Rev 22:18 and Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter llowwelll
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

llowwelll

Guest
I am wondering if any of you can give me the best answer to Protestant’s claims that Rev 22:18 is a proof statement for sola scriptura? (“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”)

On the face of it, it would be easy to buy that this passage supports sola scriptura. However, we know that when Revelations was authored, the canon of the Bible as we know it today did not yet exist. Rev 22:18, as far as I understand it, is simply addressing the prohecies given in the Book of Revelations. However, I know there are more and better explanations to overcome Protestant’s assertions that this is evidence for sola scriptura.

Can anyone please help me out on this one? I have a Presbyterian friend (and former Catholic) who has convinced himself based largely on this passage that the Church is a heresy and that we have distorted the pure teachings of the BIble. Of course, I know that he is not correct, but I want to be able to explain to him in a loving and brotherly manner why the Catholic Church is correct in it’s assertion that sola scriptura was never the way it was meant to be.
 
Obviously, this verse in scripture says nothing at all concerning Sola Scriptura. Anyone that is at all knowledgeable about apocalyptic writing will admit that the Book of Revelation requires substantial interpretation because it is filled with imagery. Interpretation does not add to the prophecies or subtract from them. Instead interpretation lends itself to explaining the meaning. Your friend should be able to see that quite readily. The next question that follows must out of necessity address the source of reliable interpretation.

Ask your friend this question:

For the Christian believer, what is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He will probably tell you that it’s the bible. Immediately point out that the bible says otherwise, and point him to 1Timothy 3:15 which says:

"…the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

There are many other texts which can be used to defeat Sola Scriptura and there are none that support it. Any verse that he offers as a proof of Sola Scriptura can easily be dissected and shown not to support the doctrine.

You can research the forums to read discussions and debates on this issue. You can also check out all the articles here:
catholic.com/search.asp?query=sola+scriptura
 
Pax,

Thank you! I also have an entire book that offers a Catholic critique of sola scriptura. However, their section on Rev 22:18 is rather meager (probably because Rev 22:18 doesn’t need a lot of explanation for those who understand what you just explained). However, most of the Protestants I’ve talked to about it (and esp my friend mentioned in my first post) react to the type of argument you just presented as if it were smoke and mirrors. I just wish there was a very clear, very logical, cut-and-dry way to argue against these folks regarding Rev 22:18.

I completely agree with all that you pointed out. The Bible does not support sola scriptura. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest heresies foisted upon the community of believers. Rev 22:18 is very powerful evidence in the minds of some that sola scriptura is legitimate.
 
I would tell your friend that the Bible is not and never has been nor was ever intended to be a “proof-text” for sound doctrine and dogma.

Secondly, the NT did not even exist at the time St. John wrote Revelation, so he clearly could not have been talking about “adding to or substracting” from it.

Also, individuals have not been given the divine right to interpret Scripture or any other doctrinal matter however they please. In fact, just the opposite is true, according to the Bible:

2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…”

The NT is a part of the Sacred Tradition, both oral and written, of the Catholic Church. This is an historical fact that cannot be denied, no matter what spin anyone wants to put on individual verses within it.
 
Actually, I think the argument you put forth is an excellent and poignant argument. Just look at the wording of the passage itself…"I warn everyone who hears the words of the **prophecy **of this book: …

First of all, if all we need is the Bible, why doesn’t it say “read” (a little weak I admit, but the evidence against this interpretation accumulates impressively). Second point, this passage refers specifically to “prophesy”, and I think it is a very strong argument against your friends interpretation because a great deal of Sacred Scripture would in no way whatsoever qualify as “prophesy”, and you would have to be pretty creative to make it fit into this category so that this passage would apply. Lastly, John specifically states “this book”, and that could only possibly refer to Revelations, because Sacred Scripture was not collected into the form of a book, and even if it had been (I’m sure some KJV1611 only advocate will try to argue to the contrary here), Revelation would not have been included because it wasn’t even written prior to John putting these words to paper.

