Inerancy - Define, or dismiss?

[Augustin56]

I liked your post, but...
Doctrine is man-made. How can the Bible be free from doctrinal error?
I think I know what you are trying to say, but that's not the way to say it. IMHO

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that God's intended message was not lost in translation?


Agree.


Agree.

/

Slight sidenote. The the word, doctrine, comes from the Latin word, docere, which means to teach. So, it depends on which doctrines to which you are referring when you say "doctrine is man-made." If it's not a doctrine of Christ, then, yes, it is a man-made doctrine. But, if it is a doctrine of Christ, then it is a God-made doctrine. Jesus came and taught the Apostles. He commanded them to go forth and teach.

 

[St. SteVen]

Slight sidenote. The the word, doctrine, comes from the Latin word, docere, which means to teach. So, it depends on which doctrines to which you are referring when you say "doctrine is man-made." If it's not a doctrine of Christ, then, yes, it is a man-made doctrine. But, if it is a doctrine of Christ, then it is a God-made doctrine. Jesus came and taught the Apostles. He commanded them to go forth and teach.

Good comments.
Well worth discussing, thanks.

- How is the teaching of doctrine created?
- What makes a doctrine, "a doctrine of Christ"?
- How is "a doctrine of Christ" translated into a teaching?
- Of what value are doctrinal teachings that are NOT "a doctrine of Christ"?

- What do you make of the word "teaching" in this passage?

Mark 1:24-28 NIV
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth?
Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”
26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other,
“What is this? A new teaching—and with authority!
He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.”
28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

/

 

[RedFan]

- What makes a doctrine, "a doctrine of Christ"?

I'll try to tackle that one, because it seems simple enough: Any teaching that Christ taught. (Which may or may not have been recorded in the NT.)

 

[St. SteVen]

I'll try to tackle that one, because it seems simple enough: Any teaching that Christ taught. (Which may or may not have been recorded in the NT.)

Thanks.
Here's a question I should have included in my previous post.

- Does the term "a doctrine of Christ" assume the teaching is straight forward? Not open to interpretation.

Example: Jesus said that we can have no life in us unless we eat of his flesh and drink of his blood.
This certainly was not understood by those who heard it from him at that time.

John 6:53-56 NIV
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,
and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
remains in me, and I in them.

John 6:60, 66 NIV
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said,
“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” ...
66 From this time many of his disciples
turned back and no longer followed him.

/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I liked your post, but...
Doctrine is man-made. How can the Bible be free from doctrinal error?
I think I know what you are trying to say, but that's not the way to say it. IMHO

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that God's intended message was not lost in translation?

Doctrine is god made. The most simplest definition of doctrine is what God declares on a subject. The doctrine of soteriology is not man made, but compiled from Gods' Word etc.

 

[RedFan]

Whether all God made, all man made, or a combination, doctrine was certainly transmitted by fallible human beings, and human beings who interpreted things that weren't perfectly clear to them, so error is possible -- but by and large, I think we have a pretty good handle on proper Christian doctrine even today.

It's nice to have a written record of Christ's teachings, but surely there were many more teachings that didn't get written down (or did, but they are now lost to us). There had to be a ton of that, right? The very last verse of John's gospel is pertinent here. So, the apostles' oral transmission to others, and the transmittees' further transmission, is a source of doctrine too.

If Eusebius is to be believed in Book III, ch. 39 of his Church History, CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius), Papias actually preferred the oral to the written, which is kinda strange:

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

 

[St. SteVen]

Whether all God made, all man made, or a combination, doctrine was certainly transmitted by fallible human beings, and human beings who interpreted things that weren't perfectly clear to them, so error is possible -- but by and large, I think we have a pretty good handle on proper Christian doctrine even today.

Well said. I agree.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Doctrine is god made. The most simplest definition of doctrine is what God declares on a subject. The doctrine of soteriology is not man made, but compiled from Gods' Word etc.

What does "compiled" mean? (man-made) Who did the compiling? (men)
Is the Trinity a God-made doctrine?

/

 

[RedFan]

Another thing to consider is the titles that were given to the gospels early on, for example kata Markon euangelion, "the Gospel according to Mark." The phrase kata Markon here does not necessarily connote "written by Mark." We might better translate kata Markon as "the way Mark told it."

If the gospels were not directly written by the men whose names they bear, but rather were dictated by or even just related orally by them over time to the scriveners, whoever actually put pen to parchment could easily have made a mistake or two in the recording. We don't even know if the original dictator or story teller was around to proof the text before circulation and copying (I won't say "publication" lest our modern notions of that word be deemed applicable 2,000 years ago).

Maybe Papias was on to something???

 

[St. SteVen]

If the gospels were not directly written by the men whose names they bear, but rather were dictated by or even just related orally by them over time to the scriveners, whoever actually put pen to parchment could easily have made a mistake or two in the recording. We don't even know if the original dictator or story teller was around to proof the text before circulation and copying (I won't say "publication" lest our modern notions of that word be deemed applicable 2,000 years ago).

Good points, thanks.

I have said before on the forum.
Imagine if the story events of 9/11 were an oral tradition that wasn't written down until 30 years later.
We would still have another six years before we read anything about it. How might that effect the story?

/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What does "compiled" mean? (man-made) Who did the compiling? (men)
Is the Trinity a God-made doctrine?

/

The trinity is a biblical doctrine. It is formed by gathering all Scripture says about who god is and the nature of God.

compiled means:

com·pile
[kəmˈpīl]

VERB
compiled (past tense) · compiled (past participle)

1. produce (something, especially a list, report, or book) by assembling information collected from other sources:
2. 
   
