Authors: Randy Alcorn
Heaven (55 page)
Of course, I recognize that
thrones
and
horses
can be used figuratively, particularly in apocalyptic literature. But if you look at the passages of Scripture I've cited
in this book, you'll find that most of them are
not
from apocalyptic literature. Many of them are from epistles and books of historical narrative where the authors normally
expect us to take their words literally.
Because we know that Christ's resurrected body is physical and that our resurrected bodies will be like his, there isn't
a compelling reason to assume that other physical depictions of the New Earth must be figurative. The doctrine of resurrection
should guide our interpretation of texts concerning the eternal state.
When faced with a decision about whether to interpret a passage of Scripture literally or figuratively, how do we know which
is right? One way is to interpret based on what the Bible says elsewhere about the same subject. Consider Revelation 2:7,
"I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." A figurative or allegorical interpreter
might say that the tree of life stands for eternal life, and its fruit symbolizes that God will spiritually nourish us in
Heaven. A literal interpreter would say it means there's an actual Paradise with a real tree bearing real fruit that will
actually be eaten by people with real bodies.
In Genesis 1-3, Scripture tells us about mankind's nature and about Paradise. Was Paradise an actual place? Yes. Was the
tree of life there actually a tree? Yes. Did it have fruit on it that people could eat? Yes. Did the people have actual bodies
with which they took bites of fruit, chewed, and swallowed? Yes. If this tree of life is our reference point when we read
Revelation 2:7,1 see no reason to believe that the tree of life depicted there isn't a literal, physical tree.
As Francis Schaeffer points out in
Genesis in Space and Time,
it's essential to a Christian understanding of history that we realize the early chapters of the Bible are not allegory or
metaphor. It's also important that the final chapters of the Bible, which correspond so closely to the first, aren't stripped
of their physical reality.
If after we die we'll never again be physical beings living in a physical place, then by all means we should not take Revelation
21-22—or any of the other passages about Heaven—literally. But because Scripture teaches us that we will be resurrected beings
serving God in a resurrected universe, we should take at face value what it says about the New Earth.
CAN SOMETHING BE SYMBOLIC AND LITERAL?
One of the frustrating aspects of christoplatonic interpretation is the tendency of interpreters to assume that because something
is symbolic it can't also be literal. Earlier I referred to thrones. A throne is rightly regarded as a symbol of power and
authority. When Jesus says that his disciples will sit on thrones and rule a kingdom on the earth (Luke 22:30), some regard
this as purely symbolic. But every earthly king sits on a throne. His throne is, of course, symbolic of his power and authority,
but it's also
an actual physical object.
Nevertheless, interpreters often understand the throne in the New Jerusalem as purely figurative (Revelation 21:3,5). They
read the word
city
and think "relationship,"
walls
and think "security,"
gates
and think "access to God." Personally, I believe in all these symbolic meanings, but I also believe there will be a real city
(the New Jerusalem) with real walls and real gates.
Suppose you travel to Switzerland. After returning, you tell others about what you saw. You describe the Alps, the jagged
peaks and slopes, the beautiful rivers and trees, the shops and the city streets. What would you think if someone said, "When
he speaks of the peaks, he's speaking of the lofty, transcendent nature of Switzerland, which he experienced in a disembodied
state, floating in the spiritual realm. By
streets,
he means that one may journey there into deeper spiritual truths. By
waters,
he means the place is pure and life-giving, a source of refreshment. By
trees,
he means the place is alive with a beauty which can't be put in human words."
How would you feel? Frustrated? How might God feel when he tells us about the New Earth and the New Jerusalem—a huge city
with a river going through it, and the tree of life bearing fruit, and people living there, coming and going through its gates—and
we take it as nothing but a collection of symbols, without substance? Both in Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 20-22, in order to
generate "spiritual" meanings, interpreters too often strip the text of its literal meanings.
