In the articles on hermeneutics and denominational unity I mention various mistakes that can be made when interpreting scripture. It might be helpful to quickly go over a few of these denominational doctrines. The point here is really not to prove that any are right or wrong but just show some common traits among them. I’ll present a few points for and against each one and how they all use a scripture. You may find yourself agreeing with all of the critiques on the various doctrines except yours. But ask yourself how yours is different from the others. The other denominations are just as sure as you are. And once again, the point is that maybe we should all be a little less focused on these and more focused on the weightier matters. With the exceptions I’ll note, I don’t think these doctrines are dangerous or condemning (heretical) doctrines, and Christians who believe these doctrines (even the divisive people) are perfectly sincere Christians, if they adhere to all the weightier matters as well. So, when I meet people who talk about these unclear doctrines, I might quickly discuss some of these points with them, but I will try to quickly get off the differences and onto the common goals of the great commission, if they have that interest. Ps, I mention outreach a lot because most sincere Christians adhere to all of the weightier matters except outreach. It’s very difficult and that’s why I think we should particularly encourage each other in that one.
So here are some common traits to look for:
1. Almost all, if not all, the denominations have at least one scripture, usually more, that they say supports what they believe, but the scripture doesn’t actually say it. They have to add to the scripture (called eisegesis) to completely make their point. “Do not go beyond what is written” is explicitly stated in 1 Corinthians 4:6 (and in context it is focusing too much on a person or group instead of God). You can make the Bible say almost anything by using this method. Sometimes they will link verses together from entirely different passages, even different books of the Bible. This linking of verses is an especially reckless way to make doctrine because the Bible often uses the same word to mean different things in context and can sometimes be symbolic.
2. Sometimes they do have a scripture that seems on the surface, and with a simple reading, to clearly support their doctrine, but they have to ignore many other verses that contradict it. In those cases, there must be things assumed in the verse (remember my example to pay for the bread even though that wasn’t stated) and/or it requires other commonsense. There are quite a few verses like this and we’ve all read them many times and pass right over them by using this common sense. But you’ll be surprised at how far people can take them when they get super strict and literal.
3. Most of the doctrines don’t affect the weightier matters, though some will lead to that and are noted below.
So the first doctrine to look at is everybody’s favorite: Calvin, especially predestination and eternal security, the latter of which has two branches in itself.
Eternal Security, Branch #1, showing true salvation. This is a perfect example of trait 2 above where we need to use common sense. 1 Corinthians 1:8 does support eternal security if taken quite literally with that Western mindset. But this doesn’t fit with many other verses warning about not falling away and several verses that say things like “he who endures to the end will be saved”, Mark 13:13. I’ve heard there’s about 80 verses opposing Calvinism and I’ve found 20 pertaining just to eternal security at this link. So 1 Corinthians 1:8 seems to be more of a general statement that has unstated assumptions, not a promise or adamant fact. It takes common sense. The built-in assumption is you are going to do your part and heed the many warnings and admonitions of the Bible. Other verses like this that give assurance of salvation are the same way (1 Peter 1:3,4 is another one). We know God will discipline us if we start to backslide but there is never any promise we can’t fall away, instead there are many verses warning us not to. People in this group will also use logical arguments from life, like how can you be “unborn,” or “your child will always be your child even if he totally rebels”. But you can’t equate everything in the physical to the spiritual. They will even make an argument from three words; 5 scriptures in the gospel of John say, we “have eternal life” (e.g. John 3:16) and they ask, how can you shorten “eternal life”. But verses like this require that commonsense to know that there are assumptions. If taken quite literally without commonsense, there are other verses in John that say the exact opposite of these and so there’s an error, they say “we will have eternal life” (John 3:15, John 6:40). And Titus 1:2 and Titus 3:7 say we have the “hope for eternal life” and Romans 8:23-25 makes the good case that we don’t hope for what we already have. But there’s no error, we just need to take these kind things with common sense and not like a law book where a few words can be made into a doctrine. We can’t go into many other arguments on this famous topic, many much deeper than these examples but using the same basic principles. However, all that said, this branch of eternal security doesn’t believe in living in sin, so it doesn’t present the temptation to do so. This one says if you go back to living in sin unrepentantly, then you never were saved to begin with, using 1 John 2:19. So even though I disagree with this 100%, I can be perfectly united with a person who believes this famous controversial doctrine if everything else is in order with them.
