Re: Christian Science

From: JW Burgeson (hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 26 2002 - 18:02:56 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: The truth will prevail (was Re: The Fourth Day falsifies"

    Terry wrote, in part: "I know that it is politically incorrect to say what
    I'm about to say, but I will say it."

    Count me as one person who welcomes "politically incorrect" dialog.

    "I suspect that most people in the ASA and on this list do regard
    Christian Science to be an unorthodox cult."

    I would probably temper that somewhat, although I don't know a lot about CS.
    I'd observe that they are certainly unorthodox -- in the same way as process
    theologians and the advocates of "open theism." Yeah -- I'd include Roman
    Catholics in that classification too. And I have close friends, and several
    family members who are, thus, "unorthodox." I certainly do not "read any of
    them out of the Christian family."

    "The ASA statement of faith is very "big-tent" and points to the
    Apostles' and Nicene creed as fundamental statements of orthodoxy as
    being accurate statements of the teaching of scripture. These are the
    classic Christian creeds defining the Trinity and the Incarnation. In
    general, we do not regard as Christians those who disagree with these
    doctrines (part of what it means to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord
    and Savior is to agree with the teachings of these creeds)."

    Hmm. When you say "we" in the above, do you mean to speak for all in the
    ASA? I personally have no problems with the recitation of the Apostle's
    Creed as part of my own church service; I say it because I hold it to be
    confessionally accurate. Can't speak to the Nicene because I'm not up to
    speed on it. But I think that Rudolf Bultman did not agree with these
    creeds; and certainly was not orthodox; but I've read his stuff closely; w/o
    agreeing with his position I am personally not able to label him as "not a
    Christian."

    "I speak as an ASA member who is zealous to maintain the "evangelical"
    integrity of our group and our discussions."

    The word "evangelical" in there bothers me, I guess. I'm probably not an
    "evangelical," although I suppose it must turn on one's understanding of
    that word. I do know that from time to time I review the ASA statement of
    faith and have never seen anything there which suggests I am nor eligible. I
    have a very close friend of 40+ years who is a Catholic priest; I would see
    no reason he would not equally be eligible. But perhaps others see this
    differently.

    Thanks for the comments, Terry. And I see this discussion as proper for the
    LISTSERV. It speaks to foundational issues, after all.

    Hoss (aka Burgy)

    http://www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 18:13:33 EDT