IS THE NEW JERUSALEM A LITERAL, MASSIVE CITY?
In describing the New Jerusalem, the apostle John writes, "The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single
pearl. The great street of the city was of pure gold, like transparent glass" (Revelation 21:21). The pearls John describes
are gates set in walls that are two hundred feet thick.
Commentators routinely suggest, "Of course, these are not actual streets of gold." But why do they say that? In part, at least,
because of their christoplatonic assumptions. Disembodied spirits don't need streets to walk on. Incorporeal realms don't
have real cities with real streets, real gates, and real citizens. But isn't John's description of gates and streets further
evidence that Heaven is a physical realm designed for human citizens? Why wouldn't a resurrected world inhabited by resurrected
people have actual streets and gates?
Likewise, most books on Heaven argue that the city cannot really be the size it's depicted as being in Revelation 21:15-17:
"The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. . . . He measured
the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. He measured its wall
and it was 144 cubits thick, by man's measurement, which the angel was using."
Twelve thousand stadia equates to fourteen hundred miles in each direction. According to one writer on Heaven, "It would dishonor
the heavenly Architect to contend that its dimensions were meant to be taken literally"
363
He doesn't say
why
it would dishonor God, and I have no idea why it would. But, as usual, taking Scripture allegorically or figuratively is considered
the high ground, whereas literal interpretation is considered naive or crass.
If these dimensions are not literal, why does Scripture specifically give the dimensions and then say "by man's measurement,
which the angel was using" (Revelation 21:17)? The emphasis on "man's measurement" almost seems to be an appeal: "Please believe
it—the city is really this big!"
Suppose God wanted to convey that the city really is fourteen hundred miles wide and deep and high. What else would we expect
him to say besides what this passage says? Is it possible for God to make such a city? Obviously—he's the creator of the universe.
Is it possible for people in glorified bodies to dwell in such a city? Yes.
I have no problem believing that the numbers have symbolic value, with the multiples of twelve suggesting the perfection of
God's bride. However, most commentators act as if we must choose between literal dimensions and ones with symbolic significance.
But we don't. My wedding ring is a great symbol—but it's also a real object.
Some argue, "But this city rises above the earth's oxygen level." Can't God put oxygen fourteen hundred miles high on the
New Earth if he wishes? Or can't he make it so we don't have to breathe oxygen? Such things are no problem for God.
Some argue that nothing could be that big. It would cover two-thirds of the continental United States. If the great pyramids
of Egypt or the Great Wall of China amaze you, imagine a city that extends five miles into the sky—let alone fourteen hundred
miles! Envision the city disappearing into the clouds.
Some claim anything that big would weigh so much it would disrupt the earth's orbit. Of course, the New Earth could be much
bigger than the present one. In any case, issues of mass and gravity are child's play to the Creator.
That the dimensions are equal on all sides is reminiscent of the Holy of Holies in Israel's Temple (1 Kings 6:20). This likely
symbolizes God's presence, because the city is called his new dwelling place (Revelation 21:2-3). By suggesting there's symbolism,
am I contradicting my suggestion that the measurements are literal? Not at all. Many physical objects, including the Ark of
the Covenant and the high priest's breastplate and its stones, had symbolic significance.
Is it possible that the city's dimensions aren't literal? Of course. The doctrine of the New Earth certainly doesn't stand
or fall with the size of the New Jerusalem. However, my concern is this: If we assume the city's dimensions can't be real,
people will likely believe the city isn't real. If it doesn't have its stated dimensions, then it's a short step to believing
it doesn't have any dimensions at all. Then we think of the New Earth as not being a resurrected realm suited for resurrected
people.
Christoplatonism produces certain interpretive assumptions, which in turn reinforce the Christoplatonism that Scripture argues
against.
SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION
An interpretive approach that makes everything symbolic also makes everything subjective. It will never allow us to break
free of our assumptions and see what the Bible really says about Heaven, our bodily resurrection, and life on the New Earth.
