What is a Man-made Doctrine

[MB]

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'm not impressed by the critical text. Jesus Christ has a name and it isn't ONE. The majority of text disagrees with it. Christ did not die for believers only but for the sins of the whole world.
MB

 

[Lodic]

Let us use an example of the dichotomist and trichotomist positions. Both views have wide acceptance in orthodox Christianity. Neither view is an attack on the Gospel. Godly people on both sides make their argument from scripture. If both sides appeal to scripture as the final arbiter, is it fair to make the accusation of "man-made doctrine"? We are too quick to attack our own with cruel and baseless charges. This does not mean we should ignore error. Debate is good because it forces us to scripture. But what about charity? Can we be at peace with a brother who believes differently than us? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Yes, we are too quick to play the "man-made doctrine" card. This is today's version of accusing people of heresy. I definitely agree that we should discuss / debate those with a different view. One or both parties may come to a new understanding of the issue. I used to meet with several Catholic friends about once a month for the purpose of discussing our doctrines. Being at peace with a brother may depend a lot on how strongly you feel about the issue in question, and how well do you know or respect the party with whom you disagree.

 

[MartyF]

When you base your doctrine on Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus.

 

[McCree79]

I'm not impressed by the critical text. Jesus Christ has a name and it isn't ONE. The majority of text disagrees with it.
MB

TR= τὸν μονογενῆ
MT= τὸν μονογενῆ
CT= τὸν μονογενῆ

They all say the same thing.

μονογενής -BDAG

1 pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only

2 pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind)

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed]

TR= τὸν μονογενῆ
MT= τὸν μονογενῆ
CT= τὸν μονογενῆ

They all say the same thing.

μονογενής -BDAG

1 pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only

2 pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind)

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Mic drop.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[MB]

TR= τὸν μονογενῆ
MT= τὸν μονογενῆ
CT= τὸν μονογενῆ

They all say the same thing.

μονογενής -BDAG

1 pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only

2 pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind)

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Neither says Christ died only for the believers. If this were so then only the believers at the time could be saved.
MB

 

[Lodic]

Neither says Christ died only for the believers. If this were so then only the believers at the time could be saved.
MB

The topic is "what is a man-made doctrine?". Out of respect for the OP and everyone participating, please stop trying to hijack this post into a Calvinism vs Arminianism debate.

 

[Reynolds]

Matthew 15:8-9 8
"‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”
​

What is man-made doctrine? There is no text-book definition but if I were to offer one it would be from a former professor of mine who said, "[Man-made doctrine] is any teaching or theological model that cannot be firmly anchored to scripture and is outside of orthodox Christianity." I think this a good definition because it recognizes that not every teaching has an explicit verse that clearly states the teaching. The definition also recognizes that even though a specific teaching may not be without its critics, it remains within orthodox Christianity. For example, one Christian is pre-millennial while another is amillennial. Obviously, one view is incorrect, although both views are accepted within orthodoxy.

So, how can we distinguish between orthodox Christian teaching and man-made teachings? First, I am not necessarily referring to obvious non-Christian teachings from groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, although they certainly promote man-made teachings. Within orthodox Christianity, man-made doctrines are often found. Some of these teachings appeal to scripture but draw their conclusions from human reasoning apart from scripture. We see examples of this in the prosperity gospel and certain aspects of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale's power of positive thinking mantra has grown up into the self-affirmation teachings of Joel Osteen. These are just examples of man-made teachings that have infiltrated our churches to greater or lesser degrees.

It is important to point out that not everything we disagree with is a man-made doctrine. However, when you hear things like, "This is how I feel..." or "I cannot find it in the Bible but...", caution flags should go up. Truth is not dependent on how we feel and truth must be grounded in scripture. It should also be within the realm of orthodox Christianity. The Apostle John tells us in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." God has given us His word in order to do exactly that.

Acts 17:10-11
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.​

In that context, it was all the additions to The Law that the Pharisees and Saducees had added.

 

[MB]

The topic is "what is a man-made doctrine?". Out of respect for the OP and everyone participating, please stop trying to hijack this post into a Calvinism vs Arminianism debate.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread. This thread is about what man made doctrine is. I believe that parts of Calvinism that are not scriptural are the doctrine of men. Reformed mentioned other doctrines which are man made I merely mentioned that Calvinism is also a man made doctrine. All of the tulip is man made. None of it is supported by scripture when the scripture used to do so does not say what they claim with out there own additions to it.
Such as the meaning of words Like "world" and "all" They complain that "World" when used alone does not mean everyone or that all doesn't mean everyone. Although they haven't yet denied that everyone means everyone such as in;
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 honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
MB

 

[Lodic]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread. This thread is about what man made doctrine is. I believe that parts of Calvinism that are not scriptural are the doctrine of men. Reformed mentioned other doctrines which are man made I merely mentioned that Calvinism is also a man made doctrine. All of the tulip is man made. None of it is supported by scripture when the scripture used to do so does not say what they claim with out there own additions to it.
Such as the meaning of words Like "world" and "all" They complain that "World" when used alone does not mean everyone or that all doesn't mean everyone. Although they haven't yet denied that everyone means everyone such as in;
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 honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
MB

If that were the case, you would simply have suggested it as an example. It seems that you are taking the notion that since you believe Calvinism is man-made doctrine you have free reign to make this the subject. I'm not here to see what anyone thinks about Calvinism vs Arminianism. I'm here to see what others think about what constitutes man-made doctrines.

If you focus on the C vs A debate, what's to prevent anyone else from using this thread as a forum to tell everyone else why their view of the End Times is right and other views are man-made doctrines? What's to stop the next guy from going on about why speaking in tongues is still valid for today and any other view is a man-made doctrine? We could go on and on about "hot topics" and lose the initial topic of what a man-made teaching actually is.

 

[tyndale1946]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread. This thread is about what man made doctrine is. I believe that parts of Calvinism that are not scriptural are the doctrine of men. Reformed mentioned other doctrines which are man made I merely mentioned that Calvinism is also a man made doctrine. All of the tulip is man made. None of it is supported by scripture when the scripture used to do so does not say what they claim with out there own additions to it.
Such as the meaning of words Like "world" and "all" They complain that "World" when used alone does not mean everyone or that all doesn't mean everyone. Although they haven't yet denied that everyone means everyone such as in;
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 honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
MB

Here brethren go again taking scripture out context... If you read a little further you would discover who every man is... Many sons is not every man... If the scripture read all sons I would agree with you but it does not... Also the sons that are mentioned in the every man are brethren... Christ died for the sheep and his sheep alone!... Show me one scripture where Christ died for a goat?... Brother Glen

Hebrew 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

 

[MB]

Here brethren go again taking scripture out out context... If you read a little further you would discover who every man is... Many sons is not every man... If the scripture read all sons I would agree with you but it does not... Also the sons that are mentioned in the every man are brethren... Christ died for he sheep and his sheep alone!... Show me one scripture where Christ died for a goat?... Brother Glen


Hebrew 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Christ died for sinners and all sinners are goats until they are saved and become sheep.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You say that Christ died for His sheep alone but none of the scripture you have posted say that. The writer does not say that. So you saying it not supported from scripture means it is the doctrine of men
MB

 

[Reformed]

I requested to have this thread closed. It has been effectively hijacked by someone with an axe to grind.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[rsr]

Closed at author's request.