Featured What is a Man-made Doctrine

A "man-made doctrine" is what you call someone's belief, when you don't want to or can't refute it.



*Edit: Atleast, that is how most people use it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I believe denominations develop frameworks through which their members are to understand scripture. And where most denominations agree with each other, they divide themselves off from the others though the errors unique to each denomination. I believe if we cannot find direct quotes from scripture, the doctrine is probably in error.

 

This is indeed a very important topic. Where do we draw the line between one's view vs man-made teaching? As you mention regarding JWs and Mormons, some man-made teachings are pretty obvious - especially when they use extra-biblical sources or change the Bible altogether. Others are not quite so clear. Catholics use the Bible, but they also rely heavily upon teachings from the Church which are not necessarily supported by the Bible.

What should be the framework for claiming another view is just a man-made doctrine? I suggest that if a case can be made for the view from the Bible alone, it is a legitimate view. For instance, there are many competing views regarding eschatology. Most are considered legitimate views by nearly everyone, especially if they take a "futurist" position. The preterist views are considered as "man-made teachings" by many, even though there is plenty of Biblical support for them. (That's not to say there isn't Biblical support for the futurist views.) Likewise, there is Biblical support for the view that the Gifts of the Spirit ceased with the death of the last Apostle, and Biblical support for the opposite view, that they have not ceased.

Finally, I suggest that as long as the views do not affect one's salvation, they are not worth a big fight over. When a discussion turns into an argument over "minor" issues, it's time to walk away. It really makes no difference whether you believe the Gifts of the Spirit are for today or they have ceased; it makes no difference whether you believe the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. What does make a difference are issues like whether works are required for salvation; whether Jesus is God in the flesh, etc.

 

I am puzzled by this comparison. I believe it is a legitimate comparison to decide what is orthodox and what is not. However, it should be clear what it a man-made doctrine. Anything that is wrong and not how God meant it is in fact man-made. Of the two examples given pre-mill vs. Amill it is true only one can be right. If one is right then the other is wrong and therefore man-made regardless of how orthodox it is. Orthodoxy does not determine truth. It only determines what is accepted as truth by the greatest number of people.

 

When there is a stark disagreement on what the word of God actually teaches on a matter. The law of the exculded middle, both cannot be true. Either both interpreations are wrong or one is wrong and the other is right. The wrong interpretation or interpretations of the disagreement are man made teachings.

 

What is a man-made doctrine? Anything belief formulated after the first century that ends in -ism.

 

When there is a stark disagreement, how do you determine which is the "man-made doctrine"? The one you hold to be true must be true, so all other views must be man-made? What if both / all the views have Biblical support?

 

Do you mean like Jn 3:16 that Christ died for the whole world as in all people? Yet Calvinist argue that Christ died only for the elect and that is not in scripture.
MB

 

True Biblical support does not have contradictions.

 

It doesn't say that.

οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν ⸆ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

" For in this manner God loved the world, so that He gave the unique Son in order that( ίνα) all who believe in Him shall posses eternal life.

God loved the world in the manner of giving His Son "ίνα" (in order that) "πας ο πιστευων" (all who believe) should have eternal life. You can prove nothing from this text other that God gave the Unique One for the believers.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I think if we define world as Jews and Gentiles both, the passage makes more sense. Salvation was only of the Jews until Christ, but most were very wicked.

 

I will no longer further my argument against his statement out of respect for you and the OP.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Yet we have opposing views of different "doctrines" whose advocates use only the Bible as support. Granted, in opposing views, only one view can be right. It's even possible that nobody got it right. I believe it often comes down to a matter of interpretation. It certainly doesn't make them "man-made doctrines", just different views of what the Scriptures mean.

 

Excellent response. Christ died for everyone:
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
MB

 

The charge of man-made doctrine is thrown around to carelessly. I know true believers with a heart for truth who are Calvinist and other Arminian. Amill, pre historic pre mill or dispensationalist. Some believe in natural headship, other in federal headship.

All these positions use Scripture. To accuse any of being man-made is just an attempt to belittle their position. It is lazy and doesn't advance the debate in a healthy direction.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk