“CHRISTIAN SCIENCE” NONENTITIES.
By L. A. S.
According to an authority on the doctrines of “Christian Science,” Mr. Alfred Farlow, of the “First Church of Christ, Scientist,” Boston, Mass., who is quoted in the Literary Digest of August 24, evil is a “nonentity.” “It is an error,” he declares, “to believe that sin, which is not of God, is an entity.” He also quotes Mrs. Eddy, the leader and chief authority in this new “science”; hence the truth of Mrs. Eddy’s statement, “To believe sin is real, is itself sin.” Disease, being an evil, is likewise held to be a nonentity. Hence when a person is sick, he is not sick, etc. “To believe that sin is real, is itself sin,” we are authoritatively informed. But if sin is unreal, any belief which would be sin must be unreal, hence there could be no real belief that sin is real. And if all evil is imaginary, it can make no possible difference whether one believes sickness to be imaginary or not; his belief can be only good if it is real, since all evil is unreal. Thus “Christian science” simply contradicts itself. But “Christian science” makes nonentities of other things besides sin and sickness. It quotes the text in I John—“All unrighteousness is sin”—in justification of its teaching, but it never quotes that other definition of sin given in John’s epistle—“Sin is the transgression of the law.” This is a Scriptural declaration that sin is real—very real indeed. It is as real as the law of God. But if sin is unreal, the law of God is unreal. It is one of the nonentities set forth by this teaching. Nor does “Christian science” inform us to the contrary. It does not present before us the claims of the decalogue. It devotes no time to lifting up before the world this great standard of righteousness. It spends no time telling of human accountability before God. Likewise it dispenses with the Judgment; this becomes an unreality, together with sin and the law. It is another addition to the list of “Christian science” nonentities. The list might be further extended, but this will suffice. What authority is it that thus seeks to do away with the law of God and the Judgment? What cause is being served by this teaching? We become suspicious of the source of these doctrines. We know a power which is openly at war with the law of God; which proclaims that it has been done away, has been changed, etc. Must not this new attack on the law emanate from the same source? Must it not be the product of the same mind, sent out into the world to serve the same evil cause? We cannot reasonably come to any other conclusion. This is the earmark of all that which comes from the evil one. But that which is from God magnifies His law and makes it honorable. L. A. S.