Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[ScottySAM]

If a local church has statements of belief that it admits go beyond the essentials (those core beliefs that unite us all in Christ), have they added to scripture? Are they no longer gathering around the Gospel, and instead gathering around their own specific system of thinking?

Let me give an example: Suppose a local church identifies two categories of doctrines: 1) The core Gospel message and doctrines which unite every believer in the body of Christ; and 2) The doctrines added to the core that unite this particular local body of believers - that one must hold in order to be a member of the local body.

Category 1 would include things like the sinfulness of man, the divinity of Christ, Christ's atonement for our sins, etc.

Category 2 would include additional doctrines - for the purpose of this example let's say the doctrine of Eternal Security.

By admitting that people can believe contrary to doctrines that fall in category 2 and still be brothers / sisters in Christ as long as they hold to all doctrine in category 1, has the local church elevated the category 2 doctrines to the level of scripture? Have they elevated their own personal beliefs to the level of God's Truth? Would this make this local body more of a club than a local church body? You can organize clubs around anything from an interest in stamp collecting to an affinity for Star Trek. But can you legitimately organize a local church around beliefs that are admittedly open for Christian debate?

When you stand behind the pulpit and declare eternal salvation as Fact without qualifying it with "I believe", and without pointing out that other saved Christians believe differently, are you raising your particular belief to a higher level to which it does not belong?

Long post. Thank you for your patience and your loving responses. This has been weighing on me lately. Trying to figure out how to rightly understand these questions.

 

[Albion]

I'd say ''No.'' The church doesn't appear to be adding to Scripture. It is interpreting Scripture in a way that, on certain matters, differs with the interpretation made by a different church. If acceptance of these 'point 2' issues is a requirement for membership, that still doesn't change anything. If you think the church is wrong on these matters, of course you would choose another one for yourself. BUT if it makes non-essentials into essentials, meaning necessary for salvation, or produces doctrines that have no Biblical basis, then that would be wrong.

 

[Dave-W]

I would agree with albion.

Perhaps one of the biggest areas that people "add to scripture" that I have come across, is to play with wordings to make things into sins that have little or no basis in scripture.

Two examples from my Wesleyan Holiness past: playing cards and drinking alcohol. First the cards. Owning a deck of cards was a sin, playing any game with them was another sin. Cards were associated with the "sin of gambling," and therefore sinful in and of themselves. But the bible has no prohibition against gambling. It does say to handle our finances wisely, and gambling is certainly NOT that; but there is no prohibition.

The other is based off of one scripture - to not be drunk with wine but filled with the Holy Spirit. Eph 5.18 But then they define "drunk" as any alcohol intake at all. My congregation said even accidentally SMELLING alcohol was the sin of drunkenness. But again, it does not say drunkenness is necessarily a sin, just a bad idea.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I agree with Albion and Dave-W. Category 1 would be core, primary theological beliefs such as the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and belief in Christ being necessary for salvation. Category 2 would be secondary beliefs substantiated through interpretation of scripture that do not negate category 1. For example, in category 2 we may see the issues of infant versus believer’s baptism or female pastors.

When we talk of beliefs that add to scripture we’re talking about cases where one has to actually add something to scripture to make it justify a belief. A recent example from this site would be the issue of praying to Mary and the wedding at Cana. Proponents state that the wedding at Cana is an example where someone asks Mary to intercede on their behalf with Jesus. Yet nowhere in the scripture do we see anyone actually asking Mary to do that.

Equally unfortunate is when folks take scripture out of context to justify their beliefs. That is why when examining any church’s statement of faith you should not accept what they say just because they have a lot of citations in parentheses after sentences. You should review those cited verses to see if they actually state what the church is claiming they state. Remember, even the devil can quote scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

Generally the churches don't add to the Scriptures, if anything they tend to neglect them. It's not uncommon for certain churches to require baptism for salvation, even one Pentecostal group (Apostolics/Jesus only) require tongues for salvation. This isn't really adding to the Scriptures, it's more like misapplying them. I don't think tithing applies to New Testament believers, however, some churches require it. The church wants the blessings associated with tithing so in well meaning enthusiasm the church insists on it for it's members.

