Article November 4, 1916 Issue

Our critic's original claim is, as I understand it, that Christian Science...

John L. Rendall—Keokuk, Iowa

The Gate City

Our critic's original claim is, as I understand it, that Christian Science in its teachings and practice, and because of its healing work, is contrary to fundamental Christianity, and in support of his contention he has presented various selections from Science and Health, and other selections from the Bible, which in his opinion are contrary one to the other.

He is of course entitled to his opinion. This, however, does not disturb the convictions held by hundreds of Christian people who are the beneficiaries of Christian Science, that its teachings are in exact accord with the Bible. If our critic could see Christian Science without the bias of his preconceived theological ideas, he might be better able to glean from its teachings some measure of the good which has come into the experience of individual Christian Scientists, and he would thus be freed from judging unrighteous judgment.

The assumption that the dictum of scholastic theology as to what constitutes "fundamental Christianity" must be accepted without question, was better suited to the dark ages than to the present time. Today people are demanding and expecting practical proofs rather than professions, and this is one of the reasons that Christian Science is finding such ready acceptance.

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

Send a comment to the editors
NEXT IN THIS ISSUE
Article
Neither the clergyman whose remarks were referred to in...
November 4, 1916
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit