The Christian Way Forums / The Christian Way Forums / Outreach to Loved Ones in Christian Science / Speaking the truth in love / Latest Posts

in the light — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:36:07 GMT

I couldn't resist another response.

Quoting from some messages back by Do_Go_Be_Man (sorry I can't get that highlight and italic thing to work)
"She's absolutely right though regarding the simplicity of Jesus' message. His message is simple and clear not requiring a lot of heavy duty deep thought, commentary, or hidden knowledge. He spoke it and lived it. We need to be like little children in the sense of our innocent examination of His word, not in our quarrels and bickering. Jesus quoted the greatest commandment when challenged by a Pharisee lawyer (there's some double trouble for you):

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind*. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." "

This is spot on. There is definitely a place for intellectual debate, but in the end I believe it comes down to a personal encounter with God, which, for me - has been Jesus meeting me in all my humanness.

On the intellectual side of things, though, have any of you read CS Lewis' autobiography "Surprised by Joy"? The internal debate he has with himself during his early years at Oxford sounds not dissimilar to some of the debate on this forum. It is a good read.

Enjoy your ongoing discussions!

in the light.

in the light — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:18:49 GMT

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:08:40 GMT
Erol: I'm not sure induction can be dismissed so easily.

tmcl: I would think the only reason that someone would want to always validate his study with Biblical proofs is if he accepted the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.

I think we're in danger of getting off topic here, so I'm kicking my replies back over to the "Doctrinal and Bible Related Issues | Contradictions in the Bible" thread.

Do Go Be Man
<><

tmcl — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:51:24 GMT
Do Go wrote:

Granted it's been some time since I set foot in a CS church, much less studied it. Based on my CS education, experience, and observation, however, CSists do not always validate their study of MBE's writings with Biblical proofs.

Do Go,

I would think the only reason that someone would want to always validate his study with Biblical proofs is if he accepted the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.

tmcl

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:44:03 GMT
Do Go,

I'm not sure induction can be dismissed so easily. It's an inductive argument to assume that, because the sun rose this morning and every past morning for as long as anyone can remember (or more accurately, because it appeared to do so) it will similarly rise tomorrow. Yet for practical purposes we set our alarm clocks for the usual time, confident that in the absence of some cosmic catastrophe (which we don't normally even think about) we will get up and have our cornflakes as usual. So the fact that the sun rose so many times in the past is a very strong--though not of course a conclusive--indication that it will rise tomorrow.

There is only one reference to induction in S&H. MBE writes: "I do not maintain that anyone can exist in the flesh without food and raiment; but I do believe that the real man is immortal and that he lives in Spirit, not matter. Christian Science must be accepted at this period by induction. We admit the whole, because a part is proved and that part illustrates and proves the entire Principle." (S&H 461: 1-7.) I actually do not believe this is a very strong argument. For example, some attempted healings in CS do not in fact happen. If CS healings were 100% successful it would arguably prove immortality, to the extent that some people at least would be delivered from the necessity of dying.

My personal reasons for believing in CS are a combination of the deductive (e.g. if God exists, evil does not, and vice versa); its internal coherence; its logical explanation of prayer as changing the believer rather than changing God; its explanatory power; the Biblical indications of our responsibility for healing through prayer, particularly in the sayings of Jesus; its practical effectivity, to the extent that this has manifested in my experience; and inspiration. There are probably a few more reasons as well, if I thought of them.

Erol

<< Erol,

But I would be interested in the details of how you believe CS fails from a logical point of view.

Obviously, I believe that CS fails logically. The point of my post, however, was that proving CS requires inductive reasoning rather than deductive. I suppose that the argument could be made that any belief system ultimately requires the induction of faith.

As a believer in the inerrancy of the orginal texts, I seek deductive reasoning as much as possible. Even when studying commentaries, like the Bereans, Thomas, and Missourians, I want to be shown. I want to see the chapter and verse supporting any claim to Biblical authority. If R.C. Sproul or Dr. D. James Kennedy (prolific authors and leading theologians of my denomination) themselves say something, I examine Scripture to see that it's so. Got burned on that sort of thing once in my life.

Granted it's been some time since I set foot in a CS church, much less studied it. Based on my CS education, experience, and observation, however, CSists do not always validate their study of MBE's writings with Biblical proofs. I recall far more references to MBE's teachings than Biblical teachings. Part of that could be that even S&H is easier to read than the KJV.

Thus, discussions of the Bible induce MBE's teachings into the reasoning. It's within CSists rights to accept the dual pastorship of the Bible and S&H, it's just not Biblically supportable using deductive reasoning.

I am sure I have totally glazed over or crossed the eyes of at least one reader, but I suppose that I'm used to doing that. (Yes, some comments I've made are based on facts outside the set under consideration.)

