The AGC has always stood for Biblical truth, even when it isn't always popular. In this month's "SHOFAR," we address from a Biblical perspective the truth "once delivered to the saints." Keep in mind that we do not disparage the brave women who have served this nation faithfully, but we do maintain there is a Biblical mandate of truth which the Lord has given to us as believers. To ignore God ways and truth is to invite all sorts of problems and chaos in the future which can be fatal to us as a nation and people.
Having said this, we invite you to read the latest resolution that was passed at the last AGC conference in regard to this new military policy. In addition we present a paper written by an AGC Chaplain on the same topic. Lastly, we post the last half of Chaplain Harrison's paper on the three views of the Tribulation. Even though we do not take an official position on the differing views of the Tribulation, we do discuss matters of faith and practice here at the AGC and invite all believers who name the name of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to enjoy the following articles for discussion and edification.
AGC RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, God created man and woman as distinct human creations, defined by unique and different emotional, biological and physical characteristics, Gen. 1:27; and
WHEREAS, the sacred Scriptures show God deals with men and women differently in accord with those differences and legislates that men and women be treated in accord with their created natures, respecting their divinely ordained differences, Gen. 2: 20-25; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-4; and
WHEREAS, God, through the sacred Scriptures, in addressing the necessity for conscription and provision of warriors for legitimate national defense and national objectives has specifically identified man as the warrior, the instrument for waging the close personal, physical combat necessary for ultimately determining the outcome of armed conflict that is integral in any effective defense, Num. 1: 1-46; Rom. 13:1-8; and
WHEREAS, the scriptural exemptions for mandatory military service in times of armed conflict are limited to men, Deut. 20:5-9; and
WHEREAS, Scripture shows God has established different rules for the treatment of men and women captured in war, Deut. 20:14; and
WHEREAS, the results of DOD’s “Women in Combat” Policy is to make men and women fungible and thereby appropriate for itself the authority to redefine God’s created nature contrary to His ordinances and laws, an act by which DOD is assuming for itself an authority which is God’s alone;
WHEREAS, the Bible proclaims that all who believe in Christ have equal access through Christ to God regardless of race, gender, or social status, Gal. 3:26-28, God has not eliminated the unique differences and roles which He established when He created them “male and female”, Gen. 1:27, or the responsibilities which flow from those unique and different natures, Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-4.
WHEREAS, Scripture and history are clear that taking action which alters the Divine order of nature, challenges God’s sovereignty, or challenges his authority or wisdom is an abomination, directly disparaging God and thereby rejecting His authority, wisdom and sovereignty expressed in nature and His Word, Deut. 22:5; and
Therefore, be it resolved that the Associated Gospel Churches expresses its grave concern over the DOD’s adoption of its Women in Combat policy, which is a radical departure from our Nation’s cultural heritage, respect for the biblical foundations upon which its institutions rest and a repudiation of the Creator endowed inalienable rights that are inherent in the different natures and roles of men and women, and which portends great damage to our nation;
Be it further resolved the Associated Gospel Churches petition the President and the Department of Defense to rescind its Women in Combat policy initiative immediately, and
Be it further resolved the Associated Gospel Churches petition Congress to order DOD to take no further action implementing said Women in Combat policy, to withhold all funds that would assist in furthering or implementing such policy, and to hold hearings on the radical change in personnel policy and practice in order to examine the consequences and costs of implementing said policy in accordance with Congress’s primary responsibility to raise and equip the armed forces.
Be it further resolved the Associated Gospel Churches calls upon all who believe the Creator has established laws for his creation and judges those who dishonor and disobey His laws or abrogate for themselves the right to change them, to (1) pray that the Lord of Hosts would show our leaders the folly of the Women in Combat policy and frustrate their schemes; and (2) petition their members of Congress to oppose and rescind the Administration’s attempt to place women in direct, cLose combat
WHEREAS, the Bible proclaims that all who believe in Christ have equal access through Christ to God regardless of race, gender, or social status, Gal. 3:26-28, God has not eliminated the unique differences and roles which He established when He created them “male and female”, Gen. 1:27, or the responsibilities which flow from those unique and different natures, Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-4.