To be clear, with regards to the gospel the church is either preaching the gospel or they are not. When it comes to hearing the gospel you either believe it or not, and you know your saved when the Holy Spirit confirms this fact to you personally, that you are a child of the living God. The grace that saves you also preserves you and equips you for service. Local bodies or denominations my have controversial or seemingly unbiblical doctrines, the Catholics believe in edicts from Popes and Councils. These extra-biblical proclamations can never carry the weight of Scripture with regards to doctrine and practice. The gospel will remain unaffected because the simplicity of the gospel the the testimony of Scripture cannot be broken.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ScottySAM]

Let me put this another way....Let's say that there are just three category 2 doctrines and each doctrine is simply binary (you either believe it, or you believe the contrary). That means there are 8 possible combinations of these beliefs. Now, lets say that you live in a community with just 7 churches and each church believes some different combination of these three category 2 doctrines. It's possible that no church holds to the same combination of beliefs that you hold. Even though you hold to all the category 1 doctrines, you cannot join any of the 7 churches in your area. On what basis do these churches exclude people that they themselves say are brothers / sisters in Christ? Does that basis imply that these churches are more akin to private clubs than they are to local bodies?

Is this like saying "In essentials unity, in non-essentials segregation"?

It just seems like there's something inherently wrong with elevating debatable doctrine to criteria for membership in a local body. Sure, it can be criteria to enter a private club, but to enter a local body??

 

[ScottySAM]

When we talk of beliefs that add to scripture we’re talking about cases where one has to actually add something to scripture to make it justify a belief.

If you consider two local churches, where one holds to eternal security and the other holds to conditional security. Only one of them can be right. Isn't the other adding to scripture? The trouble is that we don't know which one. So, to be safe, we should be careful to qualify non-category 1 doctrines with, "I believe", and/or "others believe differently". Otherwise, we're in danger of putting words in God's mouth. Are we not? Is not then problematic if we make membership criteria based on these things that amount to putting words in God's mouth? What if, of the two churches I just described, ours is the church in error? Aren't we excluding people from the body based on a falsehood? Shouldn't we try to avoid that possibility?

 

[Phil 1:21]

If you consider two local churches, where one holds to eternal security and the other holds to conditional security. Only one of them can be right. Isn't the other adding to scripture?

You raise a very good point, and the only way I could answer that would be after examining their defense of their beliefs. There are many theological positions that can be effectively argued for or against based on scripture (ex: infant baptism versus believer's baptism). Without knowing how those churches justify their beliefs I couldn't possibly make a determination regarding that justification.

 

[Albion]

Let me put this another way....Let's say that there are just three category 2 doctrines and each doctrine is simply binary (you either believe it, or you believe the contrary). That means there are 8 possible combinations of these beliefs. Now, lets say that you live in a community with just 7 churches and each church believes some different combination of these three category 2 doctrines. It's possible that no church holds to the same combination of beliefs that you hold. Even though you hold to all the category 1 doctrines, you cannot join any of the 7 churches in your area. On what basis do these churches exclude people that they themselves say are brothers / sisters in Christ? Does that basis imply that these churches are more akin to private clubs than they are to local bodies?

Is this like saying "In essentials unity, in non-essentials segregation"?

It just seems like there's something inherently wrong with elevating debatable doctrine to criteria for membership in a local body. Sure, it can be criteria to enter a private club, but to enter a local body??

Frankly, I'd be surprised if all the churches in town made a prospective member swear to all the category 2 beliefs. Usually, they take the view that these are the stances taken by the church itself but yet they are tolerant of individuals who question them. That's the category 2 beliefs, not the category 1.

I am sure that some denominations require the aspirant to verbally assent, and in front of the congregation, but I can hardly imagine that a town with 7 different churches (and probably as many denominations) would have every one of them fitting that description.

 

[Soyeong]

If a local church has statements of belief that it admits go beyond the essentials (those core beliefs that unite us all in Christ), have they added to scripture? Are they no longer gathering around the Gospel, and instead gathering around their own specific system of thinking?

Let me give an example: Suppose a local church identifies two categories of doctrines: 1) The core Gospel message and doctrines which unite every believer in the body of Christ; and 2) The doctrines added to the core that unite this particular local body of believers - that one must hold in order to be a member of the local body.