Do Go Be Man
<>< >>

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:46:25 GMT
Erol,

But I would be interested in the details of how you believe CS fails from a logical point of view.

Obviously, I believe that CS fails logically. The point of my post, however, was that proving CS requires inductive reasoning rather than deductive. I suppose that the argument could be made that any belief system ultimately requires the induction of faith.

As a believer in the inerrancy of the orginal texts, I seek deductive reasoning as much as possible. Even when studying commentaries, like the Bereans, Thomas, and Missourians, I want to be shown. I want to see the chapter and verse supporting any claim to Biblical authority. If R.C. Sproul or Dr. D. James Kennedy (prolific authors and leading theologians of my denomination) themselves say something, I examine Scripture to see that it's so. Got burned on that sort of thing once in my life.

Granted it's been some time since I set foot in a CS church, much less studied it. Based on my CS education, experience, and observation, however, CSists do not always validate their study of MBE's writings with Biblical proofs. I recall far more references to MBE's teachings than Biblical teachings. Part of that could be that even S&H is easier to read than the KJV.

Thus, discussions of the Bible induce MBE's teachings into the reasoning. It's within CSists rights to accept the dual pastorship of the Bible and S&H, it's just not Biblically supportable using deductive reasoning.

I am sure I have totally glazed over or crossed the eyes of at least one reader, but I suppose that I'm used to doing that. (Yes, some comments I've made are based on facts outside the set under consideration.)

Do Go Be Man
<><

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:11:34 GMT
Erol,

I'm not sure which of us is supposed to be Gore Vidal and whick William F. Buckley Jr!

As conservative as I am, no way I'm Vidal.

I'll get back to you on the other.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:55:33 GMT
Do Go,

I'm not sure which of us is supposed to be Gore Vidal and whick William F. Buckley Jr!

But I would be interested in the details of how you believe CS fails from a logical point of view.

NB check out the entry on the "Problem of Evil" in Wikipedia. It argues convincingly that the existence of God is incompatible with the reality of evil. (I would put it the other way around though, and say that the reality of God is incompatible with the existence of evil.)

Erol

<< Erol,

... I can't avoid the conclusion that if I followed the logic of this theological argument, I could make a good case for infanticide...

That's quite a leap. I don't see the logic of that path at all based on the text or Linda's post.

Two of the nails in the CS coffin for me were two philosophy classes I took in college. One semester we studied inductive reasoning and the other we studied deductive reasoning, I don't remember the order. As I studied them, however, I realized the inductive nature of CS logic and the fallacies such reasoning introduced.

Apologies to a friend in the background who thinks that you and I have become like Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr. during their debates of the 1968 political conventions. She's absolutely right though regarding the simplicity of Jesus' message. His message is simple and clear not requiring a lot of heavy duty deep thought, commentary, or hidden knowledge. He spoke it and lived it. We need to be like little children in the sense of our innocent examination of His word, not in our quarrels and bickering. Jesus quoted the greatest commandment when challenged by a Pharisee lawyer (there's some double trouble for you):

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind*. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Do Go Be Man
<><

* Deuteronomy 6:5 >>

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:55:30 GMT
Erol,

... I can't avoid the conclusion that if I followed the logic of this theological argument, I could make a good case for infanticide...

That's quite a leap. I don't see the logic of that path at all based on the text or Linda's post.

Two of the nails in the CS coffin for me were two philosophy classes I took in college. One semester we studied inductive reasoning and the other we studied deductive reasoning, I don't remember the order. As I studied them, however, I realized the inductive nature of CS logic and the fallacies such reasoning introduced.

Apologies to a friend in the background who thinks that you and I have become like Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr. during their debates of the 1968 political conventions. She's absolutely right though regarding the simplicity of Jesus' message. His message is simple and clear not requiring a lot of heavy duty deep thought, commentary, or hidden knowledge. He spoke it and lived it. We need to be like little children in the sense of our innocent examination of His word, not in our quarrels and bickering. Jesus quoted the greatest commandment when challenged by a Pharisee lawyer (there's some double trouble for you):

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind*. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Do Go Be Man
<><

* Deuteronomy 6:5

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:57:28 GMT
Linda,

Well, I don't want to sound flippant and I'm not being, and I'm sure you are as horrified at the following idea as I am. However, I can't avoid the conclusion that if I followed the logic of this theological argument, I could make a good case for infanticide. After all, the child would be assured of heaven!

In any case your post suggests that the child has some kind of original innocence (not original sin) and then sins as soon as he/she reaches the age of accountability: (seven? ten?) I've met quite a lot of children of that age group and have never met any that committed any sin more major than the odd untruth, petty theft or whatever. Would that really be sufficient to consign him/her to an eternity of perdition, when any normal parent would be content with a rebuke or minor punishment?

