I was sitting in Starbucks on Victoria and State Street last night, and on my way there, I passed by the Christian Science Reading Room on the corner. I grabbed a couple free articles they have on the wall, and strolled into Starbucks to examine them. I've noticed that if any group has a tendency to veer off course, doctrinally, it is usually in the way of the person of Jesus Christ, or the authority of Scripture. Everyone seems to have the same interpretation of "God" (for example, Russian President Putin claimed to be a believer his recent headliner in Time Magazine), but do they have the same interpretation of Jesus, who Christians hold to be God in the flesh? Many people, even non-believers, will have something good to say about the Bible, but do they believe it to be entirely true and sufficient?
Here is an excerpt from one of the articles, entitled Some Essentials For Being A Christian Science Practitioner:
"...as the first tenet of Christian Science states, '...we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal life.'"
Ok, good! It seems that Christian Scientists and Christians have the same view of God's Word...right? Let's read the next paragraph:
"Another essential is a love for Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures and for it's author, Mary Baker Eddy....She wrote: 'I should blush to write of "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" as I have, were it of human origin, and were I, apart from God, its author.'" [1]
Uh oh.
You could have gone through this entire magazine and gotten a basic perception that Christian Science looks to be pretty right on, because for the most part, a lot of what they teach on the surface of the magazine is similar to what we teach. Except for that one little part where they just claimed that there is something ELSE essential for living other than God's Word...or where they claim that Mary Eddy Baker's book is authored by God.
The Word of God is not sufficient? Doesn't 1 Timothy 3:16,17 teach us that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work?"
So if the Word of God is adequate for EVERY good work that we need to accomplish in this life, then what do we need Mary Eddy Baker's book for? We don't. Of course, she claims that it's inspired by God, but is it?
Last time I checked, we were not supposed to add words to God's words as Mary Eddy Baker has.
Deuteronomy 4:2 states that "You shall not add to the word which I [God] am commanding you."
In chapter 12:32 He reiterates that "you shall not add to nor take away from it [His words]."
In Proverbs 30:6 we are told not to "add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
God seemed to know that there would be the temptation to add words, because He waited until the one of the last verses in the very last chapter of the last book of the Bible, where in Revelation 22:18, 19 He states, "if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book."
That's interesting that God says he'll add plagues to those who add to His words, because in another paragraph of this article, it is told that to believe that sickness is real, is to believe an error, which Mrs. Eddy labels "animal magnetism." [2]
She must have skipped over that verse in her newly revised version.
The inerrant and sufficient Word of God states that there exists "Satan, who deceives the whole world" (Rev 12:9) This is contrary to Christian Science that teaches God as the "only real power that exists." Jesus has conquered death on the cross, and we should, as Christians be living in that realization, but the Bible also clearly teaches that we have a common enemy who is the "god of this world" [2cor4:4] who seeks to deceive.
Don't let Christian Science deceive you.
1. Christian Science Sentinel | Oct 23, 2006, pg 21.
2. Christian Science Sentinel | Oct 23, 2006, pg 28.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
As a Christian Scientist, I think your blog Sucks, and you just don't get it. Yes, Science and Health is the word of God, and anyone who does not believe that is already DEAD. You are fucked up if you do not believe the Truth. Christian Science is the Truth and every other religion should be destroyed.
As a blogger, I appreciate your input, and will try to make my blog not suck by pouring more time into it.
And you're half right. Everybody that rejects Mary Baker Eddy's literature is or will die, just like those who do not. Everybody dies, Kenneth. And someday, so will you and I.
I do believe in the Truth, and as a rational thinker and man of faith, believe that the book with the most credibility to back it up is boss. I have enough evidence to believe that the Bible (which claims exclusivity; Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18,19) stands alone as God's only written revelation to humanity.
I am willing to listen to you concerning Health and Science if you believe that you have weightier evidence than I do. If you don't, I would still love to converse with you more on this. I hear Christian Science Practitioners are very kind and personable.
I won't get on your case for believing whatever you want to believe, as it is your right. But I will strongly point out the clear distinctions between Christianity, and Christian Science which are radically different from each other.
Take care.
Hello Chris - I compliment you on your restrained and kindly response to Kenneth...
please let me assure you that his response was NOT based on Christian Science.
IF he is a CS, he certainly forgot himself in the heat of the moment.
Christian Scientists are taught to respect the beliefs of others.
Christian Scientists do love "Science and Health" but do not refer to it or think of it as the Word of God.
We love it because it turns us back to the Bible, with more understanding.
We read the Bible and Science and Health on a daily basis, and practise our religion on a daily basis.
We are followers of Jesus Christ, and strive to live his 2 Great Commandments, to love God, and our neighbour.
The sixth tenet of CS states pretty clearly our modus operandi:
" 6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for
that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure." [p497]
Chris, for CS'ers, Science and Health illuminates the Bible, and reveals its healing power.
Science and Health says on page 406: 1 "The Bible contains the recipe for all healing."
It also says, "The vital part,the heart and soul of Christian Science, is Love. " [113:5]
Surely this is also a good summary of Jesus' teaching!
Christian Science heals, Chris, using the laws of God as demonstrated by Jesus Christ.
you might like to investigate further, by reading Science and Health online, Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures
regards,
Verndigger
Vern-
I am grateful that you took the time to respond to the posts on this blog, and the explanations as well as the various resources you supplied. I read through many chapters of Mary Baker Eddy's Health and Science that you sent to me in order to better understand some of the things that you pointed out. I appreciate you reading what I have to say, and will likewise return the favor, should you choose to respond to this.
(1)
You mentioned earlier that Science and Health (S&H) "turns you back to the Bible, with more understanding," and that S&H "illuminates the Bible, and reveals..."
(2)
You also mentioned (quoting S&H) that "the heart and soul of Christian Science, is Love."
I would like to start addressing the first issue, which was the origin of this blog post to begin with. The Bible states clearly that it is God Himself that reveals things to us. Matthew 11:25 tells us that God hides things from the wise...and reveals them to infants. Also, it was God who revealed Jesus deity to Peter in Matthew 16:17. It tells us in John 2:27 that there is an anointing inside all Christians, and that because of it, we have "no need for anyone to teach [us]." If we are in need of wisdom, we do not need to consort a book authored by man or woman, but only to ask of God, "who gives to all generously and without reproach" (James 1:5).
At this point, I want to draw a clear line on what God uses for revelation. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 tells us that "All Scripture[the Bible] is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." These verses clearly state that the Bible is able to be useful for what the previous verses mention: growing in wisdom, knowledge of the truth, and understanding. The Bible is God's revelation. Not only that but we see through 2 Timothy that the Bible is ALL we need to be completely adequate, "equipped for every good work." We don't need literature to help "illuminate" the Bible. That is God's responsibility. And only He is capable of doing this with us.
The second thing I mentioned was what you called the heart and soul of Christian Science: Love. I agree. But I believe that you and I may have a different view of "Love." In S&H 473:24, Mary Baker Eddy states that "Love, rather than personality or the man Jesus, is required."
The Bible states that God IS love, and that Jesus IS God. Therefore my view as a Christian is drastically different than Eddy's because she believes that something other than Jesus Christ is necessary for something of spiritual importance, and I believe that Jesus is of central importance because He is God.
Basically, I think we might have conflicting views because I believe that Jesus is God based on what the Bible teaches, and you don't...? I'm not sure. I'm only assuming from what I've read in S&H.
All of this to say, the main thrust of my original blog is that Christian Science and Christianity are much different from each other. To say they are the same is to err greatly. That is all:)
-Chris
Hello again Chris, thanks for your detailed reply. since as you say, your final sentence sums up what you are getting at, let me begin by addressing that:
"All of this to say, the main thrust of my original blog is that Christian Science and Christianity are much different from each other. To say they are the same is to err greatly. That is all:)"
What you are telling me of course, albeit indirectly and very politely, is that I am not a Christian, and therefore presumably in your belief, doomed to eternal damnation.
Chris, I've been a student of CS for 7 + decades; started at age 3 or 4.
so believing in it was 'natural' to me - in theory.
but I always took it more or less for granted, i.e., it was on the back burner of my life.
after I was married and raising children, going to university at nights, volunteering in the community and holding down 2 part time jobs as well as my 'regular' job, my life was pretty full, as you might imagine.