If we assume that our heavenly bodies won't be real, and Heaven itself won't be a tangible, physical place, and we won't
really eat in Heaven, live in physical dwellings, or rule over actual cities or nations, then we'll automatically interpret
all Scripture references to these things as figures of speech—which is exactly what interpreters often do.
What happens in figurative interpretation? The river going through the New Jerusalem becomes God's grace, the tree becomes
Christ, the city walls become security. Or the river becomes Christ, the tree God's grace, and the city walls God's omnipotence.
Or river, tree, and walls all become Christ. Or the fruit from the tree of life becomes the fruit of the Spirit or the attributes
of God, and so on. But if the text can be said to mean
everything,
it ceases to mean
anything.
One cannot have serious interpretive discussions with those who interpret all references to the New Earth figuratively. Why?
Because as soon as you cite a passage depicting anything tangible, they will dismiss it by saying, "You can't take that literally."
Suppose someone believes that the tree of life symbolizes the cross of Christ, and its fruit is a blood-colored liquid. They
decide that the tree bearing fruit means Jesus hangs on the cross every day in Heaven, his blood drips from the fruit and
flows into the river, and we go to the river to drink daily of his freshly shed blood.
I don't believe this heresy—I just made it up to illustrate the point that once we allow symbolism and allegory and figurative
interpretation to reign, "making it up" becomes routine. Anyone can believe and defend anything they want. Interpreters can
twist any passage into heresy, as Origen and those of his interpretive school often did. Cults are built on this approach
to biblical interpretation as people are taught "hidden meanings." "Experts" teach people hidden meanings, which conveniently
correspond to whatever the expert believes or wants others to believe. Even within the church, people may be intimidated into
believing that they're not smart enough to understand a text's "real meaning."
Interpreters end up doing exactly what Revelation warns us not to do—taking away from and adding to the words of the prophecy
(Revelation 22:18-19). We take away from Scripture by denying its apparent meaning. We add to it by supplying new meanings
not supported by the text. When I mentioned the tree of life in Revelation
22,
someone told me, "But the tree of life is Jesus, not an actual tree." Was the tree of life in the Garden of Eden also Jesus,
and not an actual tree? When Adam and Eve ate its fruit, were they picking Jesus or eating him? If it was a real tree on the
original Earth, why wouldn't it be a real tree on the New Earth? If the rivers that ran through Eden were actual rivers, why
wouldn't the river flowing through the city in Revelation
22
also be an actual river?
That we'll forever enjoy a resurrected life on a New Earth isn't true because we want it to be. It's true because God says
it is. Paying attention to context and taking other Scriptures into account, we need to draw God's truth from the text, not
superimpose our preconceived ideas onto it.
INTRODUCTION
THE SUBJECT O F HEAVEN
1 J. Sidlow Baxter,
The Other Side of Death: What the Bible Teaches about Heaven and Hell
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1987), 237.
2 Harvey Minkoff,
The Book of Heaven
(Owings Mills, Md.: Ottenheimer, 2001), 87.
3 Edward Donnelly,
Biblical Teaching on the Doctrines of Heaven and Hell
(Edinburgh: Banner ofTruth,2001),64.
4 Don Richardson,
Eternity in Their Hearts,
rev. ed. (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1984).
5 Spiros Zodhiates,
Life after Death
(Chattanooga: AMG, 1977), 100-101.
6 Ulrich Simon,
Heaven in the Christian Tradition
(London: Wyman and Sons, 1958), 218.
7 Aristides,
Apology,
15.
8 Cyprian,
Mortality,
chap. 26.
9 Basilea Schlink,
What Comes after Death?
(Carol Stream, 111.: Creation House, 1976), 20.
10 C J. Mahaney, "Loving the Church" (taped message, Covenant Life Church, Gaithersburg, Md., n.d.); read the story of Florence
Chadwick at
http://www.vanguard.edu/vision2010
.