I think David would have had some vague concept of an after-death state called Sheol (or Hades in the Greek) where he would meet his child again. I don't think he would have had a notion of being "saved."

Erol

<< I can't imagine trying to explain substitutionary atonement to a two-year-old on its deathbed, in order to deliver the child from eternal damnation

Erol,

I can't imagine that either, nor do I think God expects that.

David's infant son dies in 2 Samuel 12:23 and David makes the statement: "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." A lot of people take this to mean that David assumed that he would be reunited with the child when he (David) died. Since David clearly had a "saved" relationship with God through a personal and looking-toward-the-Messiah kind of faith, one can assume that David assumed that the child was also saved. This type of passage supports the idea that there is some kind of "age of accountability" regarding salvation -- a child not being responsible for his or her sin until he or she is old enough to comprehend right from wrong. This is consistent with God being a God of justice, which the Bible clearly says He is. >>

Linda — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:49:43 GMT
I can't imagine trying to explain substitutionary atonement to a two-year-old on its deathbed, in order to deliver the child from eternal damnation

Erol,

I can't imagine that either, nor do I think God expects that.

David's infant son dies in 2 Samuel 12:23 and David makes the statement: "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." A lot of people take this to mean that David assumed that he would be reunited with the child when he (David) died. Since David clearly had a "saved" relationship with God through a personal and looking-toward-the-Messiah kind of faith, one can assume that David assumed that the child was also saved. This type of passage supports the idea that there is some kind of "age of accountability" regarding salvation -- a child not being responsible for his or her sin until he or she is old enough to comprehend right from wrong. This is consistent with God being a God of justice, which the Bible clearly says He is.

in the light — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:44:47 GMT
Do Go Be Man

The baseline is that we are all separated from God. He provided the means by which we can be brought together.

I agree with this. This is what grace is all about - Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and in doing so enabled me to have a personal relationship with Him and experience salvation.

I did not mean to misrepresent the "fundamentalist" position, being a Jesus freak myself, but from more of an Anglo Catholic perspective.

What I have a problem with is the way it is sometimes presented - that there are other ways of "speaking the truth in love" than in bluntly talking about salvation v damnation in a black and white way. For example, I could never countenance that a 2 year old who had died would by separated from God because he/she had not heard of Him - that makes God seem like a monster. I think there is an element of mystery involved, we don't know all the answers, and God is far, far greater than our human understanding of these things.

By way of illustration, let me relate a personal story. I grew up in a home which was totally "unchurched", due in large part to unhealthy CS baggage in my father's family. To us God and religion of any sort was of the Marxist dictum "the opiate of the people", and to be avoided at all costs. I had no concept of God or Jesus except extremely negative ones.

About 25 years ago I was attending a University College and was elected as a student representative on their council. Unbeknowest to me it was one of my "duties" to do a reading at the annual College chapel service. I was bowled up in the corridor one day by two other council members and told that the service was the next Sunday and this was the reading I had to do. I responded with shock and horror - "I can't do this", to which one student arrogantly replied "What do you mean, Of course you can. It is expected". I then explained that I had never actually entered a church building before. The other student, and I will never forget this, lookied at me with total compassion and love - (with the eyes of Jesus), and said "That is OK, I understand". He met me where I was at - no preaching, no condemnation, just acceptance and love. Out of that encounter, because I was so shocked by his response, I became curious, and decided to attend the service anyway - and there met Jesus. It was then a long journey to fully understand things such as the concept of sin - but at every point He met me - always with love and acceptance. This is what I mean when I talk about the journey, for me gradual, often difficult, but only by grace.

in the light

Do_Go_Be_Man — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:06:53 GMT
in the light,

I do not think that the fundamentalist approach which says that all who do not appear to profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are eternally dammed is representative of the broad stream of mainstream Christian thought...

Not sure if you meant to do so, but this statement somewhat misrepresents the actual fundamentalist approach (at least the Jesus Freaks like me). Far too many fundamentalists, however, also do not understand or at least communicate an essential difference.

Too many people look at the issue that condemnation results from the failure to accept Jesus. Often, Christians are perceived to somehow perform the condemnation. The Bible says, however, that all are condemned - separated from God. Salvation is the good news that Jesus Christ provides the solution to condemnation.

The baseline is that we are all separated from God. He provided the means by which we can be brought together.