Category 1 would include things like the sinfulness of man, the divinity of Christ, Christ's atonement for our sins, etc.

Category 2 would include additional doctrines - for the purpose of this example let's say the doctrine of Eternal Security.

By admitting that people can believe contrary to doctrines that fall in category 2 and still be brothers / sisters in Christ as long as they hold to all doctrine in category 1, has the local church elevated the category 2 doctrines to the level of scripture? Have they elevated their own personal beliefs to the level of God's Truth? Would this make this local body more of a club than a local church body? You can organize clubs around anything from an interest in stamp collecting to an affinity for Star Trek. But can you legitimately organize a local church around beliefs that are admittedly open for Christian debate?

When you stand behind the pulpit and declare eternal salvation as Fact without qualifying it with "I believe", and without pointing out that other saved Christians believe differently, are you raising your particular belief to a higher level to which it does not belong?

Long post. Thank you for your patience and your loving responses. This has been weighing on me lately. Trying to figure out how to rightly understand these questions.

There is a big difference between adding to Scripture and saying that that the members of our church hold to a specific interpretation of Scripture. For example, the doctrine of reincarnation is not taught by the Bible, so if someone were to say that you need to believe in reincarnation to be a Christian, then they would be adding their own beliefs to Scripture. However, the people who believe in the doctrine of Eternal Security base that doctrine on what they believe Scripture teaches.

Before I joined my current congregation, they had a problem with people forming factions who disagreed with what our rabbi taught and visitors would hear different things about what we believe depending on who they sat next to when we ate together. So my rabbi did a series about this is what we believe and why we believe it, this is what we don't believe, and why we don't believe it, and then required all regular attenders to sign a statement of faith. This caused the people who were causing problems to leave on their own and the congregation to become unified, and to go from being stagnant to flourishing again. We should not sacrifice unity for truth or truth for unity, but must endeavor to be unified around the truth.

 

[ScottySAM]

Frankly, I'd be surprised if all the churches in town made a prospective member swear to all the category 2 beliefs. Usually, they take the view that these are the stances taken by the church itself but yet they are tolerant of individuals who question them. That's the category 2 beliefs, not the category 1.

I am sure that some denominations require the aspirant to verbally assent, and in front of the congregation, but I can hardly imagine that a town with 7 different churches (and probably as many denominations) would have every one of them fitting that description.

Yeah. You're probably right. I was just trying to illustrate the problem of this approach (of elevating category 2 doctrines) by illustrating what it could logically lead to. And I won't deny them that my thinking right now may be skewed by my current feelings of disappointment.

 

[Albion]

Hi. Well, you are certainly right about what it can lead to. On the other hand, there's little we as individuals can do to police the whole Christian universe. So long as you have access to a good home church that does not engage in the kinds of mistakes that you've referred to, that's the important thing.

 

[concretecamper]

If you consider two local churches, where one holds to eternal security and the other holds to conditional security. Only one of them can be right

Exactly. Since the phenomena of protestantism began, people have accepted differing opinions on core beliefs. The one you raise here certainly can put either side's salvation in jeopardy.

 

[Dale]

If a local church has statements of belief that it admits go beyond the essentials (those core beliefs that unite us all in Christ), have they added to scripture? Are they no longer gathering around the Gospel, and instead gathering around their own specific system of thinking?

Let me give an example: Suppose a local church identifies two categories of doctrines: 1) The core Gospel message and doctrines which unite every believer in the body of Christ; and 2) The doctrines added to the core that unite this particular local body of believers - that one must hold in order to be a member of the local body.

Category 1 would include things like the sinfulness of man, the divinity of Christ, Christ's atonement for our sins, etc.

Category 2 would include additional doctrines - for the purpose of this example let's say the doctrine of Eternal Security.

By admitting that people can believe contrary to doctrines that fall in category 2 and still be brothers / sisters in Christ as long as they hold to all doctrine in category 1, has the local church elevated the category 2 doctrines to the level of scripture? Have they elevated their own personal beliefs to the level of God's Truth? Would this make this local body more of a club than a local church body? You can organize clubs around anything from an interest in stamp collecting to an affinity for Star Trek. But can you legitimately organize a local church around beliefs that are admittedly open for Christian debate?

