Rev 22:18 and Sola Scriptura

[Daniel_Marsh]

Last time I read Rev 22, it said “this book” which refers to the book of Revelation as I understand it.

So, simply ask them to explain how it adds to the book of revelation? and, if translating the book of revelation is ineffect adding or subtracting from the book of revelation itself?

Anyone fimiliar with translation, knows that translation involves interpretation. Thus by translating the book of revelation they are giving an educated interpretation. But, what if somewhere in their translation due to lack of knowledge say, something is not 100 percent right, would that not be subtracting from it?

 

[RNRobert]

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.

I recall reading a story in Kevin Orlin Johnson’s book Why Do Catholics Do That? about the Rabbi Hillel, who died when Jesus was a boy. A Gentile came to him for instruction, and said, “I’ll believe you about the written Torah, but not about the oral. Take me on as a convert on condition that you teach me the written Torah only.” The rabbi agreed, and spent the first day teaching the man the Hebrew alphabet. The next day the rabbi again taught the man the Hebrew alphabet, but in reverse. When the man complained, Hillel said, “If you have to depend on me to teach you the alphabet, how much more must you depend on me for the interpretation of the Torah.”

 

[BlestOne]

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 . . .

Oh no you didn’t!
:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

I know you didn’t just hint that La Haye and Jenkins are earning a warm spot in the afterlife.

You are too funny!

 

[DLC]

Please read 1 Tim 3:15 very carefully. No where in this verse does it give a hint to the idea that any church is the sole interpreter of the Bible alone. God holds each person responsible for how they understands the Bible. That is why In John 3:16 Jesus says that whosoever believes has eternal life and shall not persish. This verse does not says that if one believes what the a church tells him to believe he has eternal life. Salvation is based on what one does with Jesus Christ in faith. In 2 Tim 3:14-16 it tells us that the Scriptures that Timothy had were sufficient enough to bring him to salvation. Since this is true and Timothy was saved with the Scriptures he had, we all can be save by believing what the bible says. That is why sola scriptura is a fact not a myth. No church can bring salvation why is this, “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

“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.”

Tell him that he raises in interesting point and that you are willing to discuss it with him. Site together, open your Bible and read this quote aloud. Then ask him this question:
*
“What is ‘them’ referring to?” *

If he is honest you will both conclude that the pronoun ‘them’ refers to ‘words of the prophecy of this book’.

Now ask him: "What is ‘this book’?

He might say:
a) Bible
b) Rev prophesy

If he says a) then ask him how is this possible since Bible is a collection of texts. How can it be referring to the whole Bible if there was no such thing at that time?

If he says b) then you’re doing fine. Just ask him to specifically tell you what is CC adding to the prophesy

 

[DLC]

This verse in Revelation refers to both the Book of Revelation in its immediate context and the whole Bible is it remote context. No passage of Scripture tells us that any church is inspired of God. 2 Tim 3:16 refers to only the Bible as that which is inspired.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

This verse in Revelation refers to both the Book of Revelation in its immediate context and the whole Bible is it remote context. No passage of Scripture tells us that any church is inspired of God. 2 Tim 3:16 refers to only the Bible as that which is inspired.

He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

**Luke 10:16 **says hears. It doesn’t say anything about reading.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

be.

your explanation is the simple one and the correct one. Obviously at the time these words were written the canon of the scripture had not been firmly established, and there is even evidence at least by some of the highly regarded Protestant scholars your friend is no doubt familiar with, that all the Gospels had not even yet been committed to their present form. So the verse refers to those who would change the contents of this book Revelation and attempt to add or change what is there by fantastic “solutions” to explaining the imagery and symbolism used in this book. Since that understanding will indict many latter day scholars who have warped the Book of Revelation beyond recognition, it is not likely they will accept it.

 

[loscampos]

First we must have a question or hypothesis: Which has more authority, the church or scripture? We could also make this into a statement: The bible has more authority than the church. The converse statement would be: the church has more authority than the bible.

After the question we must look for any scripture verses that explicitly state one or the other.

The argument for Biblical authority:

            2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

The argument for Church authority:

            Mat 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

            1 Tim 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Now that we have some explicit scripture verses we must find their implied meanings. As a side note, we could bring points on what constitutes the church, what is the body of the church, how do we determine if a book in scripture is inspired if it isn’t explicitly stated and so forth? All of these topics we will dive deeper into in further essays, but in order to stay on the current topic we will not go into all of these points that could be brought up.

Our second task is the context and the meanings of theses verses. In 2 Tim 3:15 we find that scripture is important for teaching and reproving etc. An underlying problem with this verse to prove scripture has more authority than the church is; if two people are teaching two different things from the same scripture. If the two in dispute are using the same scripture for correction and reproof, how then shall the dispute be settled? Mat 18:15-18 clearly states they must go to the church to settle the matter. The next question is then, why do we go to the church to settle the matter and not only scripture? We go to the church because it is the pillar of truth. This is an important concept because Jesus himself is truth. He is passing down his authority on truth to the church. This is especially clear if we continue on and finish reading 1 Tim 3:16, he refers to binding and loosing. Although this topic can be further talked about, we will use only what is relevant. The church is the truth because it can leave things out of heaven, something the bible in itself cannot do.

Lastly do either one of these points contradict themselves or any other passages pertaining to authority. “The bible has more authority than the church,” contradicts itself and the authority of the church. Continuing from our example on two people disputing each other from the same verse, not only does the bible tell us to go to the church to settle disputes, it tell us that it is not for private interpretation. This is made clear in 2 Pet 1:20 “Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation,” We can go in many different directions with this verse, but we will stick to the framework of authority. The altercation between the two people has part of its roots in conflicting interpretations. Within a larger context, if these two were leaders of different churches in Christianity, if neither church has authority over each other, then aren’t they both just interpreting the bible as their own? The main point is that there is a singular reference to adjudicate differences and it is a singular church and not scripture.

Does the statement “the church has more authority than the bible,” contradict itself or other teachings. The answer is no, not only for the reasons stated above; we could also look at binding again in more depth, as well as the spirit leading us in truth and so forth. Used in conjunction with each other 2 Tim is a great leading point into the other two verses.

Following a clear path used equally on both sides of the argument the following can be stated:

“The bible has more authority than the church,” is not explicitly stated, not implied, contradicts itself, does not fit within the context of authority.

Conversely “the church has more authority than the bible,” is explicitly stated as well as implied in many others, does not contradict itself and fits perfectly within the context of authority.

taken from: lococatolico.com/Essays.html

 

[tm30]

It’s possible this verse has been blown out of its intended scope. The primary purpose of Revelation was to send a message of perseverance and hope to an embattled, perecuted, and increasingly martyred Church body under Nero’s reign of terror. I don’t deny that there are larger implications to this verse, but I think it’s more likely that John saw this message/prophecy as being crucial to the Church as a going concern.

i.e., John (and God) wanted no one to tamper with this message if it were intercepted, under the severest of penalty, because it was just that crucial that it be received, read, and interpreted as John intended. Can you imagine the effect of the message of Revelation on the persecuted Church if it were tampered with to indicate that John was given a prophecy of doom or despair or defeat?

It’s so easy to look at Revelation simply as a roadmap to the future without acknowledging it’s mediate purpose for the early Church. With that in mind, the notion that this verse can be applied as a proof of S.S. is laughable.

 

[unacanta]

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.

One thing we must remember is though the Canon may have not been set, that does not discount the fact that the book was and is inspiered by God for the teaching, reproof, etc.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

Una

 

[Ignatius]

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.

How so? It doesn’t even mention Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone? I don’t see any connection whatsoever. Maybe you mean some other doctrine?

 

[unacanta]

How so? It doesn’t even mention Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone? I don’t see any connection whatsoever. Maybe you mean some other doctrine?

I am not sure about the “Protestant’s proof”, but I suspect what the author was talking about in Rev22:18 is that we should not add to the “book”, which implies adding the traditions or non-canonical books, or at least that is what I got out of it. Of course Sola Spripture is not mentioned but the doctrine is through out the bible. Much like Purgatory is not mentioned either and yet RCC teaching credits several scriptures which point to it with out mentioning the word “Purgatory”.

Rev22:18 I testify to everyone who hears (A)the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him (C)the plagues which are written in (D)this book;

 

[richardeekw]

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.

**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.

 

[unacanta]

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

I would like to disagree here.
2TIM3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Notice the words “reproof”, “training”, “correction”, Scripture is inspired by God and therefore can and does teach without the need of a Teaching Magisterium.

The phrase “so that” links the two verses. One can say that the man of God by Scripture is adequate and equipped for every good work.

I quote from Alpha Omega Ministires:
vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

“I pause only long enough to note that Paul here asserts that the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient, and qualified because he has available to him, always, God’s inspired Scriptures. Surely, here Paul would have to direct us to any and all other rules of faith that we would need to be complete but, he does not.”

If a person has the bible and the scripture within he can refute any teaching.

Regards,
Una
Please read the article to gain the full benefit of the teaching.

Una

 

[Filius99993]

Rev22:18 I testify to everyone who hears (A)the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him (C)the plagues which are written in (D)this book;

Those are the words of John, not God himself.

 

[unacanta]

Those are the words of John, not God himself.

So…are you saying John was not writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Filius99993]

So…are you saying John was not writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

I’m just saying that John has the influence of the Holy Spirit upon him, but Revelation IS based on a dream… Dreams can be misinterpreted, and it is more of an allegory than actual FACT. So not everything can be taken LITERALLY…

 

[SusanL]

One thing we must remember is though the Canon may have not been set, that does not discount the fact that the book was and is inspiered by God for the teaching, reproof, etc.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

Una

That is true but that is not Sola Scriptura.

 

[unacanta]

That is true but that is not Sola Scriptura.

I said:
Originally Posted by unacanta
One thing we must remember is though the Canon may have not been set, that does not discount the fact that the book was and is inspiered by God for the teaching, reproof, etc.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

Since All scripture is inspired of God, we can stand on it alone and be totally sufficient, hence the term Sola Scriptura.

Scratches head…I am not sure how I got invoved here??