"I think you referenced the wrong kind of Bible." 

Wouldn't we all like to write our own Bible, so we could re-make God in our image?

Wait, that's already been tried, with disastrous consequences!

FollowingHim,

"a friend of mine once derided the CS (mis)understanding of Calvary as "a tidy metaphysical demonstration."

CSists prove themselves no different than the rest of the world's unbelievers as they morph & rationalize the Good News of Jesus Christ with fanciful ideas in an attempt to prop up their self-made religions. CSists claim He never died & the Koran claims that another man took the cross in Christ's place at the last minute. Both theories come from a mindset that denies penal substitution, therein denying Christ His most impressive work. The Genesis Creation, of which Jesus was clearly involved, is tremendous evidence of the majesty & power of the Triune God. But when we are blessed to comprehend this God of all Creation setting aside His glorious crown for our filthy cross is when we see God's greatest work.

I agree Romans 5:8 is a great Scripture to dissect & ponder with CSists; I was pondering the verses leading up to verse 8 as I posed the opening question of this thread.

Rom 5:3-8  More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

This passage is literally an anathema to CS as it finds glory & purpose in suffering & death. Look at all the positive inference given to the very things CS attempts to categorically dismiss.

Then we can expand our scope further still & analyze the universality & weight that sin is attributed in Romans 3, 6, & 7. Indeed, it was Romans 6:23 that led my dad to accept that sin is very, very real & it's penalty always leads to death- either Christ's death on the cross or our "second death" in Hell.

 Then again, all of Scripture is opposed to the shallow, man-centered notions of CS. I told a CSist one time- "We can go anywhere you want in the Bible; when taken in context, it all refutes CS." For every Psalm 91 (a CS fave), there's a Psalm 51 that tells the rest of the story. The encouragement & blessings of Psalm 23 are only realized as one accepts the prophecy of Psalm 22 (the "Psalm of the cross"). 

Sin, disease, & death are in fact so real that God had to come down to us in the form of a man so as to deal with them directly.

 zoarean

It would be interesting to see whether verses like the Romans 5 pericope, above have been used; also, when, how often, for what Subject, and what S&H was given to "correlate."

Any help here, TMCL?

*Incidentally, my CSB mother was on the Lesson Committee.  It was so secret!  She didn't tell me until years later!

followingHim,

I don't know whether or not the Bible Lesson Committee has an index like the one you ask about, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do.  Like you, I imagine it would be useful to have a history of when, where, and how often specific Bible verses have been used in the Lesson-Sermons.  I guess anyone interested could call or write to the Bible Lesson Committee and ask if they have an index.

I feel there have been some changes in the Lesson Sermons in more recent times.  For one thing, for many years the Lessons had six sections, but now there is no policy on how many sections they have to have.  Over the past couple of years the number of sections in specific Lessons has varied from five to seven.  This has given the Committee more flexibility in developing the theme of each Lesson.

I am also struck by an apparent attempt on the part of the Committee to include many more Bible passages that have not been commonly used in past years, and also to include more of the context of the passages.  At least this is how it seems to me as I study the Lessons these days.

I also feel that the the current First Reader of The Mother Church and the immediate past First Reader have been very sensitive to context in their readings, and are more apt to read large chunks of Scripture instead of picking verses in such a way that might alter the context.  For example the immediate past First Reader one Wednesday evening read  chapter 15 of I Corinthians in its entirety -- leaving nothing out -- and invited the congregation to open the Bibles that are in the pew racks of The Mother Church and follow along.

I realize that in your eyes Christian Science is still heretical no matter what changes along these lines are made. But hopefully you and others here might find it somewhat interesting nonetheless. 

tmcl

"...he found himself re-chalking--and omitting--verses  in the same pattern(s) from previous Lesson-Sermons!" 

I remember perusing a Lesson of about 2 months ago that referenced the same verse (from Isaiah, as I recall) six times; it brought to my mind how I had the same experience you mention your friend having when I used that "old" method years ago (I guess that makes me "old" as well!).

tmcl,

"I also feel that the the current First Reader of The Mother Church and the immediate past First Reader have been very sensitive to context in their readings, and are more apt to read large chunks of Scripture instead of picking verses in such a way that might alter the context.  For example the immediate past First Reader one Wednesday evening read  chapter 15 of I Corinthians in its entirety -- leaving nothing out -- and invited the congregation to open the Bibles that are in the pew racks of The Mother Church and follow along."

I echo the sentiment of all in one on this one. Though much of the 15th chapter is easily morphed into the CS rationality (vss. 3-4 excepted), this is encouraging. My joy would become ecstatic if the MC could bring themselves to read the first chapter of this book & see Paul re-directing the quarrelling Corinthians to the foundation of the Gospel- "Christ crucified."

"I realize that in your eyes Christian Science is still heretical no matter what changes along these lines are made."  

I assume this comment was directed towards followingHim, but as my rhetoric can seem to be a biased polemic at times as well, allow me to respond to this as if I were the addressee.

I have many times re-considered my rejection of CS, open to the possibility that various impure motives, such as youthful rebellion, may have been the actual cause of my walking away from it. I too actively opposed those who told me "Christian Science is not Christian," believing instead they were the ones who did not comprehend what "true" Christianity was. I  had this splendid "Key," they did not. I  had "demonstrations of Truth," they did not.

