deny pretrib rapture - lose salvation

[CrossWord]

I have no idea where I heard the following argument first. Its kind of an interesting argument - I'm not sure if its compelling or not.

If a pretrib rapture is not found in Revelation then someone who says it is has added something to Revelation.

OTOH, If a pretrib rapture is found in Revelation then someone who says it is not has taken away something from Revelation.

Now consider the following:

Rev 22:18 NKJV) For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;

(Rev 22:19 NKJV) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now what's interesting is that although those who add things erroneously to Revelation (i.e. pretrib) will have plagues added to them, those who take away things erroneously from Revelation (those who deny pretrib rapture) aren't even saved! See if you can follow this: It says those who take away from Revelations (erroneously) "God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city" Can it be more plain? If you're not in the book of life, you're not even saved. Let's make it more plain:

(Rev 22:14 NKJV) Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
(Rev 22:15 NKJV) But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

So, to not be in the Book of Life, to be outside of "the City", is to be eternally Damned! This is the curse put on those who "take away" from the prophecies of Revelation erroneously.

However, what is the curse on those who add things erroneously (e.g. pretribbers)? They have plagues added to them. However, added plagues do not equate to losing salvation. Furthermore, added plagues is what they would get anyway, if a pretrib rapture wasn't true!

So those who repeatedly deny a pretrib rapture in this forum, if you're wrong, Revelation says you will be removed from the book of Life!

Pretribbers have a lot less to lose (basically nothing) if they're wrong.

I only said it was an interesting argument. It doesn't end there, however. The curse regarding adding and taking away things is in fact within a larger passage which specifically alludes to the rapture and the number of them:

(Rev 22:17 NKJV) And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
(Rev 22:18 NKJV) For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
(Rev 22:19 NKJV) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The key is the first verse and its two references to "Come!". The phrase "Come up here!" appears only twice in Revelation:

(Rev 4:1 NKJV) After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."

(Rev 11:12 NKJV) And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here." And they ascended to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies saw them.

So both references to "Come up here" are talking about ascending into heaven from earth.

Then we come to Rev 22:17, and its two references to "Come!". Some see a specific allusion to the two previous invitations, "Come up here", and what is most interesting is what follows is the curse regarding adding and taking away things from Revelation.

 

[Kingdom_Come]

Yes both references are talking about ascending to heaven. Yet there is a specific context to each. The first one you quoted is speaking to John and calls him away so that he may be shown the visions of things to come. The second one is speaking of the two witnesses which are killed after having given their testimony and more importantly they are killed by the beast which negates this referring to a “pre-trib” rapture since the entire notion of the term “pre-tribulation” is that the “rapture” happens before the tribulation period even begins. At least this seems to be the way proponents of the “preb-trib” position believe. This means that the church, according to the pre-trib position never sees the beast because the beast does not come to power until the church is removed. Yet these two witnesses are here during the time of the beast. Neither of these passages even remotely suggest a pre-trib rapture and the only way to glean such meaning is to infer this meaning as being symbolically represented by John which is what some wish to do. However that brings us back to the notion that Scripture does not clearly state there will be a rapture before what many call "The Great Tribulation". The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to read meaning into certain passages and assume a timetable of events not clearly presented in Scripture. In short it is a weak argument.



As far as the adding and the taking away it means what it says, no editing. No one should delete certain passages out of this book and no one should add passages to this book. It is to be left as it was penned by John. This does not have anything to do with translation or interpretation.

 

[CrossWord]

Yes both references are talking about ascending to heaven. Yet there is a specific context to each. The first one you quoted is speaking to John and calls him away so that he may be shown the visions of things to come. The second one is speaking of the two witnesses which are killed after having given their testimony and more importantly they are killed by the beast which negates this referring to a “pre-trib” rapture since the entire notion of the term “pre-tribulation” is that the “rapture” happens before the tribulation period even begins. At least this seems to be the way proponents of the “preb-trib” position believe. This means that the church, according to the pre-trib position never sees the beast because the beast does not come to power until the church is removed. Yet these two witnesses are here during the time of the beast. Neither of these passages even remotely suggest a pre-trib rapture and the only way to glean such meaning is to infer this meaning as being symbolically represented by John which is what some wish to do. However that brings us back to the notion that Scripture does not clearly state there will be a rapture before what many call "The Great Tribulation". The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to read meaning into certain passages and assume a timetable of events not clearly presented in Scripture. In short it is a weak argument.

FYI, I have read Revelation (many times), so it is not strictly necessary to restate for me the specific content of the passages in question. What is at issue is interpretation. You seem to object in principle to inferring meanings as "being symbolically present" in Revelation. I thought that was the whole point of interpreting prophetic literature. An overriding theme of the book of Daniel, upon which Revelation is based, is the problem of correct interpretation. If you recall in that book, people are being threatened with death for misinterpreting prophecies. In light of that, the grim warning of Revelation 22:18-19 hardly seems surprising. (And furthermore, that warning does concern interpretation but more about that later.)