Eternal Security, Branch #2, unquestioning salvation. This branch of eternal security has the same arguments as above, but this one is worse because these people think you’re still saved when you go back unrepentantly in sin, even for a long time, so that period of God disciplining you is certainly over. So this does present the temptation to treat sin lightly and so it does affect those weightier matters greatly and thus this doctrine should be taken very seriously.
Predestination. This doctrine, that says God chooses people for hell or heaven before they are even born, is directly contrary to verses that clearly say God wants all people to be saved and none to perish: John 3:16 (“whosoever”), 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, and Titus 2:11. The doctrine gets its support from verses that use the term “elect”, “choose”, and “predestine” in undefined ways so it takes some adding to the scripture to define these terms and support their doctrine (trait 1 above). They have to assume these terms mean God choosing or electing people to go to heaven or hell and are pertaining to individual people, not groups of people. Based on the verses just given, it seems God predestined a group of people to His plan. Anyone who wants to, can get in, or out, of that group. Romans 9 is a famous chapter supporting the predestination doctrine. But the chapter is clearly talking about groups, though it uses individuals for examples. And when you read it in context of Romans 10 and 11, you can see that God didn’t even choose or reject the groups entirely on His own will unprovoked, as Romans 9 could indicate, but the people were responsible for it (see Romans 11:20-23). Romans 9 may be one of the most confusing chapters in the Bible so it’s the epitome of the need to use clear scripture to interpret unclear scripture. So you should certainly interpret it along with chapters 10 and 11. Doing that, you can see Romans 9:30 seems to summarize this confusing chapter and seems to be saying God can chose as He wants to, and thankfully He’s chosen all people. He’s always loved the Gentiles, but it used to be thru Israel (they were supposed to make Him known to us) and now He works directly with us. Chapter 9 has short confusing statements that look like individual predestination, like Romans 9:13, but even this verse, taken from Malachi 1, is in context of people’s obedience. Romans 9 also has statements with “what if,” showing these are hypothetical statements. So yes, this is all unclear, but in the end, it becomes clearer in Romans 10 and 11. This doctrine sure makes God to be a monster, and it seems it would cause people to be less motivated to go out and reach people, thinking God will do it somehow. But besides that possibility, it doesn’t break any of the important doctrines. This one alone doesn’t encourage living in sin or anything. So, again, it alone is not a reason to be divisive. I do hope they would have a real sincere love for the lost not a flippant attitude about them, thinking it’s just God’s will – almost like a Hindu Carma.
Apostolic succession. People will claim that Jesus’ statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18,19 shows that Jesus was setting up an office of supreme authority on earth, like a Pope. But this just seems to be a casual statement because He made a very similar statement in Matthew 18:18 to all the disciples. Furthermore, what we see in the early church of Acts is a plurality of eldership (Acts 15:19, Acts 15:22, Acts 21:18, Acts 21:23, Galatians 2:9, etc). Even in the early church writings after the Bible, there are mentions of a succession of elders but in plural terms. Conciliarism is the doctrine that supreme authority rests with an Ecumenical council and was validated at the Council of Constance in 1414. And there are cases where it seems councils overruled or even condemned Popes. The first time I could find the idea of the supreme authority on earth was in 1869-1870 at the First Vatican Council, where it was debated and approved. Several prominent Catholics criticize how the proceedings were done. This doctrine alone might not directly lead to problems, but you can see how it could quickly do so if you follow an unscriptural direction from the Pope.