WHEREAS, Scripture and history are clear that taking action which alters the Divine order of nature, challenges God’s sovereignty, or challenges his authority or wisdom is an abomination, directly disparaging God and thereby rejecting His authority, wisdom and sovereignty expressed in nature and His Word, Deut. 22:5; and
Therefore, be it resolved that the Associated Gospel Churches expresses its grave concern over the DOD’s adoption of its Women in Combat policy, which is a radical departure from our Nation’s cultural heritage, respect for the biblical foundations upon which its institutions rest and a repudiation of the Creator endowed inalienable rights that are inherent in the different natures and roles of men and women, and which portends great damage to our nation;
Be it further resolved the Associated Gospel Churches petition the President and the Department of Defense to rescind its Women in Combat policy initiative immediately, and
Be it further resolved the Associated Gospel Churches petition Congress to order DOD to take no further action implementing said Women in Combat policy, to withhold all funds that would assist in furthering or implementing such policy, and to hold hearings on the radical change in personnel policy and practice in order to examine the consequences and costs of implementing said policy in accordance with Congress’s primary responsibility to raise and equip the armed forces.
Be it further resolved the Associated Gospel Churches calls upon all who believe the Creator has established laws for his creation and judges those who dishonor and disobey His laws or abrogate for themselves the right to change them, to (1) pray that the Lord of Hosts would show our leaders the folly of the Women in Combat policy and frustrate their schemes; and (2) petition their members of Congress to oppose and rescind the Administration’s attempt to place women in direct, cLose combat
WOMEN WARRIORS
any semblance of common sense in this great country of America. We daily
observe intense
efforts and maneuvers that boggle the mind of thinking men and women from
every segment
of society. One of the later moves is the announcement this past week by
the outgoing
Secretary of Defense that the ban on women serving in combat is now
lifted and no area of
service will be banned any longer.
This announcement has generated responses that range from one extreme to another.
This announcement has generated responses that range from one extreme to another.
The “liberated” women of the world are bouncing with new excitement that
they now will see
the removal of what they have seen for years as the final barrier in the
ongoing battle for
equality in the military. They obviously feel that now military members
will no longer be
screened or recommended for certain positions based on gender. Now women
feel they will
not be viewed as unfit for certain duty positions that have for years
been reserved to their male
counterparts. They, obviously, are jubilant about this recent
announcement.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who think that women,
though they
have served for many years in every part of the world, in every conflict
in recent years, should
not serve in the military in any capacity. Granted, those who think thus
are in the extreme
minority today. They yet still exist. They are extremely dogmatic in
their “conviction” and are
unwilling to even consider that they may be extreme and, quite candidly,
wrong in their
thinking.
Where, we may ask, is the more sensible conclusion regarding this controversial
Where, we may ask, is the more sensible conclusion regarding this controversial
decision? As a veteran of nearly thirty-eight years of military service,
please allow me to make
a few simple observations. I recognize that these views will be regarded
as “old-fashioned”,
“out dated”, or any of a number of other prejudices. I feel, however,
that many who have
served in the past, as well as many who presently serve, both male and
female, will concur with
my “narrow-minded” views.
Let me say first and foremost that I served with many females over the years, in a
Let me say first and foremost that I served with many females over the years, in a
variety of positions that I honestly can say were as capable as any male.
Some were more
capable than many of the men that I served with. Having said this
however, I feel, at the risk of
being accused of going off “the deep end”, there are certain positions in
which women should
not be participating. It has nothing to do with discrimination merely
because they are female.
It is simply that their involvement would do much to distract and
therefore hinder mission
accomplishment. Having served as a combat aircrew member, I can affirm
that this is not just
some old-fashioned male opinion. I knew of no member that I served with
that was in favor of
allowing women to participate.
Arguments abound today regarding the fact that women are just as strong, just as
Arguments abound today regarding the fact that women are just as strong, just as
mentally qualified, just as willing, (and the list could continue) as
their male counterparts. This
may be true in a very few cases, but it surely is not the norm. Women,
generally speaking, are
designed by God to be the physically weaker of the sexes. This has
nothing to do with
inferiority or superiority, it is simply factually correct.