CHAPTER 1
ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO HEAVEN?
11 Ola Elizabeth
Wmslow, Jonathan Edwards: Basic Writings
(New York: New American Library, 1966), 142.
12 Jonathan Edwards, "The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards (1722—23)," JonathanEdwards.com,
http://
wwwJonathanedwards.com/text/Personal/resolut.htrn
;
see also Stephen Nichols,
ed.,Jonathan Edwards' Resolutions and Advice to Young Converts
(Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001).
13 Blaise Pascal,
Pensees,
trans. W. F. Trotter, Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
http://www.ccel.Org/p/pascal/pensees/cache/pensees.pdf
, section
VII, article 425.
14 Barry Morrow,
Heaven Observed
(Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 89.
15 John Eldredge,
The Journey of Desire: Searchingfor the Life We've Only Dreamed
0/"(Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 111.
16 Mark Twain,
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
(New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1996), 6.
17 Mark Twain, quoted in Charles Ferguson Ball,
Heaven
(Wheaton, 111.: Victor, 1980), 19.
18 Charles H. Spurgeon,
Morning and Evening,
April 25, morning reading.
19 J. C Ryle,
Heaven
(Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 19.
20 Reinhold Niebuhr,
The Nature and Destiny of Man,
vol. 2 (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1942).
21 W. G. T Shedd,
Dogmatic Theology,
3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.).
22 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
Great Doctrines of the Bible,
vol. 3,
The Church and the Last Things
(Wheaton, 111.: Crossway, 2003), 246-48.
23 A. J. Conyers,
The Eclipse of Heaven
(Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1992), 21.
24 Ibid., 58.
25 K. Connie Kang, "Next Stop, the Pearly Gates . . . or Hell?"
Los Angeles Times,
October 24, 2003.
26 Ibid.
27 John Baillie,
And the Life Everlasting
(London: Oxford University Press, 1936), 15.
28 C S. Lewis,
The Silver Chair
(New York: Collier Books, 1970), 151-61.
CHAPTER 2
IS HEAVEN BEYOND OUR IMAGINATION?
29 Alister E. McGrath,^
Brief History of Heaven
(Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2003), 5.
30 Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans, and ed.,
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964—76), 2:288.
31 C. S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity
(New York Collier Books, 1960), 118.
32 C. S. Lewis, "Bfuspels and Flalanspheres: A Semantic Nightmare," quoted in Walter Hooper, ed.,
Selected Literary Essays
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
33 Francis
Schaeffer,Art and the Bible
(Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1973), 61.
CHAPTER 3
IS HEAVEN OUR DEFAULT DESTINATION . . . OR IS HELL?
34 K. Connie Kang, "Next Stop, the Pearly Gates . . . or Hell?"
Los Angeles Times,
October 24, 2003.
35 Dante Alighieri,
Inferno,
canto 3, line 9.
36 Clark Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,"
Criswell Theological Review 4
(1990): 246-47,253.
37 W. G. T. Shedd,
The Doctrine of Endless Punishment
(1885; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1986), 153.
38 C. S. Lewis,
Letters to Malcolm: Chiefy on Prayer
(New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1963), 76.
39 Dorothy Sayers,
A Matter of Eternity,
ed. Rosamond Kent Sprague (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 86.
40 C. S. Lewis,
The Problem of Pain
(New York Macmillan, 1962), 118.
41 E. Allison Peers, trans, and ed.,
The Complete Works of St. Teresa
(London: Sheed and Ward, n.d.).
CHAPTER 4
CAN YOU KNOW YOU'RE G O I N G T O HEAVEN?
42 Ruthanna C. Metzgar, from her story "It's Not in the Book!" copyright © 1998 by Ruthanna C.
Metzgar. Used by permission. For the full story in Ruthanna's own words, see Eternal Perspective Ministries,
http://www.epm.org/articles/metzgar.html
.