I did not state the second reference to "come up here" was alluding to a pretrib rapture. Obviously, the verse occurs midway through the book. Obviously, I can see several trumpets, seals, etc. preceding it as could anyone. I can tell you that NO pretrib advocate has EVER suggested there are not Christians on earth during the tribulation. Some might assert that all true believers are gone in a first rapture, and subsequent to that some on earth turn to Christ. Others say that (based on parables like the wise and foolish virgins) that some true Christians are left behind. Everyone (including pretrib advocates) presumedly understands there is a gathering i.e. a second coming at the seventh trumpet as well (when the two witnesses are taken). Pretrib advocates also see a rapture event taking place right before the tribulation commences. The argument is, the two references to "Come up here!" in Revelation allude to two rapture events (pretrib and midtrib), as do the two references to "Come!" in Rev 22:17 (right before the warning about misinterpretation). Those that deny a pretrib rapture are denying the first one.

As far as the adding and the taking away it means what it says, no editing. No one should delete certain passages out of this book and no one should add passages to this book. It is to be left as it was penned by John. This does not have anything to do with translation or interpretation.

Actually, it didn't say "no editing" so it seems that you are inferring meanings in the text. Who is the warning directed to:

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things..."

A copyist would be reading and transcribing, not "hearing". It would be absurd if the curse were pronounced only on scribal errors, and people in this forum who incessantly and vociferously promote wrong interpretations got a free pass. So maybe you were "taking away" from the curse.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Justme]

Hi Forum,

The thot plickens..........

The adding of or the taking away................

This applies to the gospel as well.

Galatians 1:8
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

And Jesus says this:

John 15
15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Is there some mention of this car emptying rapture in the teaching of Jesus HImself? AND He has made everything known. Do you think Darby might be doing the backstroke in a sulfur lake!!!!?

Concerning this statment....

So both references to "Come up here" are talking about ascending into heaven from earth.

And Kingdom agrees here:

Yes both references are talking about ascending to heaven.

I ask again how much time is there left AFTER this eternity for this earthly 1000 years or whatever earthly?

2 Cor 5
1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

Note: I didn't quote the clothed -unclothed verse here, but verse 1 and I draw special attention to the phrase..."an eternal house in Heaven." =That building we get from God when the earthly tent is destroyed.

Justme

 

[CrossWord]

Hi Forum,

The thot plickens..........

The adding of or the taking away................

This applies to the gospel as well.

Galatians 1:8
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

WOW - didn't even think about that one. Suggests Rev 22:19 could be talking about losing salvation.

And Jesus says this:

John 15
15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Is there some mention of this car emptying rapture in the teaching of Jesus HImself? AND He has made everything known. Do you think Darby might be doing the backstroke in a sulfur lake!!!!?

If Jesus had not alluded to a pretrib rapture, then there's a problem. I think He does, however. (BTW I don't think the curse would apply to those who propose an idea for discussion, and are amenable in some way to persuasion. Rather, I personally am thinking of people whose life's ambition is to promote continuously a WRONG doctrine pertaining to Revelation.)

I think it can be shown in the Olivet discourse where Christ is talking about a pretrib rapture. However, my goal in this thread is not to argue the rapture. Rather it is to discuss the implications of the curse in Rev 22:18-19. As I stated intitially, it seems to be implying much more severity for those who take things out of Revelation than for those who add to the prophecy. Is the following the distinction that is being implied?

I can imagine some backwoods preacher who loves the Lord, maybe uneducated and influenced by some wacky theories, but believes the scripture and Revelations. He studies the book intensely and gets carried away in speculation and starts adding things it. Does this mean he's not saved?

OTOH, imagine some intellectual who starts writing things out of Revelation, maybe because he denies inspiration. As such he is utterly oblivious (in his arrogance) to much of the true meaning of the book. What is the prevailing attitude in academia (or at least was for decades) - deconstructionism. He changes the meaning of Revelation in an inherently different way from our backwoods preacher.

Is the curse in Revelation more severe in the latter case.

(JustMe, I didn't understand the last part of your post.)

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[CrossWord]

The pre-rapture is not backed with any scripture.

vinsight we're not arguing the rapture in this thread. The subject of the discussion is the curse of Rev 22:18-19. Please read the original post again carefully.

However, your response does illustrate the issue. There are numerous individuals in this forum who are STRONG and continual advocates against a pretrib rapture position. No matter what the subject of the thread it is an excuse for them to bring the matter up (for example as you have done in this thread).