Logically, to ascribe S.S. to this verse just defies logic, plain and simple!
 
llowwelll said:
I am wondering if any of you can give me the best answer to Protestant’s claims that Rev 22:18 is a proof statement for sola scriptura? (“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”)

On the face of it, it would be easy to buy that this passage supports sola scriptura. However, we know that when Revelations was authored, the canon of the Bible as we know it today did not yet exist. Rev 22:18, as far as I understand it, is simply addressing the prohecies given in the Book of Revelations. However, I know there are more and better explanations to overcome Protestant’s assertions that this is evidence for sola scriptura.

Can anyone please help me out on this one? I have a Presbyterian friend (and former Catholic) who has convinced himself based largely on this passage that the Church is a heresy and that we have distorted the pure teachings of the BIble. Of course, I know that he is not correct, but I want to be able to explain to him in a loving and brotherly manner why the Catholic Church is correct in it’s assertion that sola scriptura was never the way it was meant to be.
Click to expand...
llowwell, Sola Scriptura generally means (as within protestantism you may find many definitions of Sola Scriptura) that the BIBLE is the ONLY authority and the ONLY source of the universal (i.e., to be held by all) Word of God. So for protestants, when you say “Word of God” to them that is immediately a synonim of BIBLE or Scripture.

Rev 22:18, on the other hand, if anything, it says that you CANNOT add anything else to Scripture.

See the difference? So you see, Rev 22:18 IS NOT a defense for Sola Scriptura at all.

We Catholic Christians AGREE 100% with that interpretation of Rev 22:18, as we DO NOT suggest that ANYTHING be added to Scripture.

Scripture is what it is, a gift of God to his Church, with all their books and verses, and NO ONE is suggesting we add MORE or anything at all to Scripture.

Sacred Tradition, which we Catholic consider also part of the WORD of GOD, IS NOT to be added to Scripture.

The point here, llowwell, is that YOUR friend MUST SHOW, to prove Sola Scriptura, that Scripture is the ONLY SOURCE of UNIVERSAL (i.e., to be held by all) WORD of GOD. But he CANNOT do this, as there is NO such verse in Scripture that proves or even suggests this. Thus, Sola Scriptura, itself, cannot be proven from Scripture, thus it SELF-REFUTES.

On the contrary, we see that Scripture tells us that if you take SCRIPTURES alone, without the necessary extra-biblical instruction (i.e., as an untaught person) you end twisting it to your own destruction or perdition (2 Peter 3:16). You also find that the Apostles tells us to heed the instruction of traditions which they have delivered either by letter (i.e., Scriptures) or by word of mouth (i.e., sacred Tradition) (2 Thes 2:15), and MANY MANY other verses.

Blessings in Christ,

E.C.
 
llowwelll said:
Pax,
I just wish there was a very clear, very logical, cut-and-dry way to argue against these folks regarding Rev 22:18.
Click to expand...
llowwell, I think the way to argue this is to go back to the definition of Sola Scriptura and then compare it to Rev 22:18. When you look at what Sola Scriptura means in the minds of most protestants, we see that it has absolutely nothing to do with rev 22:18. The former means that the Bible is the only authority and the only source of universal Word of God, the latter suggests that nothing be added to Scripture. You see, there is NO relation between the two. For rev 22:18 to be a support for Sola Scriptura, it must prove that outside Scripture there cannot be any authority or a separate source of the universal Word of God, which in NO way rev 22:18 suggests.

Many blessings in Christ,

E.C.
 
YOu might ask why they ignore Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Click to expand...
The Saducees will point out to them that they have already created forbidden additions to those original five books.
 
llowwelll said:
I am wondering if any of you can give me the best answer to Protestant’s claims that Rev 22:18 is a proof statement for sola scriptura? (“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”)

On the face of it, it would be easy to buy that this passage supports sola scriptura. However, we know that when Revelations was authored, the canon of the Bible as we know it today did not yet exist. Rev 22:18, as far as I understand it, is simply addressing the prohecies given in the Book of Revelations. However, I know there are more and better explanations to overcome Protestant’s assertions that this is evidence for sola scriptura.

Can anyone please help me out on this one? I have a Presbyterian friend (and former Catholic) who has convinced himself based largely on this passage that the Church is a heresy and that we have distorted the pure teachings of the BIble. Of course, I know that he is not correct, but I want to be able to explain to him in a loving and brotherly manner why the Catholic Church is correct in it’s assertion that sola scriptura was never the way it was meant to be.
Click to expand...
Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears 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 If anyone takes away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, for the holy city, and from the things which are written in this Book.

