A Course in Miracles

[RhetorTheo]

The Bible says that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16-17. Yet many Christians disbelieve "A Course in Miracles." Why is this scripture not accepted?

 

[CeCe]

A Course in Miracles is heresy with a trademark.

This is one example of what "The Course" teaches:

"In the context of the Course, "forgiveness" means recognizing
that what you thought your brother did to you has not occurred.
Forgiveness does not pardon sins and make them real. It sees
that there was no sin."

Sounds contradictory to Scripture to me.

 

[RhetorTheo]

A Course in Miracles is heresy with a trademark.

This is one example of what "The Course" teaches:

"In the context of the Course, "forgiveness" means recognizing
that what you thought your brother did to you has not occurred.
Forgiveness does not pardon sins and make them real. It sees
that there was no sin."

Sounds contradictory to Scripture to me.

If one scripture contradicts another scripture, what do you do?

 

[CeCe]

You believe God and not the garbage. That's what "The Course" is. It could not be more removed from what the Bible teaches.

 

[RhetorTheo]

So "A Course in Miracles" is not scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17)?

 

[CeCe]

You're kidding, right?

 

[RhetorTheo]

No, I'm not kidding. How does a P/R/E define what is, and is not, scripture? Scripture was added to with the NT, why can't it be added to again?

 

[CeCe]

Because God is not the author of confusion?

 

[duster1az]

If one scripture contradicts another scripture, what do you do?

Scripture doesn't contradict Itself, man's interpretation of Scripture does.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[InquisitorKind]

No, I'm not kidding. How does a P/R/E define what is, and is not, scripture?

There are two methods that immediately come to mind. The first is that we trust that the early church came to the correct NT canon through the soverign guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The second way is tedius and long, and although I haven't studied this in much detail, here is a short and general outline of this method:

Starting with the Gospels as uninspired texts, they are examined to see if they are legitimate, historical documents (textual criticism plays a lot into this). If they are, and Christ is shown to be the Lord, examining His words allows for the conclusion that His 12 disciples would accurately reflect Christ's words and authority on earth (John 14:26, Luke 10:16, Matthew 18:18, etc.). Since Peter authenticates Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16), Paul's writings can be (forgive the redundancy) considered Scripture (also consider that Paul saw the resurrected Christ, which made him a legitimate apostle). I personally do not know how Hebrews entered the canon, and I'm not sure why Luke would be considered Scripture beyond the fact that he interviewed those who knew Christ and the apostles personally, but hopefully you get the gist of how some Protestants take to task the issue of the canon. If you're looking for contemporary efforts using this method, I recommend consulting Miller:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html

Scripture was added to with the NT, why can't it be added to again?

I have not studied this in depth either, but what I've read indicates that times of new revelation are always accompained by miracles to authenticate that revelation. I suppose new material could be added to the canon, but until miracles on the level of those described both in the Old and New Testaments (both in power and undeniablility), proposed additions should be ignored.

~Matt

PS

Sorry, but I don't have time to spell check this and proof-read. If something isn't clear, please indicate it and I'll respond as soon as possible.