TRINITY - SACRAMENTS - RAPTURE / What moved theologians to ADD these three words to what was already made clear in the Scripture?
Who is "email"?
Some Bible concepts are more directly stated or more readily grasped than others (II Peter 3:16-18). Consequently, diligent study is required to draw out these more difficult points (II Timothy 2:15), and as a consequence, those who are either unwilling to study or looking to justify their error are deceived (II Peter 3:16-18; II Thessalonians 2:9-12; Ezekiel 14:4-10).
Anyway, such difficult concepts that are unnamed in Scripture are named by men to simply aid discussions. How does one speak concisely and repeatedly about something they are convinced is upheld by Scripture but never explicitly named? For example, if you believe in the trinity, how would you study with someone who either disagreed or did not know - without using the word "trinity"? Naming things is something people do to make talking easier. Let's call it "Namingism". Maybe the answer to your surface question is more psychological or anthropological than spiritual?
Lastly, I think the reason why some people must add these words to Scripture is because the underlying doctrine is not even present in Scripture. I would heartily agree that the core doctrine of the trinity is taught in Scripture (Ephesians 4:4-7). However, I do not think it is any way mysterious, although it is profound, because we are expected to enjoin in that unity with all believers and Jesus and God Himself (John 17:20-23)! Why then must we conclude that divine unity cannot be understood or is a paradoxical mystery, as is popularly stated?
Also, I don't know what you mean by "sacraments". (It seems to mean different things to different people.) I believe the popular, Catholic usage of the word is not taught in Scripture. Where is the Scripture that says only the church can bestow a sacrament? Furthermore, with the exception of baptism, the Bible "sacraments" require that one first make himself holy before partaking (I Corinthians 11:27-32; Matthew 5:23-24). The Bible sacraments generally don't make one "sacred" or holy. The recipient has to make himself holy first! Finally, some of the "sacraments" are nowhere to be found in Scripture. Where are the verses authorizing the "Last Rites", "Extreme Unction", "Holy Orders", and "Confirmation"? Where does Scripture say that marriage belongs to the church? Again, I don't know how you are using the word, but one of the ways it is commonly used seems unsupported by Scripture. Only the Catholic church can sustain it by their tradition. There is some basis for "sacraments" in Scripture, but the popular notion seems to be a twisted view of the Bible doctrine.
True, the Rapture and Premillennialism are very prevalent beliefs and deeply held convictions by most believers. However, I would kindly ask you pause and ask, "Where are the supporting verses?" Please consider: The bulk of the proof-texts in support of the rapture require that one literally interpret passages and make application far into the distant future, which passages God said were to be interpreted figuratively ("signified") and that the application "time is near" (Revelation 1:1-3). Just for comparison, Daniel was told "shut up the words, and seal the book", which he prophesied of events that Jesus said would occur in that generation, their lifetime (Daniel 12:4, 10-13; Matthew 24:15-16, 34). So, events 500-600 years away required the book to be sealed. ... Now, John was to "not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand" (Revelation 22:10-12, 20). But, some 2000 years have already passed! ... 500 years = far away, so seal; but 2000+ years = near, so don't seal? Doesn't that seem a little inconsistent, if the book of Revelation generally applies to end times? ... One last thought, how can Jesus, son and heir of the kings of Judah, reign in Jerusalem, when God foretold that from the time of Coniah, "none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah" (Jeremiah 22:28-30), and yet Jesus is clearly his descendent (Matthew 1:1, 11-12, 16)? Do not the Premillennial and Rapture doctrines require that Jesus come and reign on David's throne in Jerusalem for 1000 years? How can the Rapture be a correct interpretation, when it is inconsistent with the Scripture - even its own proof-texts - in so many points?
I have told you what I do not believe on end times. Here are a couple of simple articles that tell you what I do believe:
May God help us to have a sincere love of truth (II Thessalonians 2:9-12; Isaiah 66:4),