CATHOLIC RESPONSE
The context in which these verses are written must be recognized.

These verses are written solely for the Book of Revelation – not for the whole Bible, which is a collection of books.

We must be careful not to quote Scripture out of context.If the argument from these verses prove anything, it would prove too much. Viz, only the Book of Revelation will be sufficient for the rule of faith.
 
Your answer, llowwelll, is the correct answer - that the prophecy in 22:18 refers only to the Book of Revelation. When Revelation was written, there were no bound books as we know and have them today. Scriptures were written and rolled on scrolls. There would be a collection of scrolls kept in the synagogue. Each section was called a “book”. (eg. book of Genesis, book of Isaiah, etc.)

Luke 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Even your Protestant friends will speak of how Catholics have 73 books in the Bible, while their Bible has 66 books.

Nita
 
I agree with Nita and richardeekw that Rev 22:18 is ONLY refering to the book of revelation and if this passage was trying to say that ONLY what is written is the only authority and the sole source of the the universal Word of God, then it would mean that ONLY the book of Rev is the only authority and the sole source of universal word of God. However, this passage says that NOTHING must be added to the book of revelation, but even if it was REFERRING to the whole scripture, we Catholic do not add nor remove anything from Scripture.

This passage is completely misinterpreted by protestants. I has absolutely nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Blessing,

E.C.
 
El_camino said:
We Catholic Christians AGREE 100% with that interpretation of Rev 22:18, as we DO NOT suggest that ANYTHING be added to Scripture.

Scripture is what it is, a gift of God to his Church, with all their books and verses, and NO ONE is suggesting we add MORE or anything at all to Scripture.

Sacred Tradition, which we Catholic consider also part of the WORD of GOD, IS NOT to be added to Scripture. .
Click to expand...
This is what I would have said. Catholics have not “added” beliefs of The Assumption, for instance, in some spelled out form in “Scripture”. It was added elsewhere to Tradition, as Pax also mentioned as a source of truth in the Church.

It is a fallacy of argument to say that Catholics adding beliefs to Tradition is adding words to Scripture.
 
El _camino: However, this passage says that NOTHING must be added to the book of revelation, but even if it was REFERRING to the whole scripture, we Catholic do not add nor remove anything from Scripture.
Click to expand...
MarcoPolo: This is what I would have said. Catholics have not “added” beliefs of The Assumption, for instance, in some spelled out form in “Scripture”. It was added elsewhere to Tradition, as Pax also mentioned as a source of truth in the Church.
Click to expand...
Had never thought of that aspect before. Thanks El camino and MarcoPolo.

Nita
 
Thanks everyone for the replies!

Some good insight here.

One argument I’ve frequently heard in response to the seemingly obvious point that 22:18 refers only to the Book of Revelations is that when the Holy Spirit inspired John to write Revelations, the Spirit knew what the eventual canon of the Bible would be. Thus, even though the Bible was not yet canonized at the time Revelations was written, 22:18 was, in a sense, a forward-looking statement covering the whole of the Bible since it can be assumed that the Spirit had perfect knowledge of the future and perfect knowledge of the eventual canon of the Bible. The fact that Revelations is the last book of the Bible and that 22:18 is one of the last statements in all of the Bible is also made significant by some Protestants trying to add weight to this particular argument.

Comments?
 