43 Ron Rhodes,
The Undiscovered Country: Exploring the Wonder of Heaven and the Afterlife
(Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1960), 39-40.
44 C. S. Lewis,
The Problem of Pain
(New York: Macmillan, 1962), 147.
CHAPTER 5
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE PRESENT HEAVEN?
45 Wayne Grudem,
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1158.
46 Anthony A. Hoekema, "Heaven: Not Just an Eternal Day Off,"
Christianity Today
(June 6, 2003),
http://www.christianitytoday.eom/ct/2003/122/54.0.html
.
47 Salem Kirban,
What Is Heaven Like?
(Huntingdon Valley, Pa.: Second Coming, 1991), 13.
48 "Sight Unseen,"
World
(November 8, 2003): 13; see the article "One Unseen Divinity?
Ridiculous! Billions of Unseen Universes? Sure, Why Not?" discussed at "Easterblogg,"
The New Republic Online,
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrookmhtml?week=2003-10-21
.
49 Grudem,
Systematic Theology,
1159.
CHAPTER 6
IS THE PRESENT HEAVEN A PHYSICAL PLACE?
50 John Milton,
Paradise Lost,
b k 5, lines 574—76.
51 C. S. Lewis,
Letters to Malcolm: Chiefy on Prayer
(New York Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1963), 84.
52 Randy Alcorn,
Safely Home
(Wheaton, 111.: Tyndale House, 2001), 376-77.
53 Peter Toon,
Heaven and Hell: A Biblical and Theological Overview
(Nashville: Nelson, 1986), 26.
54 Alister E. McGrath,^
Brief History of Heaven
(Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2003), 40.
55 Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans, and ed.,
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964—76), 5:767.
56 Ibid., 9:654-55.
CHAPTER 8
THIS WORLD IS NOT OUR HOME
. . .
OR IS IT?
57 Douglas Connelly,
The Promise of Heaven: Discovering Our Eternal Home
(Downers Grove, 111.:
InterVarsity, 2000), 120.
58 Ibid., 121.
59 Paul Marshall with Lela Gilbert,
Heaven Is Not My Home: Learning to Live in God's Creation
(Nashville: Word, 1998), 11.
60 Gary Moon,
Homesick for Eden
(Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Publications, 1997).
61 John Eldredge,
The fourney of Desire: Searchingfor the Life We've Only Dreamed Of
{Nashville: Nelson, 2000), x.
62 Ibid., 104-5.
63 Millard Erickson,
Christian Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1232.
64 Donald Guthrie,
New Testament Theology
(Downers Grove, 111: InterVarsity, 1981), 880.
65 Walton J. Brown,
Home at Last
(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1983), 145.
66 Marshall with Gilbert,
Heaven Is Not My Home,
247, 249.
CHAPTER 9
WHY IS EARTH'S REDEMPTION ESSENTIAL TO GOD'S PLAN?
67 C. S. Lewis,
Christian Refections,
ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 33.
68 Albert M. Wolters,
Creation Regained: Biblical Basicsfor a Reformational Worldview
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 58.
69 Philip P. Bliss, "Hallelujah, What a Savior!"
International Lessons Monthly,
1875.
70 Wolters,
Creation Regained,
62.
71 Ibid., 58-59.
72 Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans, and ed.,
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964—76), 1:686.
73 J. R. R. Tolkien,
The Hobbit
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 300-301.
74 David Chilton,
Paradise Restored
(Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), 23, 25.
75 The Westminster Shorter Catechism may be viewed online: "Westminster Shorter Catechism with Proof Texts," Center for Reformed
Theology and Apologetics,
http://www.reformed.org/
documents/WSC_frames.html?wsc_text=WSC.html
76 In my summary of Isaiah 60,1 am indebted to Richard Mouw's
When the Kings Come Marching In
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
77 Mouw,
When the Kings Come,
5—21.
