Tracing the Roots and Beliefs of Christian Science
The movement known as Christian Science arose in the late nineteenth century, chiefly through the influence of Mary Baker Eddy, who in 1875 published “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.” Drawing from metaphysical currents of the time, she formulated a system that claims sickness is an illusion and that healing comes by understanding one’s true spiritual identity. This teaching diverges from the traditional Christian conviction that physical reality, including disease, is genuine (though not ultimate), and that Jehovah graciously provides diverse means—both natural and miraculous—for addressing life’s difficulties. While Christian Science references Scripture, it does so selectively, reinterpreting biblical terms in ways that conflict with the plain reading of the text.
Mary Baker Eddy taught that matter does not truly exist, that the physical realm is largely a construct of erroneous human thinking. By extension, sin and disease are illusions needing correction by “right thought” or spiritual realization. These views stand in stark contrast to the biblical portrait of a world created by Jehovah, real and fallen due to sin (Genesis 3:17-19), where bodily suffering is not a mere mental distortion but a tangible result of humanity’s estrangement from God (Romans 8:22). Christian Science further diminishes the central doctrines that Jesus’ physical atonement and bodily resurrection are the solution to sin’s penalty (Romans 4:25). Instead, the official writings emphasize that Christ’s example demonstrates a principle of divine healing available to all who recognize the illusory nature of illness.
This article explores how Christian Science emerged, what its key doctrines entail, how it interprets healing, and how that differs sharply from the objective historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture. The fundamental question remains whether Christian Science aligns with the biblical teachings on creation’s reality, the nature of sin, and the saving work of Jesus Christ—or whether it departs from orthodox beliefs in ways that undermine the gospel itself.
Historical Emergence and Central Texts
Mary Baker Eddy was born in 1821. Over years of personal illness and spiritual seeking, she encountered influences such as Phineas Quimby’s mental healing theories. In 1866, Eddy claimed a near-miraculous healing while pondering a Gospel passage, leading her to conclude that sin, disease, and death are illusions conquered by spiritual understanding. She elaborated her system in “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” first published in 1875, revising it multiple times thereafter. Eddy’s movement crystallized into The Church of Christ, Scientist, which organizes reading rooms, Sunday services, and a distinct interpretive method for Scripture.
While Eddy maintained the Bible was vital, Christian Scientists read it primarily through the lens of “Science and Health,” effectively subjugating biblical statements about creation, the incarnation, atonement, and bodily resurrection to symbolic or metaphysical interpretations. For example, the references to Jesus’ bodily anguish on the cross are construed as illusions of mortal mind. Resurrection becomes less about a literal victory over physical death and more about demonstrating the power of divine Mind over illusions. By channeling scriptural narratives into metaphysical allegories, Christian Science alters biblical teachings that hinge on real, historical events.
Core Tenets of Christian Science
Within Christian Science, a few tenets stand out:
It asserts that God is purely Spirit, a divine Mind who is entirely good, and that the material world is not ultimately real. This assumption leads to the claim that matter, sin, and sickness arise from “mortal mind,” an erroneous mode of thought. Because “Spirit” alone truly exists, any appearance of disease can be cured by correcting the underlying false belief. Hence, Christian Science practitioners often reject or minimize medical care, believing that acknowledging disease reaffirms illusions rather than dispelling them.
It teaches that Jesus is the supreme example of God-consciousness, not God incarnate in the sense taught by orthodox Christianity. According to Eddy’s writings, Christ is identified more with the divine idea of God’s nature than with a unique, once-for-all incarnation of the Son of God (John 1:14). The cross is less about substitutionary atonement for sin (Isaiah 53:5) and more about illustrating that mortal mind’s illusions have no power over the spiritual reality of life in God. As a result, Christian Science downplays biblical statements regarding the necessity of Christ’s blood for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
It redefines salvation as the awakening to our spiritual identity in God, rather than a rescue from the guilt and penalty of sin. Because Christian Science denies the inherent fallenness of human nature, it sees no true moral condemnation requiring atonement. Instead, ignorance or false belief in evil illusions are the real enemies, with correct knowledge bringing freedom. By contrast, Scripture repeatedly insists that sin is not merely ignorance but lawlessness (1 John 3:4), necessitating the sacrifice of Christ to reconcile sinners with Jehovah (Romans 5:8-10).
