I have done what you did, living in the Chicago area for more than 15 years, I listened to Protestant and evangelical radio programs, and some spoke about Rev 22:18 in the most literal way.
Well, the first problem as someone said, is that these preachers extrapolate it over the whole Bible, and that is the Protestant Bible (Luther’s heretical bible). These same preachers I heard sooner or later would drift into interpretations of scripture that I could not agree with as a Catholic.
They would attack the Catholic Church saying that it wasn’t necessarily “the true gospel” simply because it was so old. Then, a few minutes later on that radio station, they’d say, "help us celebrate 40 years of broadcasting ‘the gospel’ on " their radio network. They rip Catholics for a long history, then turn around and magnify their own history. It speaks for itself, how THEY preach a false gospel. THEY do not practice what they preach.
There was one well-known preacher who had a live program. And, so I called in and put him on the spot. He would regularly read a verse of scripture and then ADD to it “AND THAT’S ABSOLUTELY TRUE.” And, I asked him why he did that? If it was ‘scripture’ then it was true, amen. Was is any MORE true because of his rhetorical flourish? Was it true BECAUSE HE SAID SO? So, the guy who forever was browbeating people about Rev 22:18 was the worst offender of it that I ever encountered.
I point out to him that Christ said let you ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no.’
I continued to listen to him for a while, and he stopped those self-aggrandizing flourishes about scripture. Now, this was only turning HIS rule against him, his interpretation of Rev 22:18 against him – to use 2 Tim 3:16, to use scripture for correction.
What is the evidence of the Catholic Church. Look at Acts 15:20, which indicates that gentile converts should avoid eating blood. Well, does the Catholic Church have a commandment about not eating blood? According to that verse, it DID. And, things drifted along just fine, until, as I read a couple days ago (maybe here on these forums), that the Council of Florence came along and ruled that that prohibition was a historical necessity for converts from paganism, but was not mandatory since that Council. So, is that “taking away” from scripture? or is it just understanding it in its historical context?
And, what’s more interesting in that chapter, if only those four things from the Mosaic law and ONLY those things (idolatry, eating meat sacrificed to idols, “unlawful marriage” [NAB translation], and eating blood), then what about the prohibition against homosexuality in the old testament? Does that prohibition “go away” according to the discussion in Acts 15, as circumcision “went away”?
see next post from me