Has it ever occured to you, "What if I am wrong"? That is what is at issue. If these vociferous advocates against a pretrib rapture are wrong, does it mean they're not even saved? That is what Rev 22:19 seems to imply, and that is what is being discussed.

Non pretrib rapture is clearly the majority opinion in this forum, primarily because its advocates are vocal, persistent and irrepressible. It is not true as you state that there is no scripture backing a pretrib rapture. However, I and others get tired of pointing them out. Furthermore, I don't really have a goal of browbeating everyone till they accept my position.

Here's a verse from Revelation (among many) that is said to indicate a pretrib rapture:

(Rev 3:10 NKJV) "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth."

You have stated "The pretrib rapture is not backed with any scripture." If you are wrong then you have taken away from Revelation. Does it mean you're not even saved?

 

[OhhJim]

Just because something isn't in Revelation, doesn't mean it isn't true. Revelation isn't supposed to be the be-all and end-all of prophecy. Its message is what it is. For example, it doesn't mention the Gog-Magog war that Ezekiel does.

 

[CrossWord]

Just because something isn't in Revelation, doesn't mean it isn't true.

No one is claiming the contrary. However, it does bring up a good point.

Revelation isn't supposed to be the be-all and end-all of prophecy. Its message is what it is. For example, it doesn't mention the Gog-Magog war that Ezekiel does.

I think this illustrates why the penalty is much more severe for taking things out of Revelation than adding things to it.

KingdomCome claimed previously that the curse only applied to literally amending the text. Although I disputed that, amending the text would certainly be included in the curse. Suppose someone was copying out Revelation and kept it in tact, but added on some valid info at the end about the Gog-Magog War. Clearly that would not be anywhere near as serious as if someone just removed part of the text because he didn't like it. Even if someone tacked on some erroneous info to Revelation, it wouldn't be as bad as removing information.

To extend that, if Revelation contains legitimate symbolic meanings that were put there intentionally by the Holy Spirit, and if in someone's interpretation he consistently and defiantly denies those meanings, then this too is taking away from the prophecy, and extremely serious.

 

[Justme]

Hi Crossword,

(JustMe, I didn't understand the last part of your post.)

Let' s leave it for now, it was off topic anyway. It seems hard enough to stay with what you origonally intended to discuss anyway.

I'll stick to adding to or taking from is changing the gospel and for that you are accursed. Both penalties in Rev 22 are a bit nasty and if you're done in with the plague, I think you're a non candidate for the tree of life too.

We must remember that this is symbolism and there is no plague and there is no actual tree of life, it all boils down to righteous or wicked, heaven ior hell.

Justme

 

[ross3421]

For example, it doesn't mention the Gog-Magog war that Ezekiel does.

Um...... Rev 20:8


Mark

 

[ross3421]

Here's a verse from Revelation (among many) that is said to indicate a pretrib rapture:

(Rev 3:10 NKJV) "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth."

Sorry but I cannot let a comment such as above go without rebuke.

Does "keep you from" equate to "removal from" ? Does scripture back up the removal of oneself before a trial ? No, quite the contrary....

I Cor 10: 11-13. ".....whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such is common to man: but god is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it".


For we see is blessed is the man which enduruth temptation. Notice very closely that what is given for this enduring temptation, A CROWN.

James 1:12. "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he his tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him".

Oh and I have seen that your rendering has inserted the word "trial" instead of the KJV which uses "temptation". I wonder why..... The temptation by the way is to receive the Mark of the beast.

Rev 3: 10-12. "Because thou hast keep the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh.....".

Who keeps the word of my patience ? The saints which are later seen martyred.

Why do we get a crown ? to endure temptation. So if the church at Philly is removed how can they then hold fast that thier crown?

What do they have to overcome if they are removed ?


II Thess 1:4,5. "So that we see ourselves glory you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of god, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God.....".




In Christ, Mark.

 

[CrossWord]

Hi Crossword,



Let' s leave it for now, it was off topic anyway. It seems hard enough to stay with what you origonally intended to discuss anyway.

I'll stick to adding to or taking from is changing the gospel and for that you are accursed. Both penalties in Rev 22 are a bit nasty and if you're done in with the plague, I think you're a non candidate for the tree of life too.

We must remember that this is symbolism and there is no plague and there is no actual tree of life, it all boils down to righteous or wicked, heaven ior hell.

Justme

Thanks. I've enjoyed your posts.
To be honest though, your last statement in a way typifies the sort of reductionist, dismissive assessment of Revelation to which the curse for "taking away" things might apply. I would personally never say there is "no actual tree of life", as I am certain it symbolizes something quite real. I would certainly never say there are no plagues. Those who don't take the book seriously (which may not include you) would just throw out all the symbols and say "it all boils down to righteous or wicked, heaven or hell."

