If anyone adds anything to them

[Kamaduck]

Recently, I was discussing religion with my grandfather, who is Lutheran. We discussed various topics, but one thing he brought up was sola scriptura. He said the main problem he had with Catholics was that they added to the Bible, also answering to church teaching and papal decrees.

I asked him if sola scriptura was itself Biblical, and he admitted that it was not. However, he said that neither was the trinity- but the idea was there, and he claims it is the same with sola scriptura. His example was a passage in Revelation- “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” - Revelation 22:18-19.

Now, I did not know what to say immediately. It’s tempting to shrug it off with “well, it’s revelation- the scroll could be anything, not necessarily the Bible”. Especially since the Bible couldn’t have entirely existed yet when this was being written. But it does talk about the prophets, and I’d be hard-pressed to tell you what else the scroll could be (unless it’s specifically the book of Revelation).

So, can anyone tell me what this verse really means? Here is context if it helps.

 

[Trishie]

Two scriptures immediately come to mind to support the authority of the Church established by Jesus to teach and to interpret the Truth, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, before He ascended to Heaven:
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.”
Therefore Jesus was letting us know there was more yet to be revealed, than was already written.

Jesus had said to Peter, whom He appointed leader of the apostles, of the new church,

18And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Matthew 16:18-19

God bless you and your family.

 

[Kamaduck]

Two scriptures immediately come to mind to support the authority of the Church established by Jesus to teach and to interpret the Truth, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, before He ascended to Heaven:
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.”
Therefore Jesus was letting us know there was more yet to be revealed, than was already written.

Jesus had said to Peter, whom He appointed leader of the apostles, of the new church,

18And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Matthew 16:18-19

God bless you and your family.

The first verse especially is an interesting counterpoint. Thanks.

 

[Weissystems]

In the last book of the Bible we are warned not to add to or take away from the text.
Does this refer to the book of Revelation or the entire Bible?

 

[Schatzl]

You could politely mention that during the Reformation, Luther removed books from the a Bible. Be polite though.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Now, I did not know what to say immediately. It’s tempting to shrug it off with “well, it’s revelation- the scroll could be anything, not necessarily the Bible”. Especially since the Bible couldn’t have entirely existed yet when this was being written. But it does talk about the prophets, and I’d be hard-pressed to tell you what else the scroll could be (unless it’s specifically the book of Revelation).

For another thing, any encyclical or Council definition isn’t “added” or “subtracted” from the book of Revelation or the Bible. Our Bibles have Revelations the same as a Lutheran.

 

[ffg]

You could ask him where the Bible was heard before the invention of the printing press and widespread distribution of the collection of inspired books and letters. At a time when it was too expensive for the average joe to have a scribe make a copy.

Or you could help him with the answer: Mass.

 

[gilbs72]

Reason tells me the quote refers to the particular book - in this case the Revelation. However, I don’t see why it should not apply to the other individual books. As to the collection of books, which is the Bible, I can’t see how it could, since the Bible was put together much much later–so those who worked to bring it to the present form would have been guilty of adding (or subtracting, if they deemed some books not worthy). Just my thoughts.

 

[KrazyKat]

It refers to the book of Revelation, this book shows us our future ! Amen

 

[JRKH]

Recently, I was discussing religion with my grandfather, who is Lutheran. We discussed various topics, but one thing he brought up was sola scriptura. He said the main problem he had with Catholics was that they added to the Bible, also answering to church teaching and papal decrees.

I would ask him to be specific as to where the Catholics “added to the bible”. Prior to the Reformation All bibles used in the western Church contained 73 books. After the reformation - bibles published by the protestant communions contained 66 books. So - who changed (added or subtracted) the bible?
As to Encyclicals and such…these are not “adding to the bible”.

I asked him if sola scriptura was itself Biblical, and he admitted that it was not. However, he said that neither was the trinity- but the idea was there, and he claims it is the same with sola scriptura. His example was a passage in Revelation- “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” - Revelation 22:18-19.

The “scroll” is specified as “this scroll of prophecy”…which can only point to the scroll (book) in which the quote is contained. Therefore the quote applies strictly to the book of Revelations and not to the entire canon of Scripture.
This can be readily seen in the history and development of the bible canon.
In the West, the canon developed as being 73 books around 400 AD. In the east, the Church tended to use a somewhat larger canon - I believe it is 78-80 books. Each of the canons - East and West - contained Revelations yet neither branch of the Church saw this discrepancy as problematic. When the East west split occurred it was 500 years later and it was over entirely different matters.

One last note… An interesting thing about taking a Sola Scriptura approach to things is that, the more one reads Scripture and what it says about authority, the more one finds that Scripture alone point to the Church as the authority - not the written text.

Now, I did not know what to say immediately. It’s tempting to shrug it off with “well, it’s revelation- the scroll could be anything, not necessarily the Bible”. Especially since the Bible couldn’t have entirely existed yet when this was being written. But it does talk about the prophets, and I’d be hard-pressed to tell you what else the scroll could be (unless it’s specifically the book of Revelation).

So, can anyone tell me what this verse really means? Here is context if it helps.

As stated above, reading the verse within the text…“This Scroll of prophesy” can only refer to the book in which the verse is contained.