But God's Spirit pressured me (relentlessly) to consider the mere possibility that they may be right- that my sin was real & would be held to my account outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ. Though having only read portions of Scripture, I believed MBE when she claimed that the Bible was her only source, so naturally I believed a broadly contextual & "Cartesian" style reading would prove her statement to be true.

Two keys-

1. Becoming open to the possibility that I was wrong, despite the "demonstrations."

2. The broadly contextual & "Cartesian" style reading of Scripture.

We have already conspicuously addressed the importance of contextual reading; Cartesian is of course a reference to Rene Descartes' clean sheet approach to theology, philosophy, & science. He declares that find actual truth (or Truth), we must not suppose to know anything for certain. In a true search for the actual realities of what exists, all assumptions of knowledge must become forlorn, less they corrupt the process. (I personally did not go back as far as Descartes, for I presumed three things to be "real"-God, myself, & the Bible as His pure revelation). Rene describes his need for this approach as he opens "Meditations on First Philosophy":

"Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences. But as this enterprise appeared to me to be one of great magnitude, I waited until I had attained an age so mature as to leave me no hope that at any stage of life more advanced I should be better able to execute my design. On this account, I have delayed so long that I should henceforth consider I was doing wrong were I still to consume in deliberation any of the time that now remains for action. To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions], and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions."

Any discovery of science is always founded upon prior discoveries. Likewise, I assumed any discovery of MBE's "science" would supposedly be found again if I were to wipe away every pretension & allow her only source to become my only source.

In direct response to your quote- yes I would have to continue to say that CS is heretical as long as they refuse to accept Christ's cross, as well as the Person of Jesus Christ Himself, as the only possible avenue to atonement. But I do not base this on any stalwart opposition to CS in principle. To the contrary I continue to compare MBE's book to God's Book, & I continue to see highly disturbing contradictions; I will choose to trust the latter in all such cases. 

I cannot speak for others, but I know my truest desire is to truly know Him; to devote my life to serving & worshipping God falsely would be by far the greatest tragedy imaginable.

zoarean

I disagree with you when you say that I Corinthians, verses 3 and 4 are not in accord with Christian Science.  I'm not really up for getting into a long discussion about it, but I think it in the end boils down to the obvious fact that you and I understand Mrs. Eddy's teachings differently.

Also, it has long been my feeling that how the Bible is viewed is in a sense the root cause of the disagreements between fundamentalists and Christian Scientists that are often articulated on these forums.  I personally believe that there was a lot of theological diversity in early Christianity, and that the New Testament should be viewed as an anthology of early Christian literature, compiled by Christians who had a similar theological outlook.  I think each New Testament writer had a distinct theology that is not identical with any other New Testament writer, although I think it can be argued that in a broad sense they are largely compatible. 

tmcl

"I disagree with you when you say that I Corinthians, verses 3 and 4 are not in accord with Christian Science."

1Co 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

I have no doubt in your eyes it could be construed as fitting in with CS belief, for CSists are quite adept in Biblical re-interpretation. They have to be if they were to ever read past the "abridged" version of the Bible presented in the weekly Lesson & remain steadfast in CS.  But what's so wrong with taking God's Word at it's face value?

I was reading through Deuteronomy this morning & came across this passage:

If you are not careful to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the LORD your God, then the LORD will bring on you and your offspring extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and sicknesses grievous and lasting. And he will bring upon you again all the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you. Every sickness also and every affliction that is not recorded in the book of this law, the LORD will bring upon you, until you are destroyed. Whereas you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, you shall be left few in number, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God. And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. De. 28:58-63 

In chapters 28-30, God promises both blessings & curses for the Jews, commensurate with the measure of their brokenness to Him & His law. I hope the CSists out there got through this passage, for I know they are aghast at the idea of God not only recognizing sin as real, but then even causing disease & death to come because of it. This image of God is as far from CS belief as the east is from the west. 

It is the abundance of passages like this in Scripture that cause the CSist to restrict himself to selected readings, re-define words with a dictionary unknown to the KJV translators (& everyone else prior to the late 19th century), or simply toss out as uninspired those found to be unmoldable to their doctrine.  

This is what I was addressing with regards to a Cartesian style of Bible study. Yeah, we all have beliefs concerning God & the nature of man's relationship with Him as we sit down to read His Book, but oftentimes our assumptions are called into dispute as we study His Word & we can respond in three ways. Allow me to use an illustration.

My sons had a teaching toy when they were toddlers consisting of of various sized & shaped pegs & a pegboard with matching sized & shaped holes. Let's say we bring our own pegboard to God with the holes in the board representing our beliefs, while having the pegs represent Scripture. As we study the Bible, we find an easy fit for some pegs in our board; some pegs come close to fitting, while others aren't even close. We can:

a. modify the holes to fit the pegs

b. modify the pegs to fit the holes 

c. throw the uncooperative pegs in the trash.

You presented options "b" & "c" while true Christianity would say option "a" is the only choice (other than the fuller Cartesian approach of throwing the uncooperative board in the trash) given the fact that, as I've said before, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Our pegboard is not His pegboard & this is the main reason that He has preserved His Word intact down through the ages. For otherwise we would be lost to our own myopic perceptions of the Divine. 

Joy flooded my soul in the years after I left CS, for I no longer had to labor intensely at butchering all the large, square pegs of the Bible fit the small, round holes of CS dogma & my trash can was empty. To parallel the joy of Martin Luther King- "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!" 

Free to simply read it & believe it, as God intended. 

zoarean