[llowwelll;1937050]I am wondering if any of you can give me the best answer to Protestant’s claims that Rev 22:18 is a proof statement for sola scriptura? (“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”)
Click to expand...
Many evangelicals/fundamentalists quote Rev 22:18 and do so out of context. When the Scriptures were written what was meant by “this book” was actually “THIS SCROLL” for a codex (a modern form of a book with a bound spine) wasn’t invented until the 3rd century. So prior to that time and in St. John’s time all of what we call “books” were actually “scrolls.” And when St. John said “this book” he is saying “this book” NOT the entire canon of Scripture, being it hadn’t been compiled until the 4th century. St. John is simply saying if anyone adds “to this book” (the book of Revelation) then God will add plagues to them.
On the face of it, it would be easy to buy that this passage supports sola scriptura. However, we know that when Revelations was authored, the canon of the Bible as we know it today did not yet exist. Rev 22:18, as far as I understand it, is simply addressing the prohecies given in the Book of Revelations. However, I know there are more and better explanations to overcome Protestant’s assertions that this is evidence for sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
When you see “in this book” think of it as “in this book [of Revelation]” or “in this scroll” which isolates the “this” to the book of Revelation.
Can anyone please help me out on this one? I have a Presbyterian friend (and former Catholic) who has convinced himself based largely on this passage that the Church is a heresy and that we have distorted the pure teachings of the BIble. Of course, I know that he is not correct, but I want to be able to explain to him in a loving and brotherly manner why the Catholic Church is correct in it’s assertion that sola scriptura was never the way it was meant to be.
Click to expand...
Your friend needs to see the Scriptures in context. Again “in this book” is speaking strictly to the book of Revelation. Also, as your ex-Catholic friend where the Bible says that “it IS the ONLY source of authority?” Not where it says it “IS AN” authority, we agree it IS AN authority. Then as him what is the pillar and support of truth? He may most likely say the Bible, so then show him 1 Tim 3:15 and he will find out that the pillar and support of truth is the Church. And if he says “Church” means “Churches” then as him which one of the thousands that compete against each other has the correct doctrine?

Jesus in John 17:21… prayed that we would all be one as He and the Father are one.

1 Cor 1:10 "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Does this seem more plausible to Catholicism or Protestantism?
 
Hi

For context see Rev 1 v 11.

[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet
[11] saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per’gamum and to Thyati’ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice’a.”

best regards
Nicholas
 
I just wish there was a very clear, very logical, cut-and-dry way to argue against these folks regarding Rev 22:18.
Click to expand...
“I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” Rev. 22:18-19

First, “This book” is the book of Revelation.

Second, if “This book” is expanded to the whole Bible, then Protestants will be in serious trouble for removing 7+ books of the OT

Third, if you want a LOGICAL reason why this verse does not apply to scripture, then remember that it is a NON SEQUITUR (Latin for “Does not follow”) to jump from this verse to saying that “The message from scripture is all we need for our salvation” There is NO logical connection between the two. There is a difference between ADDING something, namely a teaching (which the Church does NOT do) and EXPOUNDING upon the teaching (which the Church DOES do). If the latter is a sin, so are all sermons, biblical commentaries, etc.
 
I don’t know how helpful this is, but it sounds to me a lot more like a warning to avoid, oh, say, coming up with some convoluted Rapture theory that twists what we should be learning from Scripture . . . 😃
 
There are a couple counter “arguments” for the sola scriptura.

First, I recommend that anyone interested in the Catholic position, should consult the summary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraphs 51 through 141 discuss the matter in a catechism format.

Second, a generally good handbook for Catholic apologetics is Karl Keeting’s book on Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

Third, on the general subject of sola scriptura, expand your mind a bit at this link

beliefnet.com/story/120/story_12070_1.html

for a well-respected modern Rabbi’s explanation of the Jewish position on literalism in scripture. He points out an example or two where you cannot rely on the sole authority of scripture, as the very least.

Fourth, consider the parallel thought in

Deut 4:2 In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.

Whoops, Houston, we have a problem.

Looks like we have to tear out a lot of pages from our Bibles, if we don’t want to disobey the command in that verse. Where do we start?

Fifth, whoops, again. Consider

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.

Here Jesus is giving a scripture lesson which we all would like to have had. The Jewish scripture now had an interpretation which many Jews then and now would not recognize. The scripture does not stand alone in its interpretation.

Sixth, a worthwhile read is Who’s Scripture is It? by orthodox Jaroslav Pelikan. He has many worthy insights into scripture, the most relevant here is to point out that a faithful oral tradition was required to support the written scripture. Specifically, the Torah (first five books) were written without vowels, spaces, or punctuation. It required quite an external oral tradition to make sense of scripture correctly. When we read the first five books of the bible in English, with somebody else’s (the translator’s) vowels, spaces, and punctuation added for us non-Hebrew speaking, we are yielding to an extra-biblical source of authority, and I don’t know how many people are aware of that. They will say, well, yeah. OK. YEAH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top