 Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 1:46 PM
|
|
|
|
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
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 2:44 PM
|
|
|
|
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
<>< >>
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 2:51 PM
|
|
|
|
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
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 4:08 PM
|
|
|
|
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
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 9:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 9:36 PM
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|