Tongues. Some people will use Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:5 and others to say that all people should speak in tongues and that’s the only way you know you are completely “filled with the Spirit”. It’s interesting that this chapter is actually saying the exact opposite; continuing the thought from 1 Corinthians 12 that God gives various gifts as He chooses (1 Corinthians 12:7-11) and tongues is just one that He could give. In 1 Corinthians 14 he’s saying they should more eagerly desire the gift of prophesy, at least in the church. Still, they will say tongues were always seen with being filled with the Spirit. But if you search that term, you’ll find there are many other verses that don’t have tongues but other things like “spoke the word boldly” or “prophesied” or no specific action. Other people on the other side of the spectrum will say that prophesies and tongues have actually ceased (called Cessationism) because of 1 Corinthians 13:8. But we don’t know when they will “pass away”, now or in the future in heaven. So obviously none of this is clear and we should just seek God and let Him figure this out if He wants us to have this gift.
Sabbath (and Old Testament laws or festivals). This is one of the specific things that Paul said in Romans 14 was a disputable matter and we shouldn’t argue about it. Various groups, called Sabbatarians, think we should keep the Sabbath and/or various Old Testament ceremonies, because of verses like Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 24:20. These scriptures do make it sound like we should keep the Old Testament (OT) down to the very smallest detail. But it just says the smallest detail won’t “pass away” so it’s unclear. We have to read elsewhere in Acts 15 that the Gentiles clearly don’t have to keep the OT Law, though the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21) is even more righteous because it deals with inward thoughts. There are other verses in the New Testament that cover this also, indicating that the Gentiles don’t need to keep the Sabbath (e.g. Colossians 2). Sabbatarians will also point out Old Testament verses that say all peoples will keep Sabbaths and certain Holy days during the 1000-year reign of Christ, and this could be true, but doesn’t change what the Gentiles were told in Acts 15 for now. For the Jews it’s less clear what they should do with the Old Testament Law because there is not a specific verse like Acts 15 for them. But it seems Paul didn’t keep the Old Testament Law, at least at times. And the Temple was destroyed preventing them from doing the critical parts of the Law.
Christian vegetarianism. This is the other issue that Paul said in Romans 14 was a disputable matter and so we shouldn’t argue about it. The discussion would be much the same as for the Sabbath above. Isaiah 11:6–9 may imply that we will again be vegetarianism in the Millennium, but again as stated above, this doesn’t apply to us now. The Biblical support for this doctrine is scarce and has to be from verses before Genesis 9:3–4 when God said eating animals was okay. Note that some teachers say we just shouldn’t eat meat for health or ethical reasons but don’t make it a doctrine or sin issue so that’s a different issue.
Dominionists. Using Matthew 16:17-19, some people claim this verse means the church will get stronger and stronger and overcome the powers of darkness, but of course this is reading a lot into the verse. It probably just means the church will survive until Jesus comes back. The gates of hell have been symbolic for death before (Job 38:17, Isaiah 38:10). This doctrine isn’t dangerous as long as people wait on God to instigate all this. If they take up arms and make this happen it’s very dangerous to them and the country. Abortionist murderers would fall in that category. That is not what God wants us to do.
One Cup. This is one of those teachings that you’d read with common sense and pass right by it until someone points it out and tries to make it a literal doctrine. I have a whole article on this, but in summary, there are several reasons why I believe Jesus taught His disciples to remember him in the communion and then had them take communion to practice that teaching. There was no teaching on how to drink from the cup or why to do so. So how ever they drank is irrelevant, from one cup or several. They were just practicing the only teaching, which to remember Him in it. Sure, they may have drunk from one cup if that was the custom back then. Now we know better, and God doesn’t usually ask us to risk our health for a simple sacrament of remembrance. The only reason the One Cup people state for why the one cup is needed is for church unification but that’s not part of the teaching of Jesus at all and there’s lots of ways we can be unified without drinking from one cup. Now that we know better, it feels more like a dark ritual. Furthermore, we don’t know for sure they drank from one cup. He only said to “drink from it” and we know Jacob drank from a well (John 4:12) so he had to use a different vessel (you can’t pick the well itself up). So “drink from it” could absolutely mean thru a different vessel. Also, Matthew and Mark tend to summarize events and they only mention taking the bread and dividing the cup. But Luke tries to be more detailed, and in Luke’s account in Luke 22:15-22, there is an added detail that Jesus distributed the cup, then taught on the bread and took it, and then took the cup. So that distribution of the cup had to be into separate cups as they held their cups while he was teaching on the bread.
Baptismal Regeneration. Not everyone calls it by this name, but it basically says that you are actually saved or enter His kingdom at baptism, not believing in Jesus and turning in repentance to Him (Romans 10:9,10) as others believe. I have a whole article on this too. They have about half a dozen verses. No verse directly teaches this doctrine. Some of the verses could be interpreted as doing so if you’re real strict and get real technical like a lawyer, and if you don’t allow any commonsense for the more likely interpretation, which is that baptism is a step of obedience after salvation. All the verses could easily just say that. When the conditions (weather) are right, salvation and baptism can happen virtually together, as someone comes to believe and is immediately baptized. So some verses do lump both together as one event, in that typical commonsense vernacular. So these adherents are using these verses and that Western technicality mindset to say salvation actually happens at baptism. Many of the verses are in the past tense so they’re not actually teaching anything but stating our position in Christ now (e.g. 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3). There are various scriptures that don’t fit with this doctrine though (see my article). The clearest is that Cornelius and his family in Acts 10 were clearly saved when they believed and were then baptized. Peter confirms this in Acts 15:6-11. This doctrine can be dangerous if it takes the focus off of Jesus but not all the adherents would do that. It can also be used for that “true church” idea, to take people from other churches, so it’s divisive, but again not all would do that.
Holy Kiss. This is one of those mid-eastern customs that some people take very literally and make a doctrine. The Bible doesn’t even define what this “holy kiss” is, which is our first common sense clue. The Bible tells people, who were already doing it as a practice, to do it to so and so. It’s not even a teaching really. Some churches make this a doctrine, and some actually practice this on the lips, and some even do it between genders (guys do NOT ask me where this church is). But most know that a “kiss” doesn’t have to be on the lips, so they kiss on the cheek/neck within the same gender. They get this from scriptures that mention falling on a neck and kissing (Luke 15:20, Acts 20:37). Some adherents even just make a kissing sound with their lips as they put their lips close to the other person’s cheek. The earliest description we have of it is in the early 400’s in Augustine’s Sermon 227 and it does actually say it should be lip to lip with a closed mouth. Apostolic Constitutions, written in the late 300’s says the men and women do it separately though. This is still several hundred years after the church started so we really don’t know for sure what the Bible authors had in mind when they wrote this term. But things have certainly changed by now and so it may be in God’s wise providence that this “holy kiss” is not ever defined in the Bible, so we can be free to define it as the kissing sound, hug, or even handshake. I know we have to be very careful when discarding teachings due to supposed cultural differences. People have explained way too much away from this platform. But I do think this is one of two that we can do so with common sense (foot washing is the other). It’s interesting that these two can only be dismissed by common sense, not a Biblical evaluation, and they really don’t matter either way. It’s certainly a disputable matter. I would hate to see people be divisive either way on these issues, especially if they try to define the holy kiss.
Feet Washing. Here’s the other one that could be dismissed purely out of common sense but if followed doesn’t hurt anything. The commonsense argument is that this was a real need back when it was given. People had dirty feet and reclined around a table, including sitting head to toe. It would be like trimming an elderly person’s toenails that can’t reach them. It’s a true act of humility and service. Any embarrassment could come from being uncomfortable with it and a little pride or lack of desire to serve a real need. But washing feet now would be more of an act of humility and weird acting, which completely changes the basis of it. Any embarrassment would come from how ridiculous this act is now, which is really justified.
Soul Sleep. A few verses like 1 Corinthians 15:6 refer to death as sleeping, and some make this literal and call the doctrine “soul sleep”. But other verses like 2 Corinthians 5:8 say, “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”. Jesus also told the thief on the cross that he’d be with him in paradise that day. So I would lean away from the soul sleep doctrine but not be dogmatic about it. If it is soul sleep, you’d awake as if no time had passed at all. I think it’s a disputable matter that we shouldn’t argue over. Obviously one of these sides is figurative and not literal, but people have made adamant resolute doctrines on both sides and argue with people about them. As I was looking this up, I found an article that supports soul sleep and I just have to quote it, to show how taking a stand on these obscure doctrines leads to elitism to draws people to their church. “One of the tenets that sets the ___ church apart from most other Christian denominations is its Fundamental Belief about the state of the dead”. Notice the elitism wording of this special church and that they call this a “fundamental belief”, not a secondary one. They are dogmatic about it. I know very godly people in this church (it’s not a heretical church) so I won’t mention the church or cite the article from their church magazine out of respect for them.
Up to now the doctrines have been benign except as noted and my advice is to overlook the differences and focus on those weightier matters. But these doctrines below are dangerous and should be treated more seriously.
Universal Reconciliation. I read a website that said there are over 70 verses to support this doctrine. Scanning thru them they are all those general statements like John 4:42, Colossians 1:20, 1 John 2:2, and Hebrews 12:8 that say Jesus came to save “the world”. Taken quite literally that would be everyone right? It’s very easy to see that the unstated assumption is that you receive Him and follow him. So it’s a typical case where common sense will help you ignore it (trait 2 in the list of traits above). This doctrine is very dangerous because it makes you think you can go to heaven without doing anything. We know you need to repent and follow Jesus.
full preterism or hyper-preterism. Using Matthew 16:28, this very small group of people use this verse (and others) to say that Jesus’ second coming happened within the first church generation, 100 A.D. But this is clearly not the case as seen in Mark 13:10, where it says the gospel has to reach the whole world. The transfiguration is the very next event in all three gospels that say this so this must be what Jesus was talking about. Also look at 1 Peter 1:16. In 2 Timothy 2:18, Paul says this is a dangerous teaching because it destroys people’s faith.
Reincarnation. Believe it or not, there are a few very small groups pushing the belief of reincarnation in Christianity. Matthew 11:14 and especially Matthew 17:11-13 does clearly imply that John the Baptist was Elijah. This is the perfect example where you have to apply common sense and other clear scriptures to explain away what seems to be a very clear verse. We know that John is not reincarnated Elijah because in John 1:20, 21, John clearly say he is not Elijah. In the Bible, the concept of a proxy seems to be really strong. If you send someone on your behalf, then it can be said that you came to them. John seems to be Elijah’s proxy sent by God. This can be totally misunderstood if you don’t know the scripture well to understand this proxy idea, and that there is no teaching on someone being reincarnated as someone else. However, people are indeed resurrected to live as themselves as Moses and Elijah do come back to visit Jesus, and are probably the ones to come back during the final tribulation in Revelation. This reincarnation doctrine is clearly wrong and dangerous because people may think they have another chance. The Bible clearly says, “it’s appointed unto men once to die, but after this to the judgment”, Hebrews 9:27.
Modalism. I have a whole article dedicated to this topic. In short, they say God the Father and Jesus are the same being, and God became Jesus as a different mode or form. They don’t have any verses that say this but they do have half a dozen verses that would somewhat indicate it. One example is Philippians 2:9-11. They ask if Jesus has the “name above all names,” how could God the Father be above Jesus. But it’s just a case of taking it with common sense in context. So using these type arguments, they add to the scriptures to make their doctrine (eisegesis). My article covers their strongest verse, Isaiah 9:6, and you have to add eisegesis even to it to make their case. And there are at least 130 verses that contradict it, including very clear verses. So it’s a typical case where you need common sense and clearer verses to not take a few verses too literal and extreme. They don’t actually deny Jesus is the Christ so I really don’t know how God will judge this. 1 John 2:22-23 seems to say you need to have both the Father and the Son, which they kind of do in saying He’s the same being, but they technically deny one of the beings, the Father or the Son.
This is only a small sampling of church doctrines taken from the scriptures incorrectly. I hope you can see that we really need to look for clear scriptures when making a doctrine, and even then make sure it fits with the whole of the Bible. And most of all, we need to resist the urge to argue and divide of these kinds of things and focus on those weightier matters, especially outreach which is so hard for Christians nowadays.