“All in all, it is true that women are generally not as strong as men. It is also true, however, that
“All in all, it is true that women are generally not as strong as men. It is also true, however, that
much of this lies simply in how the bodies of men and women are built for
different purposes.
Because of differing size and function, the same muscles groups and
potential for strength-gain
work on different scales.”
National Strength and Conditioning Association; "Essentials of Strength Training and
National Strength and Conditioning Association; "Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning, 3rd edition"; Baechle, et al; 2008
not from a “religiously biased” perspective. Because of these
differences, men generally
perform better than women in certain tasks where physical strength and
endurance are of
prime importance.
The Bible also addresses the matter of difference in strength. Peter states, in I Peter 3:7:
“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife,
The Bible also addresses the matter of difference in strength. Peter states, in I Peter 3:7:
“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife,
as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of
life; that your prayers be
not hindered.”
Yes, there are differences between male and female when it comes to strength.
Yes, there are differences between male and female when it comes to strength.
Differences exist both physically and emotionally.
In addition to the physical strength issue, there are many other components to the
In addition to the physical strength issue, there are many other components to the
argument at hand. I stated above that female presence in certain combat
situations would
present a distraction that could be extremely critical and could cause
further injury, or in some
cases, additional loss of life. Men are, by nature, chivalrous. Many
females resent this aspect
of a man’s makeup toda. And, many men, because they are growing more
astute to the feelings
of modern womanhood, are not as perceptive in certain situations as they
once were. In
combat situations, however, men (generally speaking of course) would
perhaps feel a deeper
sense of duty to look out for the weaker soldier who, because of physical
weakness, or other
reasons (one main one to be addressed later) could not perform her
duties. I know this will not
resonate with many, but I feel it is a realistic conclusion that has been
proven in other
situations. Please allow me to cite a personal example from my own
experiences in the
military.
Back in the mid 1980’s, I, along with a group of other military members, was deployed
Back in the mid 1980’s, I, along with a group of other military members, was deployed
to the Middle East for a short TDY. This was not, in any fashion, a combat
deployment.
Included in the number of airmen was one single female. Upon arrival in
the country of Jordan,
we immediately disembarked the huge military transport and began
unloading equipment. Our
first task was to set up camp. As we were well into the operation it was
noted that the above-
finish the immediate task. She was questioned by the NCOIC (Non
Commissioned Officer in
Charge) why she decided to not be involved. Her comment was, “I am afraid
I will break a
fingernail.” I realize that this surely would not apply to many females
who today are exerting
great efforts to infiltrate one of the last remaining “male only”
assignments in the military, but I
am afraid that certain other mindsets may exist that would not be
initially assessed but would
come out at a later date. I mentioned in a preceding sentence that there is another huge factor in the ongoing
argument regarding women in combat that should be addressed. This is the
matter of the basic
internal difference in makeup of male vs. female. I am referring to the
fact that women,
generally speaking again, are emotional beings whereas men, generally
speaking, are not. I am
certain that many who may read this will take exception to this statement
but the simple fact of
the matter is that this can be observed in all areas of life. Some would
ask, “What is the
problem with this?” Those who have served in combat would probably reply
that in the heat of
battle, an emotional response, rather than a rational, decided,
calculated, response is not, in
most cases, the desired reaction.
Another issue that has to be addressed is the matter of hygiene and latrine realities.
Another issue that has to be addressed is the matter of hygiene and latrine realities.
This is clearly a non-issue in the minds of many more liberated folks
today. It is, however, an
issue that could present major problems in zones where there are not
adequate facilities.
The list of problems, whether realistic or perceived, could undoubtedly
go on and on
and on. Many of the “talking heads” in the media today are throwing their
two cents in on this
debate that is growing, moment by moment, in intensity. Some of the few
ideas that I have
mentioned have been argued, both pro and con, by many much more qualified
to speak than I.
Many well known senior military officials, most of whom are now retired
from military service,
are in complete agreement with me on this issue.
