THE KING ’S BUSINESS
491
ally interested in thé well-being o f His creatures. He is a Being who can be grieved, angered, who has indignation, who can be moved to mercy; He is gracious and merciful. He has appeared to His children, spoken to them, and given them the names by which He is to be called. He is a King, seated on His throne in the heavens. God is not one great Allness. He is not an angel, nor Satan, nor man. 2. Christian Science Denies the True Christian Doctrine of Jesus Christ. (a) In the first place, it denies the Incar nation. Luke 1 :35 says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb o f the Vir gin, and that in the fullness o f time, Mary brought forth her first son. Christian Science says, in Science and Health: “Mary’s .conception o f him (.Christ) was spiritual” (p. 228, 1899; p. 332, 1916). Not by the Spirit, but “ Spirit-, ual.” “ The Virgin Mother conceived this idea o f God, and gave to her ideal the name o f Jesus” (p. 334, 1899; p. 29, 1909, 1916). “Jesús was the offspring of Mary’s self- conscious communion with God” (p. 33S, 1899; pp. 29, 30, 1909, 1916). Christ is an idea, not a person, conceived in the mind o f the virgin (cf. p. 334, 1893, 1899; p. 29, 1916). Christ is the impersonal Saviour (cf. Mise. Writings, p. 180, 1916). A dif ference is made between Jesus and Christ. Jesus and Christ are not the same; they are two, not one. Jesus is the appearance assumed by Christ, although this appear ance was only apparent; it only seemed so to the mortal mind. The Christ is the divin ity o f the man Jesus (cf. p. 331, 1894, 1899; p. 26, 1916.) “ The eternal Christ and the corporeal Jesus manifest in the flesh, continued until the Master’s ascension; when the human, material concept, or Jesus, disappeared” (S. Sr H., p. 334, 1909, 1916; cf. p. 229, 1899). “Jesus as material manhood was not Christ” {Mise. Writings, p. 84, 1909, 1916). “A t the time when Jesus felt our infirm ities, he had not conquered all the beliefs
o f the flesh or his sense o f material life, nor had he risen to his final demonstra tion o f spiritual power” (S. Sr H., p. 358, 1899; p. 53, 1909, 1916). “ To accommodate himself to immature ideas o f spiritual power . . . "Jesus called the body, which . . . He raised from the grave, ‘flesh and bones’ ” (S. Sr H., p. 209, 1899; p. 313, 1909, 1916). “These instances show the concessions which Jesus was willing to make to the popular ignorance” (S. Sr ¡1., pp. 396, 397, 1899; p. 398, 1909, 1916). “A portion o f God could not enter (corporeal) (mortal) man, neither could His (God’s) fullness be reflected by Him (a single man).” “God can only be reflected by spiritual, incorporeal man” (S. Sr H., p. 231, 1894, 1899; cf. p. 336, 1916). “ The fullness o f the Godhead bodily” therefore, never dwelt in him. In Christian Science, Jesus is not called corporeal, but “material concept” -(.S'. <5- ~H., P- 334, 1909, 1916), or “Jesus.” What the disciples saw as the body o f Jesus was only a concept o f the mortal mind. This concept passed away from their minds after the resurrection and ascension. The ascension o f Christ to, the Christian Sci entist is nothing more than an ascended thought in the minds o f His disciples. Inas much then as Jesus passed away, and only the Christ remained and this Christ is an invisible, corporeal, impersonal idea, there fore Christian Science * teaches that the incarnation never really took place. All this Is in direct contradiction to the teaching o f the Scriptures: 1 John 4:2; Isaiah 9 :6 ; Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:35; Luke 2 :7 ; John 1:14, 18; Matthew 26;67, 68; Matthew 20:22, 28; - Colossians 2 :9; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 10 : 10 . In saying all this, the Bible contradicts everything Christian Science says about, it. “ Christian Science says the incarnation o f Christ was ideal. The Bible says it was real. Christian Science says it was due to the self-consciousness o f the Virgin Mary. The Bible says it was due to the sovereign,
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs