Rev 22:18 and Sola Scriptura

[unacanta]

That is true but that is not Sola Scriptura.

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…

Both Protestant and RCC deem the Book of Revelation to be sacred scripture, so therefore it is to be treated with the same authority one would use the writings of any other book in the bible.

Una

 

[Lampo]

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.

It doesn’t say *sufficient *. What if you and I disagree on the meaning of baptism for instance? Where do we take our differences? To the Church or to Scripture?

 

[tm30]

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

Where does it say that scripture is “sufficient”? Why are you adding words to “this book”?

 

[tm30]

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.

No offense intended, but basic reading comprehension demonstrates that all scripture is inspired, however, nowhere does it claim exclusivity of inspiration.

i.e., all the bones in my body are good for my existence. Your interpretation, therefore, is that our bones are the only thing good for our existence, leaving out blood, nerves, tissue, etc.

 

[Lampo]

No offense intended, but basic reading comprehension demonstrates that all scripture is inspired, however, nowhere does it claim exclusivity of inspiration.

i.e., all the bones in my body are good for my existence. Your interpretation, therefore, is that our bones are the only thing good for our existence, leaving out blood, nerves, tissue, etc.

I think that is a great analogy! May I use that in the future?

 

[juliamajor]

Rev22:18- Hate to tell you that phrase was a common literary device in that time period/A lot of Apocalyptic writings use it.It’s like saying"oK guys this stuff is really important- don’t muck it up" I Believe 1 Enoch uses that device(I gotta look up my Apocrypha and Pseuepigraphia-I know they are in there) And Unacanta- using a anti-catholic website will not endear you to the population within. Besides who added to the Book?Doctrines like Trinity ,Hypostatic Union are not added but derive from them.so if you state that nothing can be drawn or derived(which ,let’s face it’you are saying that) then any doctrine not explicit &blatantly stated must be discounted as non biblical. Ooops! There goes the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Sola Scriptura and lot of other stuff. And let’s throw out those Creeds!! My goodness- no derivation allowed.!!

 

[unacanta]

No offense intended, but basic reading comprehension demonstrates that all scripture is inspired, however, nowhere does it claim exclusivity of inspiration.

i.e., all the bones in my body are good for my existence. Your interpretation, therefore, is that our bones are the only thing good for our existence, leaving out blood, nerves, tissue, etc.

Interesting comment “nowhere does it claim exclusivity of inspiration”.

There have been many books which claim to be authored by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however, the Canon which determines which books in the bible are the ones in which the Church is to take as rule of faith.

Not discounting the value of other books, we should remember though they may be good to read, their content is not binding on the Christian’s Conscience. Of course what is Canon and is not is an entirely different subject.

For example, the LDS insist that the Book of Mormon is Scripture and inspired of God. I do not believe this to be so, anything which is said in it, I do not take necessarily as my rule of faith nor as a Christian do I have to observe the various doctrines held with in it.

Blessings,
Una

 

[unacanta]

Rev22:18- Hate to tell you that phrase was a common literary device in that time period/A lot of Apocalyptic writings use it.It’s like saying"oK guys this stuff is really important- don’t muck it up" I Believe 1 Enoch uses that device(I gotta look up my Apocrypha and Pseuepigraphia-I know they are in there) And Unacanta- using a anti-catholic website will not endear you to the population within. Besides who added to the Book?Doctrines like Trinity ,Hypostatic Union are not added but derive from them.so if you state that nothing can be drawn or derived(which ,let’s face it’you are saying that) then any doctrine not explicit &blatantly stated must be discounted as non biblical. Ooops! There goes the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Sola Scriptura and lot of other stuff. And let’s throw out those Creeds!! My goodness- no derivation allowed.!!

Both the Hypostatic Union and The Trinity can be proven by scripture. For example the following site, (I don’t think is anti-catholic) gives all kinds of scriptures which support Hypostatic Union. It is silly to say just because the word does not exist in the bible that the doctrine is not taught. All I am saying that Scripture in itself is sufficient to lead a person to salvation without an outside source or teaching magisterium.

Una

carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm

 

[Lampo]

All I am saying that Scripture in itself is sufficient to lead a person to salvation without an outside source or teaching magisterium.

How so? How were the early Christians lead to salvation when there was no Bible as we have it today?

 

[unacanta]

It doesn’t say *sufficient *. What if you and I disagree on the meaning of baptism for instance? Where do we take our differences? To the Church or to Scripture?

A clear and concise exegesis of the text will lead us both to the truth. Now, of course we must rely on scripture and not on traditions or doctrines introduced by various sources.

The problem many times we have arrived at a conclusion about text before we read it. Many times we are under threat of anathema for not accepting the Teaching Magisterium’s conclusions about a specific text.

 

[po18guy]

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.”)
.

First: Nothing was added to the prophecies of that book. Notice it does not make null and void all other biblical prophecy. Those who bank on this tiny fragment of the highly mystical Book of Revelation must therefore: Rip it out of the bible, throw away the rest of the bible, and use “sola revelation” as their entire canon of scripture. This, because there is no way (in their microscopic view) to know if the canon of scripture itself was “God-breathed”, even if the writings themselves actually were. That might just test their belief. Do not expect them to follow this, however…

You might also ask them why “their” bible does not have the septuagint, some of which Christ quoted from. They settle for less Sacraments, less of Christ, and even less scripture. :bigyikes: The lengths some will go to in order to avoid the obedience of becoming Catholic!

 

[Lampo]

A clear and concise exegesis of the text will lead us both to the truth.

How do you know when you or I have “a clear and concise exegesis of the text” and have arrived at the truth?

Now, of course we must rely on scripture and not on traditions or doctrines introduced by various sources.

How did you come to this conclusion? How did the early Christians do this in the year 110AD for instance? 1 Tim.3:15 says the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth.

 

[juliamajor]

Both the Hypostatic Union and The Trinity can be proven by scripture. For example the following site, (I don’t think is anti-catholic) gives all kinds of scriptures which support Hypostatic Union. It is silly to say just because the word does not exist in the bible that the doctrine is not taught. All I am saying that Scripture in itself is sufficient to lead a person to salvation without an outside source or teaching magisterium.

Una

carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm

Your still being derivative and not literalist. The word Transubstantiation doesn’t exist in the bible and we are constantly told that the word has to be in the Bible in order to be biblical. then the position switches when it comes to doctrines you believe are biblical.Who is your guide when it comes to scripture -trying to understand the right meaning.? When there is a multiplicity of meaning(the standard answerGod or HS) . Again how do you know what is true or what has been taken out of context? the internecine warfare Among the Protestant sects begins to resemble theconflict between Lilliput and Blefescu.

 

[Ignatius]

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?

Actually, the issue of the Canon is a completely separate issue. Sola Scriptura does not address the Canon issue at all.

That being said, the argument that it contradicts the OT Canon doesn’t hold water either. The version of the Old Testament used throughout by the Gospel and Epistle writers was the Greek LXX or Septuagint version. The quotations of Old Testament passages are almost exclusively of the Septuagint version. In fact, the Deuterocanon was in all of the Bibles, including Protestant Bibles, up until the 19th century.
So, Rev22:18 actually would actually be a better argument for inclusion of the Deutrocanon and against those who, in the 19th century, removed those books.

Finally, one must ask, what revelation it is that they received nearly two millennia after Christ to remove those books.

 

[po18guy]

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’ll bet that some have expanded the term “book” (of Revelation) to include the entire canon, and then try to condemn Sacred Tradition by imagining it to be “added” to the “book”. Of course, this is diametrically opposed to the method that Christ used to teach. He used the oral tradition, as has every generation of Christ’s church since. Factually, if anything was “added”, it was the book. See the tortured logic used to avoid admitting that Christ founded one church?

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

A clear and concise exegesis of the text will lead us both to the truth. Now, of course we must rely on scripture and not on traditions or doctrines introduced by various sources.

The problem many times we have arrived at a conclusion about text before we read it. Many times we are under threat of anathema for not accepting the Teaching Magisterium’s conclusions about a specific text.

Just Google “Brother Branham” and see how scripture lead one preacher to deny the trinity, solely because that word does not appear in scripture. This is but one example of why scripture must be used along with tradition. Combined with tradition, it cannot be misinterpreted, as tradition provides the context. Lacking the context of tradition, scripture leads astray, as it lacks a foundation for its meaning. Find two “denominations” that agree, while reading from the same bible. No tradition.

Christ’s peace.

 

[tm30]

A clear and concise exegesis of the text will lead us both to the truth. Now, of course we must rely on scripture and not on traditions or doctrines introduced by various sources.

The irony is that you’re relying on a Protestant tradition (S.S.) to discount tradition.

Since the Bible does not grant itself exclusivity in inspiration, Sola Scriptura can only be defined as a traditional Protestant belief.

 

[tm30]

Both the Hypostatic Union and The Trinity can be proven by scripture. For example the following site, (I don’t think is anti-catholic) gives all kinds of scriptures which support Hypostatic Union. It is silly to say just because the word does not exist in the bible that the doctrine is not taught. All I am saying that Scripture in itself is sufficient to lead a person to salvation without an outside source or teaching magisterium.

The Bible infers a trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it says nothing about their actual relationship. A perusal of patristic history finds that heresy after heresy sprang up because no one could agree on Jesus’ divine nature, the one nature/three person composition of the Trinity, nor the fact that each person contains the other in full - none is greater than the other. Scripture alone could not resolve the problem. It took three centuries to define these matters, giving ultimate weight to the traditional beliefs of the Church fathers, and not the Aryan heretics. And ultimately, it was the tireless work of one man - St. Athanasius - and his subsequent support by Rome - that gives you the Trinity as you know it today, not Scripture.

 

[tm30]

A clear and concise exegesis of the text will lead us both to the truth.

Good luck with that.

Why isn’t there an official Protestant clearinghouse of exegesis? I mean, if the Protestants have arrived at the Truth after all these years, wouldn’t it make sense to unify all of the sects under one Truth - oh, wait…

 

[tm30]

There have been many books which claim to be authored by inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

Actually, a grand total of zero books claim to be authored by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But the Roman Catholic Church discerned which Gospels and Letters and Apocalypses were, in fact, inspired. Problem for the Sola Scriptura proponents to resolve is that since none of the Gospels or letters demand a New Testament, the establishment of a canon, itself, was an unauthorized, unscriptural act.