78 Ibid., 12-15.
79 A. A. Hodge,
Evangelical Theology: A Course of Popular Lectures
(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 399-402.
CHAPTER 10
WHAT WILL LT MEAN FOR THE CURSE TO BE LIFTED?
80 Anthony A. Hoekema,
The Bible and the Future
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 277.
81 Maltbie D. Babcock, "This Is My Father's World," 1901.
82 Albert M. Wolters,
Creation Regained: Biblical Basicsfor a Reformational Worldview
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 64, 71.
CHAPTER 11
WHY IS RESURRECTION SO IMPORTANT?
83 Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright,
The Meaning offesus: Two Visions
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 129-31.
84
Time
(March 24, 1997): 75, quoted in Paul Marshall with Lela Gilbert,
Heaven Is Not My Home: Learning to Live in God's Creation
(Nashville: Word, 1998), 234.
85 R. A. Torrey,
Heaven or Hell
(New Kensington, Pa.: Whitaker House, 1985), 68-69.
86 Anthony A. Hoekema, "Heaven: Not Just an Eternal Day Off,"
Christianity Today
(June 6, 2003),
http://www.christianitytoday.eom/ct/2003/122/54.0.html
.
87 Herman Bavinck,
The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next,
ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 157.
88 Ibid., 158.
89 Anthony A. Hoekema,
The Bible and the Future
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 251.
90 Hank Hanegraaff,
Resurrection
(Nashville: Word, 2000), 68-69.
91 Peter Toon,
Longing for Heaven: A Devotional Look at the Life after Death
(New York: Macmillan, 1986), 141.
92 The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XXXI, "Of Synods and Councils," Presbyterian Church in America,
http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxxi-xxxiii.htm
.
93 Joni Eareckson Tada,
Heaven: Your Real Home
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 39.
CHAPTER 12
WHY DOES ALL CREATION AWAIT O U R RESURRECTION?
94 Albert M. Wolters,
Creation Regained: Biblical Basicsfor a Reformational Worldview
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 11.
95 Cornelius P. Venema,
The Promise of the Future
(Trowbridge, UK: Banner of Truth, 2000), 461.
96 Wolters,
Creation Regained,
59.
97 Frank S. Mead, ed.,
Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations
(London: Peter Davies, 1965), 379.
98 John Calvin,
Commentary on Romans,
Romans 8:19-22, Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom3
8. all. html#xii.
99 This explanation of a uniformitarian view was adapted from
Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary,
11th ed., s.v. "uniformitarianism."
100 Erich Sauer,
The King of the Earth
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 97.
101 I am indebted here to some thoughts expressed in an e-mail to ChiLibris (an online association of Christian novelists),
posted by Dave Jackson, March 5, 2004. Used by permission.
102 John Piper,
Future Grace
(Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1995), 377-78.
CHAPTER 13
HOW FAR-REACHING IS THE RESURRECTION?
103 J. B. Phillips,
Letters to Young Churches: A Translation of the New Testament Epistles
(London: G. Bles, 1947), 66.
104 Bruce Milne,
The Message of Heaven and Hell
(Downers Grove, 111: InterVarsity, 2002), 257.
105 Randy Alcorn,
The Law of Rewards
(Wheaton, 111.: Tyndale, 2003).
106 Randy Alcorn,
Safely Home
(Wheaton, 111.: Tyndale, 2001), 394-95.
CHAPTER 14
WHERE A N D W H E N WILL O U R DELIVERANCE COME?
107 Wayne Grudem,
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1111-14.
CHAPTER 15
WILL THE OLD EARTH BE DESTROYED . . . OR RENEWED?
108 Albert M. Wolters,
Creation Regained: Biblical Basicsfor a Reformational Worldview
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 41.
109 Wayne Grudem,
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1160-61.
110 Anthony A. Hoekema,
The Bible and the Future
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 280.