However, the time came when I was seriously considering another path, moving away from my CS beliefs.
At this point, through a series of circumstances, I was picked up by the scruff of the neck, and plunked back on the path of CS, by God.
THEN I began to take it really seriously, and to strive to live its tenets daily.
so you see, I KNOW the path God has put me on, and I praise Him daily for so doing.
Now, as to who is Christian and who is not.
In my previous post I gave you our 6th tenet, re-quoted here:
" 6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and
to be merciful, just, and pure."
can you really believe that someone who prays thus - sincerely! - daily, is not a true follower of Jesus Christ ?
I pray every day to God, the Creator of the universe and all that is in it.
I ask Him for guidance in how to study, how to pray, and how to believe. and I LISTEN.
do you believe that He is ignoring me, and deliberately letting me go my own false way ?
so for me, the definition of a Christian is very simple; one who follows Jesus Christ, and obeys his commandments.
your quoted sentence might better read "Christian Science and my understanding of Christianity are very different."
what you are referring to as Christianity is one branch of Christianity, commonly referred to as 'orthodox' or 'traditional' Christianity.
this branch as I understand it, springs from the Nicene conference in 325 a.d., when it was decided by vote of the bishops that Jesus was God.
Chris, Jesus said in John 14:12 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works
that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
do; because I go unto my Father."
now he said this to his disciples;and presumably to his disciples of all time, which would include you and me. Presumably therefore, he expects us, you and I, to DO these works.
so do YOU believe you can do greater works than God Himself, Chris ?
so yes, Christian Science does not teach that Jesus is God.
but NEITHER does it teach as is so often claimed by those attempting to destroy CS, that Jesus is 'just a man'.
and Christian Science does teach the divinity of Christ, and Christian Scientists fully accept that.
"The second thing I mentioned was what you called the heart and soul of Christian Science: Love. I agree. But I believe that you and I may have a different view of "Love." In S&H 473:24, Mary Baker Eddy states that "Love, rather than personality or the man Jesus, is required." "
ah, Chris , if you're going to make quotes to prove your point, PLEASE don't quote out of context!
"to reach his example,...a better understanding of God as divine Principle, Love, rather than personality or the man Jesus, is required."
shows a rather different meaning than construed in your post.
when you read Science and Health more thoroughly, you will discover that Love capitalized is a synonym for God, and is so used in the above quote.
So YES, the Bible says that God is Love! and SO does Science and Health!
S&H 2:23 God is Love. Can we ask Him to be more?"
yes, we 'have conflicting views because you believe Jesus is God "based on" your understanding of the Bible.
and I do not, based on my understanding of the Bible.
I have no desire to change your views, Chris, but perhaps you can understand why Christian Scientists do not believe that Jesus is God.
never once in the Gospels does Jesus say "worship me". instead, 27 times, he says FOLLOW ME.
so I follow Jesus, and worship God.
Chris, I know from many discussions just how deep this belief goes; and I have no desire to prove your belief in error, or to change it.
I assume that God our heavenly Father-Mother is guiding you on your path, as He is guiding me on mine.
I also believe that if you read and absorb objectively what Science and Health says about Christ and Jesus, that we might find our different beliefs are not as radically different as we presently think.
just a couple of final points re your biblical quotes:
2 tim 3:16, according to some commentaries, should be translated "Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc." [Clarke] and in addition refers only to the Old Testament, since the New was not written at that time.
so I certainly agree that "every inspired Scripture is useful!
and to glean inspiration from the Scriptures, they must be read prayerfully, asking God for the needed inspiration, yes?
In your original post you end by saying:
"The inerrant and sufficient Word of God states that there exists "Satan, who deceives the whole world" (Rev 12:9) This is contrary to Christian Science that teaches God as the "only real power that exists."