Hope this helps some

Peace
James

 

[Bonnie]

Your grandfather is referring to Revelation 22:18-19. The warning to not add or take away words “from this book of prophecy” refers only to the book of Revelation. Even if one were to extend that to the whole Bible, the Church has neither added or subtracted anything.

As has been mentioned, it was the early Protestants who removed entire books and portions of books from the Old Testament.

Good luck explaining this to your grandfather!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your grandfather is referring to Revelation 22:18-19. The warning to not add or take away words “from this book of prophecy” refers only to the book of Revelation.

But don’t forget:

[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 4:2 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 30:5-6[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[pablope]

Recently, I was discussing religion with my grandfather, who is Lutheran. We discussed various topics, but one thing he brought up was sola scriptura. He said the main problem he had with Catholics was that they added to the Bible, also answering to church teaching and papal decrees.

Ask how did Catholics added something to the Bible?

And also point out the Lutheran confessions…ask him if these confessions are adding to the Bible? (politely, of course)

If he says they do not…then ask him to explain.

I asked him if sola scriptura was itself Biblical, and he admitted that it was not.

 

[Church_Militant]

I found some links up in the Ask an Apologist forum that may help you out here.

That scripture, in context, applies only to the book of Revelation. Nowhere does it infer application anywhere else.

If he pulls out the OT passage from the commandments then you can point out that in that context it would then disqualify the entire New Testament. Then perhaps get him a bandage because he’s essentially just shot himself in the foot with all this.

• What’s Your Authority?
• Proving Inspiration
• Scripture and Tradition

Oh, and on the Trinity…he’s wrong again.

• The Divinity of Christ (Fathers*)
• The Eternal Sonship of Christ (Fathers*)
• Filioque (Fathers*)
• God Has No Body (Fathers*)
• God in Three Persons (Fathers*)
• The One True God (Fathers*)
• The Trinity (Fathers*)
• [Catholic Answers: This Rock: Quick Questions: Trinity (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/category/Trinity)
• [THE TRINITY (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107frs.asp) (This Rock: July 1991)

 

[Michael_Francis]

Merged threads on same topic.

 

[Bonnie]

But don’t forget:

[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 4:2 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 30:5-6[/BIBLEDRB]

Thanks! I had forgotten those. But my reply is the same - the Catholic Church has not added or taken away anything in Scripture.

I’m sure there is someone here who knows about this: at some point someone (Luther? Someone else?) added the word “alone” to a verse about faith saving one. I’m sure it was removed later.

I remeber that once when a Protestant was quoting from memory during a discussion about faith and faith alone, he misquoted a couple of verses by adding the word “alone.” But I wouldn’t say he added to the Bible. Tempting tho!

 

[zz912]

I hope he realizes that the Book of Revelation was written before the Gospel of John. Is he considering throwing out John’s Gospel?

Also, it is simply, completely unhistorical to claim that Catholics added books to the Bible. He simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Since he is making the claim, take him up on that, and ask him to detail out when and where these books were added. Have him be specific. Then you can start to dissect his history claims.

 

[Kamaduck]

Alright, just to clarify- we weren’t actually talking about changing the Bible itself. He’s not saying Catholics have “added to the Bible” in the sense that the Church “added” Maccabees and the rest- that strikes me as a different issue. He’s saying that the verse means we can only trust the Bible completely- that people who trust other sources (like the pope) are adding to it.

Now, I suppose once I think about it, I could just say that the Catholics haven’t added to the Bible- they’ve kept the Bible the way it is and accepted all of it as true, but also relied on Church teaching. Which isn’t really the same thing at all as adding things to the Bible itself. It sounds like the verse doesn’t mean you can’t trust anything else… Just that you’d better not alter the Bible itself. Is that right?

Talking about the Lutheran documents won’t work, because he’ll say those are just summations of what’s in the Bible, while Catholic teaching involves things that simply are not stated in the Bible.

 

[Bonnie]

It sounds like the verse doesn’t mean you can’t trust anything else… Just that you’d better not alter the Bible itself. Is that right?

That’s the way I read it. Tho it would not do to have a doctrine that is opposite of anything in the Bible.

Talking about the Lutheran documents won’t work, because he’ll say those are just summations of what’s in the Bible, while Catholic teaching involves things that simply are not stated in the Bible.

That’s where you have to get down to particulars. One, does everything a church teaches have to be explicitly in the Bible? If so, where in the Bible is that explicitly stated. And two, which Catholic teachings does he claim are not in the Bible at all, either explicitly or implicitly?

 

[Kamaduck]

That’s where you have to get down to particulars. One, does everything a church teaches have to be explicitly in the Bible? If so, where in the Bible is that explicitly stated. And two, which Catholic teachings does he claim are not in the Bible at all, either explicitly or implicitly?

Sola scriptura is the idea that all theology must come from the Bible, and my grandpa is using this verse to back up that idea.

He didn’t specifically claim that there are any Catholic techings that are not in the Bible at all, but I suppose it was implied. There are many I can’t find in the Bible, so I didn’t think to argue the point. The first thing that comes to mind is the Immaculate Conception- I’ve never seen anything in the Bible that backs up the idea that Mary was sinless.