cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus is approving poverty and condemning wealth, but rather he is commending the deep devotion of one who was poor. One does not need to be rich to be covetous; neither does one need to be poor to be liberal. Jesus is here commending one who assumes responsibility and this is a keynote of the Christian religion.

Christianity and Communism (Christian Solutions to Modern Problems – Part Three)

Greetings!  We hope that you have been finding F.W. Mattox’s work on “Christian Solutions to Modern Problems” to be interesting and challenging.  Today’s installment looks at–among other things–the assertion that the Bible endorses communism.



Karl Pollanyi, the Austrian economist, has criticized Christianity on the basis that it presents no over-all plan for society. He calls this the greatest blind spot in Christianity. His criticism is that it is entirely too individualistic; that it might have worked in former periods, but since there are so many people living in large groups, the Christian individualistic idealism does not apply.

I would answer this charge by saying that while Christ did not give us a detailed blueprint for the ideal society, which could have been applicable in only given localities, he instead left us underlying principles which will take root in any society and bring it to a more ideal state. All who have looked into the matter of law and studied its value are impressed with the fact that no system of regulations is more effective than the majority of the members of the society will support. In other words, laws and regulations, to be effective, must be supported by the majority of the members of the society involved. This means that had Christ given the ideal social order, it would never have been effective until the majority in any society would support it as individuals.

Instead of approaching it from this angle, Christ gave plans that will build in the individual social responsibility and ideals of conduct that would make him the ideal citizen in any form of society. Not only does Christianity build into each individual heart the highest social responsibility; it requires that each individual be a missionary of these ideals to such an extent that each will use his power and influence in developing in others the same responsibility and noble principles of conduct. This plan is far more effective than any attempt would have been to require a perfect social order.

Not only is this a better plan ideally, but it is the only plan that could work from the practical point of view. If Jesus had advocated a perfect social order, it would have meant there would be outward opposition by his followers against all opposing orders and thus have caused social upheaval in the Roman Empire as well as in all subsequent times. But by working through the individual, each order is gradually improved as the principles of Christ are accepted.


As Pollanyi has criticized Christianity for having no over-all plan for society, others have claimed that Christianity endorses Communism. Accordingly, the adherents of such an idea say that the Communistic philosophy is in harmony with the Christian religion. This definitely is a mistaken idea. The passages of scripture that are used to prove such a claim are passages in the Book of Acts telling of the church in Jerusalem.

In Acts, 2:44, the scripture says, “And all that believed were together and had all things common and they sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all accordingly as any man had need.” Again in the 4th chapter, and the 32nd verse, it reads, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own: but they had all things common . . . for neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any had need.”

These passages of scripture in no way endorse the Communistic philosophy, but rather, are statements of the unselfishness that Jesus taught in regard to Christians sharing with others when occasion demanded.

There is a great difference in Christian sharing and Communism. In Communism, the state takes over all of the property, even by force, and it is controlled by a small minority, theoretically for the good of all. Communism would take all wealth from all individuals. This is not what we have read in the above passages of scripture. Those who sold lands and possessions, sold them voluntarily and gave their money voluntarily to the apostles and this money was distributed, not equally to all who were Christians, but only to those who were in need.

Not only is this true, but we have the record of those who did not sell their possessions in the church at Jerusalem.

An outstanding example of this is Mary, the mother of John Mark, who owned a large home in the city of Jerusalem, which was used as a meeting place for many of the Christians. (Acts 12:12-14.) Further evidence is the fact that the Apostle Paul in his instructions to Christians in their giving, laid down the plan that each is to give as he has prospered. (I Cor. 16:2.) This clearly indicates that there were differences in prosperity.

This also indicates that the New Testament scripture does not demand equality of possession. Jesus said, “The poor will be with you always.” This, by no means, however, should be taken as a sanction of poverty but rather it is an indication that no matter what a person’s financial status, he is responsible for helping his fellow man. The conclusion is very strong that the New Testament scripture does not sanction in any of its plans, a Communistic set-up such as is being advocated today. The scripture does set forth very strongly the idea of individual responsibility and one of the greatest weaknesses of any Communistic development is the elimination of responsibility on the part of the many and the assuming of complete direction in the hands of the few.

Christianity and Government (Christian Solutions to Modern Problems – Part two)

Today, we continue our presentation of F.W. Mattox’s work Christian Solutions to Modern Problems, and see how Christianity can help make the government better.



Our spiritual heritage is the root out of which the American system has grown. This is evidenced by recalling that our national documents are permeated with both Bible ideas and Bible language. The Bill of Rights which guarantees our freedoms is an outgrowth of the Christian emphasis upon the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. Furthermore, the American form of government presupposes that the governed are not only intelligent in being able to make wise decisions, but can be relied upon to assume the responsibility for government. Those who would change our form of government are saying that this is expecting too much from the masses. To them, society does not consist of enlightened, responsible individuals, but of ignorant, contriving self-seekers that must be controlled by force. When one looks at certain members of society this latter view seems to be correct and certainly no one would claim that all members of society are all they ought to be. My contention is that the great majority of American citizens are enlightened and responsible—capable of self-government—and that if this group will become more vocal in regard to its present rights and privileges under our free system, the system itself will not only be preserved, but the non-cooperating members of society can be brought to an appreciation and support of the system. Accordingly, every American should appreciate his religious heritage and work for its preservation.


In what way does Christianity affect government spending?

First of all government officials have an obligation to the governed. They are trustees—stewards with responsibility, and the first requirement of stewards is that they be found faithful. The present trend of bureaucratic expansion, inefficiency in office and valueless expenditures in every department is a national disgrace. Every Christian receiving a government check should look squarely at himself as he ponders whether the government could do without him. He should then either quit his job or work so hard it would become apparent that others were not needed. We must no longer deceive ourselves about government money. It is our money. No Christian father would place indebtedness upon his family to such an extent that it would take three generations to lift it. Coming generations will have problems of their own without our placing a mortgage upon their heads. Thrift, good management, hard work, and frugal economy are Christian principles our government officials need to consider.

This is no criticism of our governmental system. In spite of these defects we have more blessings than any other people on earth, but Christianity is not satisfied with such defects. Why should we be? With economy in government, our national debt can be paid, taxes reduced, and standards of living raised. It is time that all realize that “Federal Aid” is a deceptive term. The Federal government has no money. It can create no wealth. By taxation it takes our money and the small part of it given back to us is called “Federal Aid.” Christianity cries out against all waste.