Adding--WITHOUT--Adding to Scripture

[ScottA]

What "adding" is actually, not just okay, but necessary and meant to be?

Consider the warning of Revelation 22:18-19:

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​

Whether one believes that is just for the book of Revelation, or is to include all of scripture and the overall book of the Bible, hardly matters--and not something I intend to debate here. But either way, the warning is serious, and is certainly the right way to look at all of scripture. In other words, "anything-goes" is not to be considered within the scope of varying translations or understandings, and is certainly not what we should think is permissible by God. Certainly not--but enough of that, and on to the point of the thread:

The title of this thread could have been "Is Adding the New Testament to the Old Testament ADDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?" or "How do we "Press On" "Leaving Behind the Elementary Principles of Christ?" The point being, Adding is sometimes even biblical--without actually adding to the scriptures; but is more like what Jesus said regarding the Law, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). In other words, when Paul instructed to "leave behind the elementary principles of Christ"--he didn't mean they were to be taken away, but rather that the elementary principles--were "elementary" and to be fulfilled by building upon them as a complete structure is built upon a secure foundation (another metaphor he used).

So, "adding" is wrong--unless it is "fulfilling"--and should even be expected.

My reason for bringing attention to this, is that Christendom as a whole seems to be very much stuck in the foundation building stage. The gospels were established and almost immediately following, it's like Paul said, "Okay, time to move on--that was then, this is now"--but it never really happened. And here we are 2,000+ years later hardly building upward from the foundational and elementary principles that make up much of the gospels. Instead of adding that upper structure--which is not adding at all but fulfilling--here we are playing church on the foundation, not even following Christ, but setting up residence and abiding where He and the apostles and Paul left off. Seemingly stuck. Over these past millennia we've become accustom to building foundations, only to live upon them ourselves as if that was the end of all that was promised and written of. It's like the driver of every church bus is asleep at the wheel, and the gospels were just a lullaby.

So, the biblical precedence we have to follow, is that just as the New Testament became the order of the day and the Old Testament became foundational (not taken away), Paul--2,000 years ago--instructed to do something similar with "the elementary principles of Christ"...and we have failed to do so.

With such a biblical precedence--within those former biblical guidelines--what would such "pressing on" look like, if it were to be approved by God (as the New Testament and Paul's instructions to "leave behind the elementary principles of Christ" were)?

 

[Bob]

Thank you for the well-enunciated challenge.

Spoiler alert: it is going to take a God-inspired visionary to forge a new beginning.

The time could be right: Christianity, 2,000 years ago; Great Schism, ~ 1,000 years ago; Luther, ~ 500 years ago.

On the other hand (per Alister Begg et al.): in the Old testament, Christ predicted; Gospels, Christ revealed; Acts and Letters, Christ explained; Revelation, Christ awaited. What else might there be? Has God not disclosed and taught us all of his essential truths—His expectations and promises? Personally, I find nothing lacking in the Gospel message. Perhaps it is just the institutions and leaders that are going in circles (?).

Analogy: By the late 19th century, classical physics reigned and seemed complete, except for a few louse ends. Then at the dawn of the 20th century, quantum and gravitational theory upended it our understanding of God’s creation. Yet even today, 40-60 years beyond the maturity of those theories, they remain separate and nowhere near united. Physicists appear to be going in circles.

Thanks for the challenge. No doubt deeper thinkers in this forum will provide better insights.

Blessings.

 

[quietthinker]

What "adding" is actually, not just okay, but necessary and meant to be?

Consider the warning of Revelation 22:18-19:

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​

Whether one believes that is just for the book of Revelation, or is to include all of scripture and the overall book of the Bible, hardly matters--and not something I intend to debate here. But either way, the warning is serious, and is certainly the right way to look at all of scripture. In other words, "anything-goes" is not to be considered within the scope of varying translations or understandings, and is certainly not what we should think is permissible by God. Certainly not--but enough of that, and on to the point of the thread:

The title of this thread could have been "Is Adding the New Testament to the Old Testament ADDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?" or "How do we "Press On" "Leaving Behind the Elementary Principles of Christ?" The point being, Adding is sometimes even biblical--without actually adding to the scriptures; but is more like what Jesus said regarding the Law, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). In other words, when Paul instructed to "leave behind the elementary principles of Christ"--he didn't mean they were to be taken away, but rather that the elementary principles--were "elementary" and to be fulfilled by building upon them as a complete structure is built upon a secure foundation (another metaphor he used).

So, "adding" is wrong--unless it is "fulfilling"--and should even be expected.

My reason for bring attention to this, is that Christendom as a whole seems to be very much stuck in the foundation stage. The gospels were established and almost immediately following, it's like Paul said, "Okay, time to move on--that was then, this is now"--but it never really happened. And here we are 2,000+ years later hardly building upward from the foundational and elementary principles that make up much of the gospels. Instead of adding that upper structure--which is not adding at all but fulfilling--here we are playing church on the foundation, not following Christ even, but abiding where He and the apostles and Paul left off. Over these past millennia we've become accustom to building foundations, only to live upon them ourselves as if that was the end of all that was promised and written of. It's like the driver of every church bus is asleep at the wheel, and the gospels were just a lullaby.

So, the biblical precedence we have to follow, is that just as the New Testament became the order of the day and the Old Testament became foundational (not taken away), Paul--2,000 years ago--instructed to do something similar with "the elementary principles of Christ"...and we have failed to do so.

With such a biblical precedence--within those former biblical guidelines--what would such "pressing on" look like, if it were to be approved by God (as the New Testament and Paul's instructions to "leave behind the elementary principles of Christ" were)?

If the 'elementary principles of Christ' were understood, the exercise of debating words would not be engaged.

 

[ScottA]

Thank you for the well-enunciated challenge.

Spoiler alert: it is going to take a God-inspired visionary to forge a new beginning.

The time could be right: Christianity, 2,000 years ago; Great Schism, ~ 1,000 years ago; Luther, ~ 500 years ago.

On the other hand (per Alister Begg et al.): in the Old testament, Christ predicted; Gospels, Christ revealed; Acts and Letters, Christ explained; Revelation, Christ awaited. What else might there be? Has God not disclosed and taught us all of his essential truths—His expectations and promises? Personally, I find nothing lacking in the Gospel message. Perhaps it is just the institutions and leaders that are going in circles (?).

Analogy: By the late 19th century, classical physics reigned and seemed complete, except for a few louse ends. Then at the dawn of the 20th century, quantum and gravitational theory upended it our understanding of God’s creation. Yet even today, 40-60 years beyond the maturity of those theories, they remain separate and nowhere near united. Physicists appear to be going in circles.

Thanks for the challenge. No doubt deeper thinkers in this forum will provide better insights.

Blessings.

I see it all as kind of a rut that Christendom is stuck in, the result of practices becoming habit becoming repetition for repetition sake--because we've "always done it this way...much like, not unlike Israel and the Law. In which case, by that precedent, we're due or overdue for and upset. Hopefully an awakening.

 

[ScottA]

If the 'elementary principles of Christ' were understood, the exercise of debating words would not be engaged.

Yes, and yet Paul, 2,000 years ago, was spiritually inspired to instruct us to "press on"--starting then, at that time--to move beyond in our building and being built, "growing up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ."

 

[quietthinker]

Yes, and yet Paul, 2,000 years ago, was spiritually inspired to instruct us to "press on"--starting then, at that time--to move beyond in our building and being built, "growing up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ."

...and where do we start? Surely it is, 'your sins are forgiven'!
To KNOW this is to live in freedom.....and freedom does not require the debating of words.

 

[ScottA]

...and where do we start? Surely it is, 'your sins are forgiven'!
To KNOW this is to live in freedom.....and freedom does not require the debating of words.

Yes, of course--and we have the start, which is the elementary principles of Christ. Which we cannot disregard, nor stop for there are new believers and those who would seek God born every day. But we were told to add to that--which was to follow Christ beyond the elementary things which one does in the flesh. Which is not to say, die and be raised up--not for us, not for "we [as Paul referred to us] who are alive and remain." Being alive with God, born of His spirit--not as this remaining life will attest--not having been renewed in the flesh, but in spirit, a new creation remaining within the flesh and this world, but alive in God--that "mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). Unique in all of history.

"Christ in you" is not a transformation of the flesh, or a license to play church like elementary age children until He comes. If His is in you--He has come--and to deny it, is to deny Him...and salvation. As it is written: "Behold, His reward is with Him" (Isaiah 62:11). But we are like aged cheese fat with milk. While the next level, which might have started when Paul first gave direction to "press on", means giving up the fight for the flesh, and taking up the fight for the Spirit--this is "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

 

[quietthinker]

Yes, of course--and we have the start, which is the elementary principles of Christ. Which we cannot disregard, nor stop for there are new believers and those who would seek God born every day. But we were told to add to that--which was to follow Christ beyond the elementary things which one does in the flesh. Which is not to say, die and be raised up--not for us, not for "we [as Paul referred to us] who are alive and remain." Being alive with God, born of His spirit--not as this remaining life will attest--not having been renewed in the flesh, but in spirit, a new creation remaining within the flesh and this world, but alive in God--that "mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). Unique in all of history.

"Christ in you" is not a transformation of the flesh, or a license to play church like elementary age children until He comes. If His is in you--He has come--and to deny it, is to deny Him...and salvation. As it is written: "Behold, His reward is with Him" (Isaiah 62:11). But we are like aged cheese fat with milk. While the next level, which might have started when Paul first gave direction to "press on", means giving up the fight for the flesh, and taking up the fight for the Spirit--this is "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

This is a confused babble, Scott!

 

[ScottA]

This is a confused babble, Scott!

Not "babble" but tongues--which is only babble to those standing by beyond earshot of the Holy Spirit causing the would-be babble to be heard as in ones own tongue.