Man-made Doctrines of faith/worship 2

[MartyF]

Another man-made doctrine. Unmarried men without children should be on the front lines of war.

Another one - The U.S. flag should be displayed prominently during worship service and songs to the country should be sung.

Another one - The tithe is meant to pay the salaries of the church leaders,

A half-hour to hour sermon consisting of 5% Bible and 95% ad-lib has to be a part of every Sunday Christian gathering.

Sorry, getting carried away.

 

[Revmitchell]

Does anybody know what this guy is talking about?

 

[Lodic]

AS has been said there is no inerrant readers of scripture. That is why we need to have some grace with others who differ from us with the exception of primary doctrines. Admittedly I have little patience for some doctrines such as preterism, and the gap theory. Some things are just too stupid to put up with.

I definitely agree that we need grace to put up with views that are different from ours with the exception of primary doctrines. I can appreciate you not saying that Preterism is a man-made doctrine, even though you strongly disagree with it. (I am with you on the gap theory.) As long as the support for the view/teaching is from Scripture alone, I don't call it "man-made".

 

[Lodic]

I believe we have a D-U-T-Y to combat false doctrines of faith/worship whenever/wherever we find them. Problems arise when two people disagree on what's false & what's true. That's why I allow SCRIPTURE, believed as literally as possible, decide for me.

Problems continue when the people who disagree each use Scripture alone to state their case. Your phrase "believed as literally as possible" shows one of the roots of the problem, which has to do with our hermeneutics. This could lead to the believe that anyone who has a different view of interpretation is promoting a man-made view when it's just a different interpretation.

 

[Lodic]

The doctrines we agree with are God's truth, the others are man-made.

So true, Brother. Ultimately, that does seem to become our definition. Everyone who believes something other than what I believe MUST be following a man-made doctrine or be a heretic. There is no possibility that we could be wrong.

 

[asterisktom]

AS has been said there is no inerrant readers of scripture. That is why we need to have some grace with others who differ from us with the exception of primary doctrines. Admittedly I have little patience for some doctrines such as preterism, and the gap theory. Some things are just too stupid to put up with.

Yes, "stupid" preterism insists on taking some of futurism's favorite proof-texts at face value. I can see why that would be a problem for you.

 

[David Kent]

David, with all due respect, this type of comment is not helpful. I disagree with the Great Parenthesis (I am not a Dispensationalist) but I am not going to call it stupid. First, that word shuts down meaningful dialogue. If you are trying to persuade someone of the rightness of your belief, labeling their view with the S-bomb is not going to make them amenable to hearing your argument. I say this as someone who has done this far too often. I am still a work in progress.

Thank you brother, I take your point.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, "stupid" preterism insists on taking some of futurism's favorite proof-texts at face value. I can see why that would be a problem for you.

No you don't. What you do, do is to redefine the word "generation" out of its context in order to fit your presupposition.

 

[asterisktom]

No you don't. What you do, do is to redefine the word "generation" out of its context in order to fit your presupposition.

I wasn't just thinking of "generation" but the whole gamut of other time-indicators, like "some standing here" and "soon" and "at hand". If it was just one verse or two that we were talking about then it would be iffy. But there are almost a hundred of such time statements.

 

[Lodic]

No you don't. What you do, do is to redefine the word "generation" out of its context in order to fit your presupposition.

Obviously there are strong feelings on preterism vs futurism. Just as obviously, we preterists think those in the futurist camp are the ones who redefine generation, and it's the futurists who redefine the word. I thought the theme of this post was about what defines man-made doctrines. This could easily turn into another "end times debate". Doesn't it come down to nothing more than we have different interpretations of the Scriptures? Neither view uses anything beyond the Scriptures to support their view.

If one or the other is a man-made doctrine, let's make our case on something besides opinion and the fact that we disagree with it. Without something stronger than disagreement, every view we disagree with must be a man-made doctrine.