3. And the source we compile to make doctrine is SCripture! That is how doctrine is formed by searching the Scriptures. Paul said Scripture is profitable for sound doctrine.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
What does "compiled" mean? (man-made) Who did the compiling? (men)
Is the Trinity a God-made doctrine?

The trinity is a biblical doctrine. It is formed by gathering all Scripture says about who god is and the nature of God.

I agree.
Gathered by men = man-made.

compiled means:

com·pile
[kəmˈpīl]

VERB
compiled (past tense) · compiled (past participle)

1. produce (something, especially a list, report, or book) by assembling information collected from other sources:
2. 
   
3. And the source we compile to make doctrine is SCripture! That is how doctrine is formed by searching the Scriptures. Paul said Scripture is profitable for sound doctrine.

We compile = man-made.
That is all I am saying when I claim that doctrine is man-made. We "made" it.

In lumber, a 2" x 4"plank is made from a tree. Thus man-made.
2" x 4"planks don't grow out of the ground on their own.
We cut down a tree and mill the wood to get our 2" x 4" planks.

God makes trees, We make 2" x 4" planks.

Doctrine doesn't grow out of the ground. We create it from the Bible.
Even the Bible was man-made. The paper was made out of trees.
Bibles don't grow out of the ground. Not around here, anyway.
Do Bibles grow out of the ground in South Carolina?

/ @Hillsage LOL

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Doctrine doesn't grow out of the ground. We create it from the Bible.
Even the Bible was man-made. The paper was made out of trees.
Bibles don't grow out of the ground. Not around here, anyway.
Do Bibles grow out of the ground in South Carolina?

No, doctrine comes from Sripture as written.

Paul though highly of doctrine:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

While man may compile the doctrine into a systematic way- it comes from Scripture if it is honest.

Just like a 2x4 comes from the tree. without the tree no 2x4, without Scripture, no doctrine.

 

[St. SteVen]

While man may compile the doctrine into a systematic way- it comes from Scripture if it is honest.

Agree. But...
Again. Compile = man-made.

Just like a 2x4 comes from the tree. without the tree no 2x4, without Scripture, no doctrine.

Agree.

/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Agree. But...
Again. Compile = man-made.


Agree.

/

So you do not believe in doctrine as being Gods thought then.

 

[Hillsage]

Agree. But...
Again. Compile = man-made.


Agree.

/

I agree Steven. And 400+ "Christian" denominations would all also agree. Each one saying; "Their doctrine comes from scripture". And yet those same 400 denominations all disagree doctrinally with each other.

 

[Hillsage]

So you do not believe in doctrine as being Gods thought then.

What does scripture say?

MAT 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Lot of VAINITY in the church I left 5 months ago....and after over 30 years with 4 good pastors.

1CO 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Today we essentially say;
POPE whoever?, LUTHER, CALVIN, WESLEY etc. etc. etc.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What does scripture say?

MAT 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Lot of VAINITY in the church I left 5 months ago....and after over 30 years with 4 good pastors.

1CO 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Today we essentially say;
POPE whoever?, LUTHER, CALVIN, WESLEY etc. etc. etc.

Well the fact that menh corrupt doctrine is a different issue.

But as Paul said:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

We know Jesus is eternal god because of doctrine- the assembling of Scriptures on an issue that gives definition! We all hold doctrine, no matter how much people may dislike the word.

Doctrine is critical.

 

[Hillsage]

Well the fact that menh corrupt doctrine is a different issue.

But as Paul said:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

We know Jesus is eternal god because of doctrine- the assembling of Scriptures on an issue that gives definition! We all hold doctrine, no matter how much people may dislike the word.

Doctrine is critical.

Please hear me...I LOVE THE BIBLE, but I don't worship the book. That verse was only INSPIRED to the 'original autograph'....or person who wrote the original words. And that was written before the SCRIPTURES first became corrupted. Well ,actually that really isn't true either. It started clear back in the days of Jeremiah.

JER 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

Did you know that they had 'denominations' in the OT? Deuteronomists, Yawheists, Masoretics. Then, later in the 400 years where God never spoke, we then see the Pharisees, Sadducees. Today is must the same IMO. FundaMENTAList scribes play down the spiritual truths and the FundaSPIRITual scribes play up their commmentary opinions to refute those same translations.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Please hear me...I LOVE THE BIBLE, but I don't worship the book. That verse was only INSPIRED to the 'original autograph'....or person who wrote the original words. And that was written before the SCRIPTURES first became corrupted. Well ,actually that really isn't true either. It started clear back in the days of Jeremiah.

JER 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

Did you know that they had 'denominations' in the OT? Deuteronomists, Yawheists, Masoretics. Then, later in the 400 years where God never spoke, we then see the Pharisees, Sadducees. Today is must the same IMO. FundaMENTAList scribes play down the spiritual truths and the FundaSPIRITual scribes play up their commmentary opinions to refute those same translations.

I do not worship teh book either. but I worship the author of the book.

Actually those terms you use for OT are names used to describe scholars who criticize the texts. the ones at the time of Jesus were real however. Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots

Yes the original autographs and all faithful copies are in errant. Translations will create errors because of problems going from one language to another. Most errors are simple linguistic weaknesses instead of doctrinal errors.

Modern people need to work harder than the 1st century Christians. we should become familiar with the laqnguages Scripture was written in and see where English bibles have did their best but lack the full impact of the originals.

but we must remember this: Scripture gives us all the instructions God commanded for us to live godly lives and how to grow in our relationship with Him.