 Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 9:53 AM
|
|
|
|
| A Christian Scientist made the following statment in the thread entitled "Is CS starting to rub off on me? (post #13846): One thing I have not seen on this site yet is the fact that Mrs. Eddy wrote in the Manual of the Mother Church of Christ, Scientist is the first tenet: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life." (Manual Pg 15:3) What I see on this site is the opinion that Christian Scientists choose Mrs. Eddy's words over and above The Bible. The problem with Mrs. Eddy's statement is that she doesn't define what she means by "the inspired Word of the Bible." I used to think she meant "the Bible," but now I understand that she meant only PARTS of the Bible -- parts of her choosing. Please allow me to clarify... First, consider what Mrs. Eddy says about the Bible: "[Jesus] spake of Truth and Love to artless listeners and dull disciples. His immortal words were articulated in a decaying language, and then left to the providence of God. Christian Science was to interpret them; and woman, “last at the cross,” was to awaken the dull senses. . . ." (Mary Baker Eddy, Miscellaneous Writings, 100:1-6) She also claims that the Bible contains “manifest mistakes in the ancient versions . . . thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and . . . three hundred thousand in the New [Testament] . . .” (S&H 139:16-19) Mrs. Eddy says that CS finds its authority in the Bible, but that Bible turns out to be severely flawed. So SHE decides which parts of the Bible are "inspired," and she provides new or expanded definitions for many of the words central to an understanding of Christianity. Using her new definitions, she makes the Bible say things that it doesn't really say unless filtered through her definitions. That is why many people on this forum say that CSists choose Mrs. Eddy's words over the Bible.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous, welcome & thank you for sharing the passages of Scripture that you see validating CS. Linda responded well to most of your post, so I won't repeat what she has already stated. What struck me most in your comments, though was your first statement: "TRUE Christian Scientists are loving because that is what Christ Jesus taught us to do." This struck me because I remember as CSist, I did not understand what love was. I thought, as most CSists think, that a major part of love is never disciplining those who go astray from what is right; nothing but tender mercy for all transgressions. But as I became a father I realized that if I do not do everything in my power to teach goodness & restrain my children from evil, I would in fact be showing hatred for them. To not punish my son for trying to stick a bobby pin in the wall socket would make me much less than a loving dad to him. Likewise, a distinctive part of God's love is His seemingly harsh discipline: "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent." Rev. 3:19 But this gets to another question- repent? Of what? If sin is not real, then how can I repent of it? Even more to the point, why would I need to repent of unreality? The same Bible that Mrs. Eddy says she believes in tells of God constantly reproving, disciplining, & punishing mankind again & again for sin. Why did God cause a flood to destroy all of mankind, save eight blessed souls if sin is not real? Why did He destroy Sodom & Gomorrah for a "false idea?" Wouldn't that make Him the most unloving God imaginable? zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Paul tells us (2 Tim 3.16-17),
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)
The King James Version puts it,
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
First, let's be quick to observe, Paul is very clear: "All Scripture."
Not just some.
Not even most.
Not that which the "Jesus Seminar has deemed "historically (and politically) correct."
Not that which is "Spiritual."
Not that which we find convenient to our lax morals or casual-Christian lifestyle.
ALL SCRIPTURE! This is an unapologetically absolute statement.
What we have here, folks, is one of those clever, devious ways Eddy looks and sounds authentically Christian, but allows for different interpretations--one, and a lower one at that, for the general public, and a second, more "Spiritual" one for in-house ("just among us in the know") use. Consider:
"We...believe in the inspired word of the Bible:" Does this mean, "We believe in the Word of the inspired Bible," or "We believe in those parts of the Bible that are inspired?" (And if so, who determines what is inspired and what is not?) There is a critical difference here: No longer is it the text that is inspired, rather, it is the reader who is inspired!
Eddy's reference to the undocumented contains “manifest mistakes in the ancient versions . . . thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and . . . three hundred thousand in the New [Testament] . . .” (S&H 139:16-19) indicates that she had bought into the so-called "Higher Criticism" of (mostly German) "scholarship," which has a strong following through liberal Protestantism. Thus the great apostasy of those denominations, but that's matter for another thread. But be alert to qualified statements such as, "I believe the Bible contains the Word of God." A giveaway is when people do not use the upper-case for "Lord," He," or "Him," when referencing Jesus. Gender-neutral references to Deity are an absolute indicator.
Lastly, I cringe at the number of times I was bamboozled by CS'ists who would deride me by saying, "you take the Bible so literally. My answer nowadays would be, "Well of course I take it literally! It's literature! Where it's clear and direct, I take it as absolute fact. Where it is symbollic, then I take it as symbolic. And where it is an allegory or a parable, then I interpret it accordingly But just because it is symbolic in some places does not mean you can render a text symbolically, allegorically, or 'spiritualized' anywhere you find a text you don't like!"
We sift our doctrines and understandings through the Bible. We don't force the Bible to fit into our opinions and predilections!
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, September 02, 2007 9:15 PM
|
|
|
|
| Thanks for your post, followingHim. A giveaway is when people do not use the upper-case for "Lord," He," or "Him," when referencing Jesus. I'll have to disagree with this statement. Neither the King James Version nor the New International Version of the Bible capitalizes "him" and "he" when referring to Jesus.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, September 03, 2007 7:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted Monday, September 03, 2007 7:27 AM
|
|
|
|
| FollowingHim, Though I likewise feel the need to capitalize all titles, descriptors, & personal pronouns referencing a Person of the Trinity, I agree with Linda that many committed Christians do not seem to share this sentiment. Only about 20% of translations choose to do so. But there may be a trend towards it, because while the KJV & American Standard do not, the NKJV & New American Standard do. I would imagine the older versions don't because there was a great aversion to blending God's Word with commentary of any sort in Protestantism 400 years ago (a backlash against Rome). Since capitalization is often a departure from the strict translation of the Greek & Hebrew, it would be seen by some as making an assumption in translation. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Monday, September 03, 2007 7:35 AM
|
|
|
|
| Following Him (or following him, as the case may be ), There is a critical difference here: No longer is it the text that is inspired, rather, it is the reader who is inspired! Thank you, this is one of the most critical and useful statements I've seen regarding the understanding and applicability of God's word. Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, September 03, 2007 7:53 PM
|
|
|
|
| The correlative question is: "..inspired by whom?"
|
|
|
|