The Biblical Record on Material Reality and Bodily Healing
The Christian Science approach to illness and matter directly contradicts the biblical worldview. From Genesis onward, Scripture treats creation as an actual, good but fallen realm (Genesis 1:31; 3:17-19). Adam’s sin brought real thorns, real pain, and real mortality. Disease in the Old and New Testaments is portrayed as a tangible affliction: leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-14), blindness, lameness (Mark 2:3-12), hemorrhages (Mark 5:25-34). Jesus did not respond by labeling them illusions but showed genuine compassion (Matthew 14:14) and physically healed them, demonstrating divine authority over the physical realm. Mark 1:40-42, for instance, describes how a leper comes to Jesus, begs for cleansing, and Jesus touches him, saying, “I will; be clean.” The text treats the leprosy as a real disease, not a misconception.
In John 9:1-7, Jesus heals a man blind from birth. The disciples wonder whose sin caused this affliction, but Jesus clarifies it is not the result of personal sin. Then He heals physically, spitting on the ground, making mud, and applying it to the man’s eyes. The process underscores that the blindness is a literal condition, not an illusion to be dispelled by mental correction. Meanwhile, Christian Science typically interprets such narratives as allegories of divine Mind triumphing over false sense, effectively negating the real bodily dimension. Yet, the Gospels consistently treat healings as historical events, verifying that the Messiah tangibly redeems the consequences of sin’s corruption, including physical maladies.
Likewise, Paul does not teach that believers transcend bodily suffering by merely rethinking it. He acknowledges bodily groaning (Romans 8:23) and encourages Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23), an instance of practical medical counsel. These references confirm that the biblical stance sees matter as real and subject to weakness, though awaiting final redemption. Christian Science’s denial of the physical realm runs counter to these straightforward biblical affirmations.
The Person of Jesus Christ in Christian Science
One of the greatest divergences lies in how Christian Science interprets Jesus. The biblical witness is clear: He is God incarnate (John 1:1,14), fully God and fully man (Philippians 2:6-7). The Scriptures portray a real birth, physical sufferings, an actual cross, and a bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). The apostle John insists that anyone denying Jesus came in the flesh is not from God (1 John 4:2-3). Yet Mary Baker Eddy’s theology undermines this. She redefines Christ as the “divine manifestation of God,” distinct from the “human Jesus,” diminishing the unity of His person. The cross becomes symbolic, overshadowing the actual substitutionary atonement. The resurrection is reduced to a demonstration that matter is illusory, rather than a historical victory over real death.
Such reinterpretations conflict with the consistent biblical emphasis that Jesus physically died and rose. Romans 10:9 states salvation hinges on confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead. Without a bodily resurrection, the gospel itself collapses (1 Corinthians 15:14-17). Christian Science’s perspective thus robs the cross and resurrection of their biblical force, sidelining the need for Christ’s atoning blood (Ephesians 1:7).
Evaluating Christian Science’s Scripture Use
Christian Science claims to uphold the Bible, but it subordinates biblical statements to “Science and Health,” employing spiritualized exegesis that discards the normal sense of the text. Eddy’s interpretive practice sees each verse as referencing mental illusions or spiritual truths hidden from literal reading. For example, accounts of demon possession in the Gospels become references to negative thought, ignoring Jesus’ direct confrontation with personal demonic entities (Mark 5:1-13). This allegorizing extends so far as to reinterpret “resurrection” as the rising of spiritual consciousness rather than bodily revival. The result is effectively a hermeneutic that can reconstruct Scripture’s meaning at will.
By contrast, the conservative historical-grammatical approach acknowledges the authors’ original intent, anchored in real events. Luke 1:1-4 reveals his desire to set forth “an orderly account” of factual matters. Christian Science’s spiritualizing method abandons that factual foundation. This discrepancy shows that although Christian Science quotes Scripture, it imposes a metaphysical system that drastically departs from the text’s plain sense. Indeed, the biblical authors vigorously maintain that theological truths rest on actual historical events—sin introduced in Genesis 3, a literal covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12, a real exodus, and culminating in the real death and resurrection of Christ.