 

[MartyF]

So true, Brother. Ultimately, that does seem to become our definition. Everyone who believes something other than what I believe MUST be following a man-made doctrine or be a heretic. There is no possibility that we could be wrong.

One needs to make sure that one does not take this too far like the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. They had no problems with a non-repentant baby-killer being a member of their church. There are evil theologies out there which need to be denounced.

There is a difference between the parable of the wheat and weeds and the man who was sleeping with his step-mother.

Since, you didn't quote the Bible, I don't feel obligated to restrain myself to the Bible when I quote Ronald Reagan.

"So in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation blithely to declare yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil."

While I don't think preterist or futurist to be evil there are evil doctrines concerning abortion, homosexuality, and other things which are not just "theological misunderstandings".

At other times, there are situations where, although a theology may not be evil, it is definitely man-made and the creators of the theology admitted as much. Some deny this despite the clear evidence.

 

[Lodic]

One needs to make sure that one does not take this too far like the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. They had no problems with a non-repentant baby-killer being a member of their church. There are evil theologies out there which need to be denounced.

There is a difference between the parable of the wheat and weeds and the man who was sleeping with his step-mother.

Since, you didn't quote the Bible, I don't feel obligated to restrain myself to the Bible when I quote Ronald Reagan.

"So in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation blithely to declare yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil."

While I don't think preterist or futurist to be evil there are evil doctrines concerning abortion, homosexuality, and other things which are not just "theological misunderstandings".

At other times, there are situations where, although a theology may not be evil, it is definitely man-made and the creators of the theology admitted as much. Some deny this despite the clear evidence.

You make a good point, Marty. That is a great Reagan quote. To modify my earlier view, if someone promotes what Scriptures clearly teach against, this is a man-made doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the above presents us with a working definition of Biblical and man-made doctrines.
Biblical doctrines are the ones I believe in and follow; man-made doctrines are what other people bevate preferences and convictions toi beingines either are when we elelieve in and follow.

To me most man made doctrines are

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the above presents us with a working definition of Biblical and man-made doctrines.
Biblical doctrines are the ones I believe in and follow; man-made doctrines are what other people believe in and follow.

Man made doctrines to me are when we make our own preferences and convictions the norm for all others!

 

[Yeshua1]

The gap theory is not in the least bit stupid. Some of the wild offshoot theories of it are, but the basic theory of a gap is not.

Hard to have a gab when creation only thousands of years old!

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem with rejecting "isms" is the risk of painting oneself into a corner. About ism: "used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc." [Dictionary.com]. So, if someone says they do not believe in isms, they are forced to back peddle when faced with obvious orthodox doctrines such as Trinitarianism or Baptism. The other thing they often try to do is affirm a theological truth without naming it. For instance, "I do not believe in Trinitarianism but I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God." I actually had someone tell me this once because they reject all labels. It was not worth arguing the point because at least they were confessing the truth of the Trinity, even if they refused to call it that. The point? As long as they are embracing cardinal truths of the faith, let them win by just nodding your head when they reject labels, isms, or any other definition.

None of us here are Apostles, so all of our theologies to some degree have Isms in it!

 

[David Kent]

No you don't. What you do, do is to redefine the word "generation" out of its context in order to fit your presupposition.

This generation was the generation Jesus was addressing. Any other interpretation is to redefine the word "generation" out of its context in order to fit your presupposition.

 

[Revmitchell]

This generation was the generation Jesus was addressing. Any other interpretation is to redefine the word "generation" out of its context in order to fit your presupposition.

Sigh, you need to do a word study on that word. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[David Kent]

Sigh, you need to do a word study on that word. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I think it is you that doesn't know what you are talking about. Do a search for "this generation" in scripture and you will always find it means the generation that was being addressed.
You futurists only try to make it mean something else to fit your Scofieldite views.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think it is you that doesn't know what you are talking about. Do a search for "this generation" in scripture and you will always find it means the generation that was being addressed.
You futurists only try to make it mean something else to fit your Scofieldite views.

No we work to interpret scripture rather than rely on your Jesuit views.