I found no quote in Science and Health equal to what you have in quotes re CS teaching.
but yes, Christian Science certainly teaches that God is omnipotent, all-powerful.
do you not believe that ?
as to satan, Jesus says he is a liar and the father of it, and that "there is no truth in him." [John 8:44]
how can that in which there is no truth, be REAL ?
peace and joy,
Vern
Vern-
It sounds like you are just as resolute in your beliefs as I am, and I understand your willingness not to trample or "change my views," but that is not something I am offended by. If you are right in your assertions, you owe it to the human race as a follower of God to share the truth. Scripture instructs us to exhort and refute when it comes to sound doctrine (Titus 1:9), and since we both call ourselves Christians, we should not be ashamed of reasoning with each other with the Scriptures. I don't feel as though you are judging me or trying to change my mind, and I have tried to return the favor. Neither of us can change a mind anyway, so let us reason together (Isaiah 1:18) and let the Holy Spirit be our guide.
That being said, I am going to answer your questions as best as I am able, and address some of the assertions you made, because I do disagree with you on many points, based off what I read in in the Bible. Only good can come from desiring to understand God's Word.
The most important issue concerning our differences, is the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. You are wrong in your assertion that Jesus never claimed to be God. There are several quotes by Jesus Himself that assert His clear declaration of deity, as well as claims by those closest to Him. I am going to save these for the end, as it will take up very much space. I do hope you will read and consider them.
For now, let me start at the beginning. If you adhere to the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy, as a Christian Scientist would, then YES, I am unfalteringly stating that you are also not a Christian, and stand condemned. I pray that you will make certain of the truth, regardless of your many decades of study. While only God knows your heart, I know certain things that Mary Baker Eddy teaches are absolutely contradictory to the core tenets of Christianity. This is not a question of which one is truth, we can save that for a different discussion. This is a declaration that I serve a different person than you do. I will expound on this as we go on.
Let us reason from the Scriptures what a Christian is. One of the first things you mentioned concerning this was the "6th tenet." This is a quote from Science and Health (S&H), correct?...
"And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure" (Emphasis mine).
I think I already established why I do not believe Eddy's literature or any other piece of writing outside the scope of the canon of Scripture to be God-breathed. Biblical passages already show us that Eddy's books are past the allowable time frame for them to be included. There are also many other reasons why it is impossible for her book to be included on the same level of authority as the Bible. For this reason, you should be able to see why I and other Christians reject this 6th tenet as an authoritative description of what it means to be a Christian. In addition, as you said, to "pray thus - sincerely! - daily..." is not what makes a Christian. Prayer is an incredible means of reaching the ears of God, and is something that all Christians should and must do!! Why would we not? But if reasoning that since you pray daily, that you are also a Christian BECAUSE of this act, is to say that your faith is based off of your good works, which is contrary to Scripture, and contradicts Paul when he tells us that it is "by grace that you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8). Even about the amount of prayers we pray. Praying and worshiping are an outflow of the change that took place in our hearts when we were saved, but our saving is not hinged or determined by that, if only to confess Him as Lord.
Vern, even your best works are like filthy rags to God (Is 64:6). It is only on account of the righteousness of Jesus that we are pleasing to God. And there is nothing left for us to boast about except in the cross.
You mentioned that Orthodox Christianity sprang "from the Nicene conference in 325 a.d., when it was decided by vote of the bishops that Jesus was God."
I am familiar with this claim, and it is a false statement based off of error, not facts or history. It was also widely circulated by the popular fictional novelist, Dan Brown in his book the Da Vinci Code, which is also not "God-breathed," or fact-based. The assertion that Jesus was not considered God until the council of Nicea in A.D. 325 is made up, and holds no water. Nor is it correct that the council "voted" on whether Christ be called a deity. This theory is easily picked apart by considering what the early Christians believed about Jesus BEFORE the council of Nicea ever existed. Again, we will treat this thoroughly at the end. The four gospels that were highlighted in the Nicea discussions were already established and recognized in the area almost a century before the council met. This vote didn't establish the truths, rather, they affirmed them in the face of persecution, and deception. Constantine (and Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria) were simply defending the faith against those (Arius) who were seeking to undermine what the early church had believed since it's beginning. Most of the deception being cast by people like Arius was based off the gnostic "gospels" which were written centuries later, and advocating a different doctrine than what was taught by the early church. None of these authors had eyewitness account of the life of Jesus, as did the apostolic writers of what is Scripture.