Concerning the seriousness of the plagues in Rev 22:18, I guess the question is, are additional plagues equivalent to losing salvation. I would ask if additional plagues (the curse of Rev 22:18 for adding things) mean lost salvation, then what did the original plagues mean? Nevertheless, by laying out how the term "plague" is used throughout the book, I suppose someone could try to show that the plagues of 22:18 are equivalent to the curse of 22:19.

 

[CrossWord]

ross3421:

Once again, I'm not arguing the rapture in this thread.
However, everyone who knows the Bible knows that Christ said, "In this world you will have tribulation." That does not mean everyone will go through "the great tribulation". In the message to the seven chruches, Christ tells the Thyratiran Church they will be subjected to "great tribulation" if they do not repent. Are the Philadelphians also subject to "great tribulation"? The key to understanding the message to the Philadelphian Church is the reference to "door" by Christ in that message. "Door" is only mentioned in association with the last two churches and then in 4:1. Some people scoff at any significance to the term "door" and any relevance to a pretrib rapture. The question is are they right? If not, then they are disputing the truth, and the question is, what is the relevance to them of the curse in Rev 22:19?

 

[visionary]

Concerning the seriousness of the plagues in Rev 22:18, I guess the question is, are additional plagues equivalent to losing salvation. I would ask if additional plagues (the curse of Rev 22:18 for adding things) mean lost salvation, then what did the original plagues mean?

Then why does it say... and they repented not... if that wasn't an option?

 

[CrossWord]

Then why does it say... and they repented not... if that wasn't an option?

excellent point.

 

[Psalms34]

I think people misinterpret the meaning of add or take away. This is obviously add your own passages to what was written and/or to cross out others. So if I decided to erase Rev Chapter 2 and say it does not belong then I'm in for it. What you figure each passage to mean is between you and the Holy Spirit but don't start re-writing the text to make a new version and then call it God's work. Rev is in harmony with the rest of the bible so just because you don't see other things mentioned in rev does not mean it has been removed from the time line.

As for the OP, could you say who said this? Seems strange if not fabricated by someone along the line of communication (regarding the pre-tribber comment).

 

[CrossWord]

I think people misinterpret the meaning of add or take away. This is obviously add your own passages to what was written and/or to cross out others. So if I decided to erase Rev Chapter 2 and say it does not belong then I'm in for it.).

So, (if I read you correctly) you're saying the curse of Rev 22:19 only applies to people who would pronounce (in effect), "I don't like this passage from Revelations so I will ignore it as irrelevant and so should everyone else"

Why not those who promote blatant misinterpretations as well? Why does the curse not apply to them? Who have you EVER heard express open disdain or disregard for a passage from Revelation? How are passages in the book effectively marginalized or ignored 99.9% of the time - by MISINTERPRETATION.

As for the OP, could you say who said this?

I honestly don't know where I heard it first, but it came back to me. The last time I was spending time in one of these forums was a few years ago. I don't imagine the person who originated it claimed exclusive ownership. Do a search on the web.

Seems strange if not fabricated by someone along the line of communication (regarding the pre-tribber comment).

????????

 

[Psalms34]

So, (if I read you correctly) you're saying the curse of Rev 22:19 only applies to people who would pronounce (in effect), "I don't like this passage from Revelations so I will ignore it as irrelevant and so should everyone else"

Why not those who promote blatant misinterpretations as well? Why does the curse not apply to them? Who have you EVER heard express open disdain or disregard for a passage from Revelation? How are passages in the book effectively marginalized or ignored 99.9% of the time - by MISINTERPRETATION.

Because it does not say that. You want an example? Review a Watch tower bible track society bible. In that (many) "translation"... and I say that loosely, some words are added or removed to make a new meaning. Why do they do this? because if you read the bible you would plainly understand what it is saying and that conflicts with what they say scripture says so they change it to reflect their own views.

I honestly don't know where I heard it first, but it came back to me. The last time I was spending time in one of these forums was a few years ago. I don't imagine the person who originated it claimed exclusive ownership. Do a search on the web.
????????

Nope haven't done a search on the web about such a statement, was hoping you would site a source so I could review it. As I search for the topic statement I see nothing on such a matter. No one believes or teaches such a thing...

 

[CrossWord]

As I search for the topic statement I see nothing on such a matter. No one believes or teaches such a thing...

No one believes the argument I outlined in the opening post? How would you know? You make this pronouncement based on what? Why would you care who believes it? Are you incapable of analyzing and assessing an argument on its own merits? Whose name could I tack on to it that would give it credibility for you, without you having to actually read it and reflect on it?

I first encountered the argument in a forum like this one. Do you understand???

I am not throwing a bunch of obscure jargon at you - its a straightforward argument. Sorry I can't give you a name so you could go hunt up some canned replies.