As I previously stated, I have no issue whatsoever regarding women serving in the
As I previously stated, I have no issue whatsoever regarding women serving in the
military. There was a time in the history of this great country where
women were completely
forbidden from any form of military service. This barrier was broken long
ago. The history of
female military members is continuing to be written. There are multitudes
of exemplary
women and their great accomplishments are admired by all. Also,
previously stated, I have had
the honor of working alongside some female military members with whom I
was very proud of
their service. This, however, does not, in my humble opinion, necessarily
grant acceptance into
the area of combat service on the front lines. Yes, females in today’s
military often find
themselves in declared combat areas where they serve in support roles
which often results in
injury, capture, and in some cases loss of life. They, as do their male
counterparts, understand
the risks involved when they are deployed. This again does not justify
deliberately placing
females in harm’s way. To do so will, in my opinion, weaken rather than
strengthen the fighting
force of our military in today’s world - a world that is daily growing
more and more anti-women
as we consider the jihadists that are waging war all over the world.
The
Post Tribulation Rapture Theory
By Chaplain Harrison
It was
stated earlier that among premillennialists that Christ is coming again. So far
the idea of pretribulationism has been discussed, but on the other end of the
rapture spectrum is the Posttribulation Rapture view. Proponents of this theory
believe that the Rapture and the Second Coming are different parts of the same
event. Ryrie shows the distinctions between the two positions by contrasting
them[1]:
PRETRIBULATIONISM
1.
Rapture occurs before the Tribulation.
2.
Church experiences Revelation 3:10 before the
Tribulation.
3.
Day of the Lord begins with the Tribulation.
4.
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 occurs at beginning of
Tribulation.
5.
144,000 redeemed at start of Tribulation.
6.
Rapture and Second Coming separated by seven
years.
7.
Living Israelites judged at Second Coming.
8.
Living Gentiles judged at Second Coming.
9.
Parents of millennial population come from
survivors of judgments on living Jews and Gentiles.
10. Believers of
Church Age are judged in heaven between Rapture and Second Coming.
|
POSTTRIBULATIONISM
1.
Rapture occurs after the Tribulation.
2.
Church experiences Revelation 3:10 at end of
Tribulation.
3.
Day of the Lord begins at close of Tribulation.
4.
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 occurs near end of
Tribulation.
5.
144,000 redeemed at conclusion of Tribulation.
6.
Rapture and Second coming are a single event.
7.
No such judgment.
8.
Living Gentiles judged after Millennium.
9.
Parents of millennial population come from 144,000
Jews.
10. Believers of
Church Age judged after Second Coming or at conclusion of Millennium.
|
Ladd
uses different terms in arguing for the posttribulation theory. The first one
is Parousia. This word has in it the
idea of “presence” or “coming”. According to posttribulationism, several things
happen at the coming of Christ. “Furthermore, the parousia of Christ will occur not only to rapture the Church and to
raise the righteous dead, but also to destroy the Man of Lawlessness, the
Antichrist”[2].
According to the posttribulation view, the word parousia, means “arrival’ more often than it means “presence”[3]. This
word is used in reference to the Rapture and the Second Coming. Words in the
Greek New Testament can often be translated different ways and the word usage
is sometimes left to the discretion of the translator. A good translator will
choose words based on the context of the passage. “Likewise, since the Lord’s
presence (parousia) will characterize
both the Rapture and the Second Coming, the word itself does not indicate
whether these are a single event or separate events. In other words, the
vocabulary used does not necessarily prove either pre-or posttribulationism”[4]
Another
word often used to justify this position is apokalypsis,
which means unveiling. Again, this word is used in passages that refer to the
Rapture and the Second Coming. This word is found in 1 Corinthians 1:7 and 1
Peter 1:7. The idea here is that Christ will be revealed to the Church. This
word is also found in 2 Thessalonians 1:7 and others because when Jesus comes
again at the close of the Tribulation, He will be “revealed” or “unveiled” to
the world[5].
Again, the argument cannot be won based on vocabulary because it is open to
interpretation, and proof verses based on usage can be claimed on either side.
The final word used in connection with the return of Christ is epiphaneia. This word means
manifestation. Ladd comments on this word. “This epiphany of Christ is,
however, like His apocalypse the object of the believer’s hope, as it could not
be if the Church had received the object of its hope at an earlier time at the
Rapture”[6].