What Jesus says in John 14:12, encourages us to do greater works, (taken in context of the following verse), because He's going back to the Father...His role in doing works is done, and He's leaving them to us! It's not because He can't do them. It's Jesus' charge to us to step out and do the work of the Kingdom. Hebrews 1:2 also tells us that one of Jesus' works was creating the world, as does Colossians 1:16. No, Vern, I do not believe I can create the worlds as Jesus did. Because He is God. But I do accept his prodding to take part in the things that He calls me to do in this life, which is exactly His challenge in John 14.
"To reach his example,...a better understanding of God as divine Principle, Love, rather than personality or the man Jesus, is required."
Ok, now it is in context? I do not see how you changed my original mentioning of this verse. The first sentence you included still does not change the meaning. It strengthens what I pointed out originally, that Eddy teaches that Christ is not God, and that God is required apart from the person, Jesus. We already understand where we disagree concerning Jesus deity, so this point seems moot at the moment. You believe that Jesus is not God, and since I believe Jesus to be God, and therefore love, my original assertion was correct, and used the appropriate context. In addition, I also researched other passages in Science and Health that support my original statement, so it was also in contextual relationship with other verses in Eddy's writings, such as when she asserted "If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me" (The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany, pg 318-319). Am I taking this excerpt out of context? They affirm each other.
We DO have a different view of love.
Concerning the exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16, the word for God-inspired comes from the Greek word, "theopneustos" which accurately describes the divine prompting of God, which is no less asserted in the original language to mean, "God-breathed" through the hand of a man. Any correct translation of the Bible should be true and accurate to the language in which it was written. You say that we are "to glean inspiration from the Scriptures, they must be read prayerfully, asking God for the needed inspiration," and I wholeheartedly agree with you. I hope only to grow in my knowledge of the Word of God, and it is truly a privilege to be able to do so. Thank the Lord! A common mistake made in regards to the Greek word for "inspired" [theopneustos] is to think of it in the way we would a writing by Shakespeare, that he was "inspired" when he wrote it, or even theologians, when they write extra-biblical literature or commentaries. It may be naturally inspired, but it is not God-inspired, at least in the supernatural terms given by 1 Timothy 3:16.
You are also correct that the New Testament was not assembled and/or written at the time of this verse in 2 Timothy. However, if the New Testament IS Scripture, than it is ALSO qualified as God-breathed.
The Greek word for Scripture in 2 Timothy is "graphe," which is where we get our word, "autograph." This word is used again in 2 Peter 3:15-16 to refer to Paul's writings! Here we have Peter, the rock upon which Jesus would build His church, categorizing Paul's letters as Scripture, and therefore God-breathed! We interpret Scripture with Scripture for clarity.
These were of course, apostles "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the gospel" (Luke 1:1, 2), whom Jesus told His disciples in John 16:13-14 that the Holy Spirit would "declare to [them] the things that are to come." It is Scripture that is God-breathed, not writings. At least, that's what the Greek denotes.
God loves Mary Baker Eddy as much as He loves anyone else, including the disciples, but nowhere supported by Scripture do we see Him disclosing such a responsibility to her. She does not fit the Biblical requirements. Only a handful do, and they were eyewitnesses to His resurrection.
This resurrection is something that Mary Baker Eddy implies is a lie, as she claims that "His disciples believed Jesus to be dead while he was hidden in the sepulcher, whereas he was alive..." (S&H, p 44:28-29).
She further denies His physical death by the cross, saying that "...his body was not changed until he himself ascended..." (S&H, p.46:15-17).
It would be impossible for a CS'er to believe in the resurrection anyway, since S&H does not believe in the reality of physical death, but calls it "an illusion...the unreal, and untrue" (S&H, pg 584:9). But Mary Baker Eddy is dead, Vern. She died on December 3, 1910 at her home on 400 Beacon Street, in Newton, MA., and she was buried at Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, MA., where you can visit her grave where her body lies. You can also visit Jesus' grave in Israel. I walked into it myself in September, and it is empty.
Vern, Paul loudly declares that if Christ has not been resurrected, our faith is worthless, and we are false witnesses (1Cor 15:12-19)...a sobering thought.
But He has been resurrected as the King of glory. And here we end my "dissertation" on the deity of Christ, which was confirmed long before the council of Nicea ever existed to agree on its accuracy and truthfulness.
Let's start with Jesus' claims.
He tells the Jews in defense of His authority, that "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working" (John5:17-18). We can try to divulge all the information we want out of a given passage, but the proper study of any literature tells us to exegete the meaning based off what the hearers in that culture understood Him to say. It says very clearly in the next verse that "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
In John 8:58, Jesus says to the Jews, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
Here, Jesus applies the Old Testament name of God that Yahweh used of Himself when Moses asked Him for His Name, to Himself (Ex3:14). If there was any doubt of this, we but need to look to the listeners of that time to make note of their reaction. Remember, these were adult religious Jews who by the time they turned 13, memorized all of the Old Testament, and would have heard and discerned clearly what Jesus was implying if He claimed deity. There reaction was: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." Jews often stoned those accused of blasphemy. Why would they stone Him for this statement?
A clearer example of this is in John 10:30-33, when He tells the Jews, "I and the Father are one." This is a blatant claim to deity, and their response? They "picked up stones again to stone Him..." They stated, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
The Jews also accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, as well as fully man. It wasn't unclear to them though they might disagree, in fact, they were going to murder Him for it, and eventually did.
In Revelation 1:8, Jesus states, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Interestingly, this exact claim is laid down by God the Father several times:
"I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He." (Is 41:4),
"I am the first and I am the last, and THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME." (Is 44:6),
"I am He, I am the first, I am also the last."
Even MORE interesting is that God states that HE was the one "stretching out the heavens all by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone" (Is4813), yet in Colossians 1:16 it says that JESUS created all things, including the heavens and the earth. Can you explain these things other than the obvious?
Jesus was called God or worshipped as God by Isaiah (Is 9:6), Thomas (John 20:28), Paul (Titus 2:13), and Peter (2 Pet 3:12), John (John 1:1-2,14), and even the angels (Heb 1:6) even though it is strictly demanded by Jesus Himself "to worship the Lord Your God only" (Matt 4:10).
I apologize if I've been redundant or repetitive. But even if you do not believe that Jesus is God, surely you can understand why I do, and that I have no small collection of evidence. When I way the evidence, I am going against logic and reason, and bad Bible interpretation (as well as common sense) to still refute that Jesus claimed to be God and was followed as God.
Often, people who still disagree with me will site verses that speak of Christ submitting to the Father, praying to Him, or verses that speak of Him attributing the Father to be greater than Him. This doesn't refute His deity, but rather reinforces His role in humbly taking on a role of submission for His followers to pattern after. That is why Paul said of Him that "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (Lit: utilized or asserted), but He emptied Himself, TAKING THE FORM OF A BOND-SERVANT, and being made in the likeness of man" (Phi 2:6,7). But make no mistake about it, Jesus is the very exact representation of the nature of God (Heb 1:3).
Someone once asked me why it was so important that I believe this doctrine. I replied that "he who comes to God must believe that He is" (Heb 11:6).
Vern, "Whoever denies the Son, does not have the Father" (1John2:23).
Surely you can see why myself, and many other Christians take such a hardline on the deity of Christ. It's because of such a powerhouse of evidence. I understand that I am as likely to change your mind (a veteran of many decades) as you are of changing mine. Who knows, I may have made you even more resolute in your stance. I hope and pray that your eyes will see the truth as I have seen it. Not in anyway bragging in and of myself, for I am a dirty sinner saved by the wonderous grace of God, and I am incapable of nothing. But I have seen enough of Mary Baker Eddy's works to know that it is a wrong path. And I do not wish to judge you from a "better than thou" attitude, but rather out of compassion for the outcome of your soul, for none of us are better than either.
You see, Vern, if I'm right, and you're wrong...that means you are in trouble, and facing judgment. I hate that a man of your knowledge, and passion, and kindness might miss the mark because of some book. I wish only that you truly are saved, and that I may one day see you in Heaven giving glory to God alongside you. I hate the thought of ANYBODY missing out on that.
I hope I did not come across as conceited or judgmental. I just want us to be right about about the truth. And going back to my original post, I stand by my assertion that Christianity and Christian Science are opposed.
I'll try to be shorter next time.
My prayers with you-
-Chris
Post a Comment