Article November 4, 1922 Issue

A critic in a recent issue of your paper charges that...

H. L. Standeven, Committee on Publication for the State of Oklahoma,

Oklahoma City Black Dispatch

A critic in a recent issue of your paper charges that Christian Science teaches that God is not a person. This is true in a corporeal sense but not in a scientific sense. Christian Scientists understand that God is what the Scriptures declare Him to be; that is, God is Spirit, God is Love, and God is Life. By this it is meant that God is "a permanent, fundamental, intelligent, divine Being, called in Scripture, Spirit, Love" (Message for 1901. p. 3). Farther on in the same Message (p. 6) Mrs. Eddy writes: "Our departure from theological personality is, that God's personality must be as infinite as Mind is. We believe in God as the infinite Person; but lose all conceivable idea of Him as a finite Person with an infinite Mind."

The critic also charges that Christian Science teaches that Christ Jesus was not God. Christian Scientists refer the critic to Jesus' own word, found in the twenty—sixth chapter of Matthew, verses sixty—three and sixty—four, where he maintained that he was not God but the Son of God; and it is recorded in the third chapter of Matthew, verses sixteen and seventeen, that the voice of God came out of heaven after Jesus was baptized and said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." There are many references in the Scriptures telling us that Christ Jesus was not God, but the Son of God. Christian Scientists accept the teaching that God is infinite, that there is only one God, that God is All, and that God is Mind or intelligence; and Mrs. Eddy says (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p. 469): "There can be but one Mind, because there is but one God; and if mortals claimed no other Mind and accepted no other, sin would be unknown. We can have but one Mind, if that one is infinite."

The critic further charges that Christian Science teaches that the blood of Christ is of no avail. The teachings of Christian Science on this point are found in Science and Health (p. 25), where Mrs. Eddy declares: "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree,' than when it was flowing in his veins as he went daily about his Father's business. His true flesh and blood were his Life; and they truly eat his flesh and drink his blood, who partake of that divine Life." The difference between Christian Science thought and so—called orthodox thought on this question is that Christian Scientists accept the teaching that the spiritual life of Jesus is his true blood, that the spiritual meaning of blood is sacrifice, and that Jesus' spiritual offering was immeasurably greater than the mere sacrifice of his material blood.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

A critic in a recent issue of your paper charges that...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access