The use of this word as well is open to interpretation. To the believer in the
Church Age, this manifestation of Jesus is the object of our hope as is found
in 1 Timothy 6:14, but to the believer during the Tribulation, it means his or
her hope as well such as in 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
Another
posttribulation argument is that the Church is on earth during the Tribulation.
The argument is based on the idea that the Church is never said to be in Heaven
in Revelation 4-18, the use of the word “saints” in these chapters, and
descriptions of Christians in those chapters which correspond to believers
during the Age of Grace[7]. In
answer to this argument, just because the text does not say the Church is in
heaven, does not prove they were on earth. In fact, the absence of the word “church”
in these chapters demonstrates stronger support to them being in heaven.
Furthermore, it fits better with the belief that God’s focus is again on
Israel. The word “saints” is used of believers in every dispensation. In the
Bible, there are Old Testament saints, Church Age saints, Tribulation saints,
and so on. This word means “set apart” and God has saints throughout history.
Naturally there are similarities between Christians in the Church Age and
during the Tribulation because they are saved the same way- by placing saving
faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. There is no instance where a Tribulation
believer is ever referred to as being part of the Bride or the Body of Christ.
There must be distinction.
Some
closing comments about posttribulationism include interpretation of Revelation
and timing of events. Pentecost points out that concerning Revelation, this
view must either spiritualize the entire book or at least in holding to a
literal interpretation, they spiritualize the literalness of events in the book[8].
There is no legitimate place where this view can place the Judgment Seat of
Christ or the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. It has been shown that there are
some real problems with this view that cause it to lack scriptural consistency.
The
Midtribulation Rapture Theory
The final member of the
three main Rapture theories is the Midtribulation Rapture theory. According to this view, the Church will be
raptured about halfway through the tribulation period. It is basically a cross
between the pre and posttribulation theories, although sometimes it is
considered a branch off from the pretribulational view. Pentecost writes: “The
Church will endure the events of the first half of the Tribulation, which,
according to the mid-tribulation rapturist, are not manifestations of divine
wrath, but will be translated before the last half of the week begins which
according to this theory, contains all the outpouring of the wrath of God”[9].
This theory believes that the Church will endure tribulation but not wrath. The
deduction then is that like the pretribulation view, the Church will be
raptured before the Second Coming of Christ, and so there is a distinction
between the two events. Like the posttribulation view, the Rapture is not
imminent and the Church is seen between Revelation 4 and 18. The common verses
used in this argument come mostly from Daniel and they are: Daniel 7:25; 9:27;
12:7, 11. This theory also uses parts of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation
11:2; 12:6, 14[10].
Buswell, in commenting on the Olivet Discourse says:
In the Olivet
discourse, Jesus said that ‘immediately after the tribulation of those days’
(Matthew 24:29; Mark 13: 24, 25) the cosmic disturbances, which I have sought
to identify with the outpouring of the vials of God’s wrath (Revelation,
chapter 16) will occur. But Christ added ‘And at that time (I understand this
to mean, at the time of the conclusion of the terrible tribulation which He had
described), there will appear the sign of the son of Man in heaven, and at that
time all the tribes of the land will mourn because of Him and they will see the
Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory…’[11].
In this portion, Buswell correlates the Rapture, the
view of Christ, and the raising of the two witnesses as the same event. The two
witnesses will be discussed later. Upon careful examination of the Olivet
Discourse, this is not simply a sign of Christ in heaven, but the actual return
of Christ to the earth. Previously, Jesus discussed the Great Tribulation, and
in light of the context, He says in verse 29, “After the tribulation of those
days…” referring to the Great Tribulation.
The problem is that
midtribulationists assert that the first half of the tribulation is just that-
tribulation or testing for the Church, to be distinguished from the wrath of
God which is the last half of the seventieth week of Daniel. Scripture
disagrees because John says in Revelation 6:16-17: “…hide us from the face of
Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of
His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” This statement is made right
after the sixth seal and before the trumpet or vial judgments. If the wrath of
the Lamb has already come, how is this just testing for the Church? The wrath
of God for the Christian was settled at Calvary! The midtrubulation proponent
would argue that the seal judgments are not judgments at all but the outworking
of the program of man and the trumpets the outworking of Satan, making the
vials the outworking of God[12].