Do Go Be Man
<><

in the light — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:29:28 GMT
Dear Erol and following him

I wanted to respond to your recent comments about “being saved and being lost” – to suggest that there are other ways of looking at this issue from a mainstream Christian perspective. I do not think that the fundamentalist approach which says that all who do not appear to profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are eternally dammed is representative of the broad stream of mainstream Christian thought, and hope that Erol does not gain the impression that all Christians who believe in the saving power of Jesus over sin and death (while acknowledging the reality of sin, illness and death) think this way. I do not think that any of us can judge where another is at a particular point in their lives – that is up to God. What is important is grace, grace and more grace. My experience of God is that He continually stands at the door and knocks- wanting more than anything else for each of us to respond to his everlasting, and ever patient love- He meets each of us where we are at in our individual journey – always inviting us to respond to Him and leading us to greater faith, trust and love.

in the light

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:16:09 GMT
followingHim,

I'm tempted to register as "doomedSoul" ;-)

But according to other fundamentalists on this list there is a chance for me, even as a Christian Scientist. So I'll remain as Erol for the time being :-)

It would be useful if you gave chapter and verse for "essential Christian teaching[s]". That could then be the basis of a discussion on the text(s).

I don't know where you got the idea that Jesus is *not* my personal Lord and Saviour. I try to follow his example in the minutiae of my life, insofar as I can. I believe he came to save us from sin, disease and death and I try to heal in his name as he commanded. Is there something I'm missing?

If it's substitutionary atonement, then sorry, I can't buy into it and it's only one interpretation of the atonement in any case--and a particularly fraught one in moral terms, as I've tried to make plain elsewhere. (I can't imagine trying to explain substitutionary atonement to a two-year-old on its deathbed, in order to deliver the child from eternal damnation, and it's surely an unacceptable risk for parents to have children, if the stakes are that high.)

The Matthew example you give is in the context of "by their fruits ye shall know them." (One of those fruits, as Jesus explains elsewhere, is healing.) And in the quote you give, Jesus speaks of "doing the will of [his] Father--i.e. the key point has to do with action, as it has elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount--that is, not some sixteenth-century interpretation of convoluted Pauline theology.

Erol

<< Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. Eph 4.14-15 NIV

"Erol," posting under Anonymous, challenged me in another posting (Christian Science in the News) I had previously posted that a person who had died in the belief and practice of CS was "not in a better place."

Erol considers that "uncharitable."

I know that it is customery to say that a deceased loved onr in "is in a better place," especially if there was suffering prior to death. And honestly, Erol, when the situation is recent I am sensitive--hardly the time to get theologically strident! But the fact remains: It is an essential Christian teaching that there will be an eternal, irrevocable separation between the saved and the lost! If one denies this, then one is outside the pale of Christendom.

Of course, we are all free moral agents, and we have the individual freedom to accept or reject this Truth. But you do at your eternal peril! Although you might be a moral, intelligent, and otherwise splendid chap (and I think if we avoided religion, you and I would likely be great friends, Erol) without the Jesus Christ of history and eternity as your personal Lord and Savior, you are--literally-- a lost, doomed soul.

As the Lord Jesus himself put it, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Mat 7.21-3 NIV [bold face/b] added.

You see, it is quite possible to do exemplary works and still fall short of Heaven--and be consigned to Hell!

I wish there was a nice way to say it. In this thread, I invite people to share their favorite Scripture, illustrations, matters of logic, and other arguments as we focus on the most critical matter in the life of a friend or loved one:

You are without the authentic Jesus Christ. You are doomed. And your fate, as it stands now, is unspeakably tragic!

How can we "speak the truth in love," be persuasive, and deal with the possibility or probability of offending some one? >>

Speaking the truth in love

followingHim — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:28:09 GMT
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. Eph 4.14-15 NIV

"Erol," posting under Anonymous, challenged me in another posting (Christian Science in the News) I had previously posted that a person who had died in the belief and practice of CS was "not in a better place."

Erol considers that "uncharitable."

I know that it is customery to say that a deceased loved onr in "is in a better place," especially if there was suffering prior to death. And honestly, Erol, when the situation is recent I am sensitive--hardly the time to get theologically strident! But the fact remains: It is an essential Christian teaching that there will be an eternal, irrevocable separation between the saved and the lost! If one denies this, then one is outside the pale of Christendom.

Of course, we are all free moral agents, and we have the individual freedom to accept or reject this Truth. But you do at your eternal peril! Although you might be a moral, intelligent, and otherwise splendid chap (and I think if we avoided religion, you and I would likely be great friends, Erol) without the Jesus Christ of history and eternity as your personal Lord and Savior, you are--literally-- a lost, doomed soul.

As the Lord Jesus himself put it, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Mat 7.21-3 NIV [bold face/b] added.

You see, it is quite possible to do exemplary works and still fall short of Heaven--and be consigned to Hell!

I wish there was a nice way to say it. In this thread, I invite people to share their favorite Scripture, illustrations, matters of logic, and other arguments as we focus on the most critical matter in the life of a friend or loved one:

You are without the authentic Jesus Christ. You are doomed. And your fate, as it stands now, is unspeakably tragic!

How can we "speak the truth in love," be persuasive, and deal with the possibility or probability of offending some one?