The Implications for Salvation and Christian Orthodoxy
A key question emerges: can Christian Science’s theology properly reconcile believers to God as described in Scripture? The biblical pattern is that humanity needs redemption from sin’s penalty, and that penalty includes physical death (Romans 6:23). Jesus’ sacrificial death deals with sin’s guilt, securing justification for believers (Romans 5:9). If sin and death are illusions or intangible errors, then the necessity for Christ’s penal substitution vanishes. Christian Science thus undermines the biblical notion of atonement, effectively negating the fundamental gospel message that Jesus died to bear the sins of many (1 Peter 2:24).
Furthermore, since Christian Science sees salvation mostly as an awakening to divine Truth rather than a rescue from condemnation, it sidesteps the urgency of repentant faith in the crucified and risen Lord. Romans 3:23-26 describes Christ’s death as a propitiation for sins, emphasizing that God’s justice required an actual blood sacrifice. Christian Science, discounting the reality of sin as a cosmic separation from God, cannot uphold that teaching consistently. Thus, it stands outside the mainstream of historical Christian confessions that champion Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice as essential to salvation.
Responding to Christian Science with Scripture and Compassion
Believers addressing Christian Science can highlight two major points. First, Scripture teaches that matter and bodily concerns are real, though temporarily subject to the curse, and that Jesus’ earthly ministry recognized genuine disease. He healed afflicted persons physically (Mark 1:34). Second, the cross and resurrection are literal events—Jesus physically died to pay sin’s penalty, physically rose in triumph, and these truths ground the believer’s hope (1 Corinthians 15:17). No reinterpretation that reduces them to illusions or purely spiritual principles can substitute for the biblical message.
As with any religious viewpoint diverging from biblical orthodoxy, it is vital to engage Christian Scientists respectfully, acknowledging their sincerity but pointing them to the fullness of Christ’s atoning work. John 14:6 shows Jesus claiming exclusivity—He is the Way, not merely a demonstration that matter is an illusion. By calmly presenting the consistent scriptural testimony, explaining how the Old and New Testaments hold together, and emphasizing the necessity of real forgiveness through Christ’s blood, believers can gently guide Christian Scientists to reconsider their assumptions.
Additionally, many who embrace Christian Science do so with the sincere desire to draw near to God or to find healing. Christians can demonstrate that the biblical approach to healing does not deny medical means, for God can use both natural processes and direct supernatural intervention. James 5:14-16 instructs believers to pray for the sick, but it does not scorn medical care. For Christian Scientists worried about acknowledging sickness, Scripture clarifies that confession of a problem does not empower it; rather, it acknowledges reality so that we might seek the God who heals (Exodus 15:26). Meanwhile, if physical healing does not come in this present life, believers can rest in the final redemption of the body (Romans 8:23), something that is future and certain, not dismissed as an illusory matter.
Conclusion: Upholding the Scriptural Christ and Gospel
The question “Does Christian Science Offer a Scriptural Understanding of Healing and Salvation?” finds its answer in the biblical revelation itself. Christian Science redefines fundamental elements of the faith, including sin, sickness, Christ’s person, the cross, and resurrection. By denying the literal reality of illness and matter, it contradicts the scriptural worldview that depicts a real creation and a real fall. By framing redemption primarily as enlightenment from erroneous thinking, it neglects the heart of the gospel, in which Jesus physically shed His blood for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22) and bodily rose from the dead to conquer sin and death (Romans 6:9).
Thus, while Christian Science may quote passages or admire Jesus as the exemplar of “divine Mind,” it departs from the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). A biblical response underscores that salvation is not a mere correction of illusions but the gracious act of God forgiving sin and granting new life in Christ. Believers in every era must remain vigilant about teachings that appear to champion spirituality but in reality undercut central biblical doctrines. By clinging to the Word of God and the cross of Christ, we uphold a faith grounded in real, historical events—incarnation, atonement, and resurrection—and in the living God who interacts tangibly with His creation. In so doing, we display the completeness of the gospel that alone offers enduring hope, both for body and soul (Romans 8:11).
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
