What Does The Phrase "Empty or Man-Made Philosophy based on Human Tradition," Mean?

[Billiards Ball]

20 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

I keep running into the claim, "You're relying on human philosophy,"

          Or

 "human tradition,"

          Or

"Man-made philosophy"

followed by part of a scripture reference or two. Is philosophy wrong?

Philosophy is not wrong, there is room in the Bible for the gray areas, for example, two pastors can disagree per their philosophies regarding effective ministry.

The empty philosophy the Bible spoke of is any personal or school of philosophy not rooted in Bible doctrine.

[Michael37]

6 hours ago, teddyv said:

Athanasian creed, Nicene creed.

 

ETA: I realize some might see a difference between a creed and doctrine as related to the OP and others posts here.

Thanks, teddyv. I needed more focus to get the picture you had in mind, and we could add the ubiquitous Statements of Faith and Tenets of Belief to the Creeds. All these are deemed necessary to those wanting to establish a particular doctrinal position, and indeed they are helpful guidelines to pilgrims wanting to make progress.

[Uber Genius]

On 2/8/2021 at 4:48 PM, Riverwalker said:

It means that you are relying solely on what can be comprehended by Man and God is SO much more bigger than the narrow limits of our understanding. But you must only satisfy yourself with the experience of God, because we simply do not possess the tools to comprehend him

So when early Christian Fathers wrote about the trinity being one God composed of three persons (since they are men and can't comprehend God) then we must reject the trinity as a tradition of man?

In fact the various doctrinal statements in the first 7 ecumenical councils seem to all meet those conditions. Should the creeds Ben tossed out?

[Uber Genius]

On 2/8/2021 at 4:48 PM, Riverwalker said:

Its like trying to explain a rainbow to a blind man...you can get the idea across, but if he has never experienced color or light, he has no reference to understand it

Another good analogy that highlights limits of knowledge, but comprehending God has largely been regarded as absurd since at least Augustine. The question is how much of a role rationality plays at understanding the body of revelation we are given in scripture.

[Uber Genius]

On 2/8/2021 at 5:27 PM, Jayne said:

Man-made doctrine, philosophy, creeds and more have one fault that cannot be corrected.  They cannot save anyone from hell and they cannot cleanse anyone from sin.

What is the purpose of the creeds? What is the literacy rate of the early church? Doctrinal statements were for those that were already saved. 

[Uber Genius]

On 2/8/2021 at 5:27 PM, Jayne said:

Sure, man-made doctrines can be clever,  or contain some truth, or even make great quotes.  But they do not lead people to Jesus Christ nor save them.

Man-made ideas of philosophy can any times exclude God and make man "the captain of his soul" as Henley puts  it. That is not what the Bible teaches.

Well-put!

Colossians 2:

4 "I say this so that no one will deceive you by smooth rhetoric."

8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ."

Further down we see that Paul is talking about the Judaizers. 

So someone who uses there arguments to falsify the revelation ornate God found in the scriptures. 

Since Paul uses smooth rhetoric and philosophy to make many of his arguments it seems clear he is not talking about just any human smooth rhetoric or any philosophical argument! 

[Riverwalker]

31 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

So when early Christian Fathers wrote about the trinity being one God composed of three persons (since they are men and can't comprehend God) then we must reject the trinity as a tradition of man?

In fact the various doctrinal statements in the first 7 ecumenical councils seem to all meet those conditions. Should the creeds Ben tossed out?

I am sorry.....you are referring to something outside of the bible, the writing of mere men.  Where as the CONCEPT of Trinity is in the bible..  The only Authority here is the God and His word

[Riverwalker]

26 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

Another good analogy that highlights limits of knowledge, but comprehending God has largely been regarded as absurd since at least Augustine. The question is how much of a role rationality plays at understanding the body of revelation we are given in scripture.

Again.....you are talking out what men have said.   If you rely solely on your comprehension, your rationality, your reason, your logic...you will never dig yourself out of the hole you are in

 

If you want to dispute the scripture, do it with scripture.  Because man's wisdom is not all that impressive

Edited February 11, 2021 by Riverwalker

[Uber Genius]

On 2/8/2021 at 6:09 PM, JohnD said:

The philosophy of short-sighted, mere mortal man...

who is satanically induced, opposition to God and his

truth, which nullifies God's word, and makes worship

of Jesus in vain...

 

So I like the passages you cited. How do we sort out traditions of say keeping the sabbath, or ritual feast days, or Jewish oath rituals that Paul observed?

Further couldn't we just hurl the epithet: [insert view we disagree with here] is a Satanically induced, tradition/ philosophy of man that nullifies God's word, and be done with the conversation?

[Uber Genius]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:15 PM, Michael37 said:

It is not so much that we shouldn't acquaint ourselves with philosophies, but rather that we shouldn't be taken in by them, or be brainwashed into accepting them as preferable to the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.

Just seeing this now or else I would have point people back to your response rather than sharing my view which is exact the same.

thanks.