There is no scriptural footing for these arguments because under the command of
Christ, angels deliver these judgments.
Sometimes Bible
scholars divide the tribulation into two parts and rightly so. There are the
first three and a half years and the second, which, is also known as the time
of Jacob’s Trouble. This is the time when the Jews realize that the Anti-Christ
is not their Messiah and have to flee to Petra. The midtribulation view sees
this distinction as well and places the time of the Rapture at the sounding of
the last trumpet. Proponents of this theory see the catching away of the two
witnesses at the end of the first half of the seventy weeks being synonymous
with the Rapture. Ryrie comments that according
to this view if you combine the writing concerning the Great Tribulation and a
major event right before it, there is in theory, this midtribulation conclusion[13].
The midtribulation
rapturist claims that the sounding of the final trumpet in Revelation 10 is the
same trumpet identified in 1 Corinthians 15:52. When these two passages are
compared, it is clear that these are two different events based on context. In
commenting on this point Ryrie says, “In Jewish apocalyptic literature,
trumpets signaled a variety of great eschatological events, including
judgments, the gathering of the elect, and resurrection. The seventh trumpet is
a trumpet of judgment, whereas the trumpet in 1 Corinthians is one of
resurrection and deliverance. That they indicate the same event is a gratuitous
assumption”[14].
Furthermore, when someone simply reads about this series of trumpet judgments,
the last trumpet means- last. In other words, it is the last trumpet in those
judgments. Attempting to identify this with 1 Corinthians 15, is reading
something into the text that is not there.
Like
posttribulationism, there is a problem concerning a literal hermeneutic. In
making comments about interpretation, Pentecost observes, “The midtribulation
rapturists will apply the literal method of interpretation to the last half of
the seventieth week, but spiritualize the events of the first half of the week
to permit the church to encounter those”[15]. Like
pretribulationists, they have the church spending some time in heaven before
the Second Coming to allow for the Bema and the Marriage of the Lamb.
Midtribulationism, overall is a compromise between pre and posttribulationism
and has a serious problem keeping scripturally consistent, and that is why most
serious theologians have rejected it.
Conclusion
In
examining these three main rapture theories several things have been
considered. The timing of the Rapture has been discussed, the theological
implications have been revealed, the scriptural support has been given and the
most scripturally consistent view has been established. In addition, all three
theories have been defined, all relevant Scripture has been noted and the main
arguments for each theory have been given. After weighing the evidence, the
logical conclusion is that the pretribulation rapture position is more biblical.
In light of this evidence the Church should watch and wait because our Lord’s
return is imminent.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buswell,
Oliver J. A Systematic Theology of the
Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1986.
Hodge,
Charles. Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems Inc, 1997.
Ladd,
George E. The Blessed Hope. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
Packer,
J.I. Concise Theology. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1993.
Pentecost,
Dwight J. Things to Come. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1958.
Ryrie,
Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1999.
Showers,
Renald E. There Really is a Difference.
Bellmawr: The Friends of Israel Gospel
Ministry, 2001.
Walvoord,
J.F., Zuck, R.B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge
Commentary. Wheaton:
Victor Books, 1983.
[1]
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 582-583.
[2] Ladd,
George E. The Blessed Hope. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 63.
[3]
Ibid. p. 64.
[4]
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 584.
[5]
Ibid., 584.
[6] Ladd,
George E. The Blessed Hope. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 67.
[7]
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 585.
[8] Pentecost, Dwight J. Things to Come. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1958),194.
[9] Ibid.,
179.
[10]
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 579.
[11]
Buswell, Oliver J. A Systematic Theology
of the Christian Religion. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 456.
[12] Pentecost, Dwight J. Things to Come. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1958),183.
[13] Ryrie,
Charles. Basic Theology. (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1999), 579.
[14]
Ibid., 581.
[15]
Pentecost, Dwight J. Things to Come. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958),194.