When you stand behind the pulpit and declare eternal salvation as Fact without qualifying it with "I believe", and without pointing out that other saved Christians believe differently, are you raising your particular belief to a higher level to which it does not belong?

Long post. Thank you for your patience and your loving responses. This has been weighing on me lately. Trying to figure out how to rightly understand these questions.

I'm not sure why you are questioning "local churches." Extra beliefs, if you want to call them that, almost always come from the denomination, from the founder of the denomination, or denomination headquarters.

 

[Mountainmike]

The answer is surely studying history, and therefore accepting that new testament scripture was provably not the way the faith was handed down. Jesus appointed apostles to hand down the faith which is the meaning of the word "paradosis" (translated as tradition). That's why paul tell us to "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter". Jesus did not hand us a new testament, that came later.

Only by studying what was handed down can we answer questions on what scripture means, so tradition is not " additional belief" tradition carries the meaning with scripture. Nor does scripture claim to be the "complete manual of christian belief" Only by studying early church fathers can we see what they handed down.

Let me give one example. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of John the apostles and so their theology was taught by him. I hope we can all agree our Lord would not allow his church to apostasise in the first generation, since he said "the gates of hell would not prevail against it" Now Read Ignatius letter to the Smyrneans and you see a eucharist of the real presence, valid only if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee - we see later fathers clearly saying this IS the body and blood of Jesus, So that is the true meaning of the eucharist.

So when we read in 1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord
The interpretation of real presence is entirely consistent with tradition. Moreover it might surprise you to know that much of the liturgy of the mass ( the enactment of a eucharist of the reall presence)predates the new testament.

So all cannot choose any form of eucharist they think is consistent with scripture. There is but one truth. It is the real presence, which outlaws many churches. And it involves succession clergy. Which outlaws most churches at a shot.

Only at the reformation when scripture was divorced from meaning handed by authority and tradition did other meanings of the eucharist proliferate. Those many interpretations of eucharist are mutually exclusive , so most must be heretical, all born of the reformationist belief that all consider they could interpret the bible, and as a result, as Luther lamented "there are now as many doctrines as heads"

So my suggestion is study early fathers. See what they handed down. of particular interest is those that actually chose the canon, we call the new testament in council. That should resolve questions.

Modern day "bible christians" are a recent phenomenon. It is only in the last few hundred years that mass production of books was possible, and only in the last 100 - 200 that most could read, and only very recently, most could afford a bible. Which is possibly why our Lord chose tradition "paradosis" handing down as the means for his church to be passed on.

I use the above as a simple example.Same is true of other doctrine.
Nowhere for example is OSAS spoken of in early fathers , indeed they clearly contradict it.

If a local church has statements of belief that it admits go beyond the essentials (those core beliefs that unite us all in Christ), have they added to scripture? Are they no longer gathering around the Gospel, and instead gathering around their own specific system of thinking?

Let me give an example: Suppose a local church identifies two categories of doctrines: 1) The core Gospel message and doctrines which unite every believer in the body of Christ; and 2) The doctrines added to the core that unite this particular local body of believers - that one must hold in order to be a member of the local body.

Category 1 would include things like the sinfulness of man, the divinity of Christ, Christ's atonement for our sins, etc.

Category 2 would include additional doctrines - for the purpose of this example let's say the doctrine of Eternal Security.

By admitting that people can believe contrary to doctrines that fall in category 2 and still be brothers / sisters in Christ as long as they hold to all doctrine in category 1, has the local church elevated the category 2 doctrines to the level of scripture? Have they elevated their own personal beliefs to the level of God's Truth? Would this make this local body more of a club than a local church body? You can organize clubs around anything from an interest in stamp collecting to an affinity for Star Trek. But can you legitimately organize a local church around beliefs that are admittedly open for Christian debate?

When you stand behind the pulpit and declare eternal salvation as Fact without qualifying it with "I believe", and without pointing out that other saved Christians believe differently, are you raising your particular belief to a higher level to which it does not belong?

Long post. Thank you for your patience and your loving responses. This has been weighing on me lately. Trying to figure out how to rightly understand these questions.

 

[Albion]

The answer is surely studying history, and therefore accepting that new testament scripture was provably not the way the faith was handed down. Jesus appointed apostles to hand down the faith which is the meaning of the word "paradosis" (translated as tradition). That's why paul tell us to "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter". Jesus did not hand us a new testament, that came later.

As has been pointed out many times here, there are at least three things that are wrong with this proposition.

1. 'Hold fast to the traditions that they had been given' tells us nothing about which traditions are to be held onto, and they most likely were not doctrines. Customs and folklore are not doctrine.

2. When the scripture mentions 'traditions' it doesn't say "Holy Tradition." The latter is just a term that was invented by the church to describe the non-Biblical doctrine that it was introducing.

3. It is not sufficient to say that the Apostles taught something or other if there is no evidence that they did!

The study of history IS important, however. I agree with that. If we DO study history we discover that much which is passed off as Holy Tradition--as well as the concept itself--actually was NOT taught by or believed by the early church.

 

[Mountainmike]

And as I repeatedly point out to you, you try to use the a contemporary meaning of tradition, so you go off at a tangent. You cannot interpret scripture how it suits you: which is the reformationist disease.

The faith was handed down by word of mouth and letter.
That is the meaning of paradosis.
There wasn't a New Testament. Protestants are amnesic. So clearly the ONLY way the faith was handed was paradosis, tradition. Even the liturgy of mass predates the New Testament!

There was a letter from ignatius to smyrneans. Read it.
Find out what John the apostle taught and handed down. That is the meaning of tradition.

As has been pointed out many times here, there are at least three things that are wrong with this proposition.

1. 'Hold fast to the traditions that they had been given' tells us nothing about which traditions are to be held onto, and they most likely were not doctrines. Customs and folklore are not doctrine.

2. When the scripture mentions 'traditions' it doesn't say "Holy Tradition." The latter is just a term that was invented by the church to describe the non-Biblical doctrine that it was introducing.

3. It is not sufficient to say that the Apostles taught something or other if there is no evidence that they did!

The study of history IS important, however. I agree with that. If we DO study history we discover that much which is passed off as Holy Tradition--as well as the concept itself--actually was NOT taught by or believed by the early church.

 

[Albion]

And as I repeatedly point out to you, you try to use the a contemporary meaning of tradition, so you go off at a tangent. You cannot interpret scripture how it suits you: which is the reformationist disease.

Well, it seems to me that that is what you do, not I. However, the other points stand in any case. The verse you cited doesn't tell us what traditions were being referred to and there is no evidence for the vague claim that whatever the church invents was what the Apostles handed down. The most believable concept is that they handed down orally what was to be found, either then or later, in Sacred Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, it seems to me that that is what you do, not I. However, the other points stand in any case. The verse you cited doesn't tell us what traditions were being referred to and there is no evidence for the vague claim that whatever the church invents was what the Apostles handed down. The most believable concept is that they handed down orally what was to be found, either then or later, in Sacred Scripture.

This reminds me of the tempest in the teacup regarding the deutercanonical books in some Bibles. Given the fact that there is no doctrine contained in them contrary to what is found in the other books of the Bible, then they are, as the name clearly implies, secondary books which some take to be on the same level as the other books of the Bible and others do not, but nobody believes a doctrine that differs from that of the canonical books of the Bible.

Why would God, the Holy Spirit, provide extra-biblical Tradition which contradicts the explicit, written Bible which all Christians believe to be the Word of God?

 

[concretecamper]

And as I repeatedly point out to you, you try to use the a contemporary meaning of tradition, so you go off at a tangent. You cannot interpret scripture how it suits you: which is the reformationist disease.

The faith was handed down by word of mouth and letter.
That is the meaning of paradosis.
There wasn't a New Testament. Protestants are amnesic. So clearly the ONLY way the faith was handed was paradosis, tradition. Even the liturgy of mass predates the New Testament!

There was a letter from ignatius to smyrneans. Read it.
Find out what John the apostle taught and handed down. That is the meaning of tradition.

Tradition is what has combated heresy throughout the history of the Church. The Church Fathers continually refer to what has been handed down from the Apostles.

The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, The Virgin Mary, The Church are all Traditions passed down from the Apostles. It is just that protestants believe some of the Oral Traditions and not others. Are you really surprised by this?