What do you think?
Rate this book
Eternity: Heaven or Hell?
What will happen when you die? This and many other questions about death and its aftermath are dealt with in this book, based upon biblical answers. In addition, Dr. Reagan deals with questions pertaining to Are there many roads to God? Can salvation be earned through good works? Can salvation be lost? He also takes an in-depth look at the resurrection of Jesus, examining the evidence for it and discussing its essentiality to the Christian faith. 197 pages.
Audible Audio
First published September 16, 2012
6 people are currently reading
7 people want to read
About the author
David Reagan
49 books21 followersDr. David R. Reagan is the founder of Lamb & Lion Ministries and host of the TV show "Christ in Prophecy".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 1, 2013
This book is okay. It's not something I'd highly recommend, but if you want to read it, I wouldn't try to dissuade you either.
Some chapters I think are much more helpful than others. Chapter 4, on Hell, advocates for the annihilationist/conditionalist view for unsaved humans (but not for the devil and his angels, who he says will be tormented for eternity). Holding to that view myself (except for all unsaved creatures, not just humans), I certainly don' disagree. his arguments for it are useful, though in the limited space there is only so much that can be said. And a few points were a bit shaky. It isn't on the top of my list of good conditionalist resources that I would recommend to a traditionalist (one who believes that Hell is a place of eternal conscious punishment), but it might get some people to become familiar with what I consider the biblical view. His more pastoral chapters (such as Chapter 7 on living with an eternal perspective) are more useful than his more exegetical chapters on the end times.
As far as the chapters on the end times, they are not as strong. It is the run of the mill, pre-tribulational dispensationalist rendering. Passages used to demonstrate a pre-tribulation rapture are merely assumed to be speaking of a rapture; as much is not evident from the text (and when such texts are used, no explanation is given). One example would be John 14:1-3, which, in a nutshell, is Jesus telling the disciples that he is preparing a place for them. Nowhere is the timing or the nature of this spoken of, but rather than being about the eternal state, or the intermediate state, or any other possible scenario, it just simply is about the rapture and the 7 year period to follow, and that is that. because of the relative brevity of the book, the arguments for or against his more controversial end-times views rise or fall on the scripture citations themselves, and so if you don't think Isaiah 65:19-20 is about the millennium (since it mentions a new heavens and new earth but never mentions a 1,000 year period before that), there's not much more for you to go on other than "(Isaiah 65:19-20)."
I will say, though same may disagree with me in thinking that this is a problem, he takes a lot of passage really, really literally (including in Revelation). The new Jerusalem, for example, will literally be a cube that is 1,500 miles wide, long, and high that is made of gold and jewels. This degree of indiscriminant literalism leads to some conclusion that I think some might find quite troubling (and not in a good way). Since "the nations" in Revelation 22:2 eat from the tree of life, he concludes that they have "fleshly bodies," i.e. not immortal bodies like everyone else will have (like 1 Corinthians 15 talks about). He suggests that they might be those saved during the millennium (as "no promises are made to them of glorified bodies") but he ultimately is unsure. So, rather than thinking that, in a vision full of dragons and monsters and ubiquitous Old Testament imagery and symbolism, maybe tree of life people eat from might itself be a symbol for our eternal life (drawing n Genesis 2-3), he instead decides that since they have to eat from a literal tree of life, their bodies are mortal and unglorified. Also, he says that those in the New Jerusalem reign over them for eternity. So, because that tree of life has to be literal, we are left with different classes of saved people. Some are immortal, some not. Some reign over others (even though Revelation 22:3 never says what or whom God's servants in the New Jerusalem reign over; why couldn’t it be the earth, like Adam and Eve were supposed to?). Perhaps some don't even get to see God's face (see Revelation 22:4), since that is said of those who are immortal and reign in the New Jerusalem. I find that a lot harder to swallow than the idea of Revelation sometimes using symbolism (especially since I doubt Dr. Reagan is perfectly consistent in this literalism and believes the earth will be trampled and ruled by a lion-leopard-bear monster with seven heads - Revelation 13). Then again, at least there is no Revelation 21:4 dilemma (where some lament the seeming contradiction/"mystery" about how it says that there will be no more crying but also say that God will wipe our tears, which is literally impossible if there is no more crying).
In short, we are left with a book that rightly teaches that we have eternal destinies and the Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. It also is book that also makes some questionable arguments for controversial (and, I believe, incorrect) views on some of the details. It does, at least, have a good overall message, being that we mustn’t forget our eternal perspective in Christ. So, it's an okay read.
Some chapters I think are much more helpful than others. Chapter 4, on Hell, advocates for the annihilationist/conditionalist view for unsaved humans (but not for the devil and his angels, who he says will be tormented for eternity). Holding to that view myself (except for all unsaved creatures, not just humans), I certainly don' disagree. his arguments for it are useful, though in the limited space there is only so much that can be said. And a few points were a bit shaky. It isn't on the top of my list of good conditionalist resources that I would recommend to a traditionalist (one who believes that Hell is a place of eternal conscious punishment), but it might get some people to become familiar with what I consider the biblical view. His more pastoral chapters (such as Chapter 7 on living with an eternal perspective) are more useful than his more exegetical chapters on the end times.
As far as the chapters on the end times, they are not as strong. It is the run of the mill, pre-tribulational dispensationalist rendering. Passages used to demonstrate a pre-tribulation rapture are merely assumed to be speaking of a rapture; as much is not evident from the text (and when such texts are used, no explanation is given). One example would be John 14:1-3, which, in a nutshell, is Jesus telling the disciples that he is preparing a place for them. Nowhere is the timing or the nature of this spoken of, but rather than being about the eternal state, or the intermediate state, or any other possible scenario, it just simply is about the rapture and the 7 year period to follow, and that is that. because of the relative brevity of the book, the arguments for or against his more controversial end-times views rise or fall on the scripture citations themselves, and so if you don't think Isaiah 65:19-20 is about the millennium (since it mentions a new heavens and new earth but never mentions a 1,000 year period before that), there's not much more for you to go on other than "(Isaiah 65:19-20)."
I will say, though same may disagree with me in thinking that this is a problem, he takes a lot of passage really, really literally (including in Revelation). The new Jerusalem, for example, will literally be a cube that is 1,500 miles wide, long, and high that is made of gold and jewels. This degree of indiscriminant literalism leads to some conclusion that I think some might find quite troubling (and not in a good way). Since "the nations" in Revelation 22:2 eat from the tree of life, he concludes that they have "fleshly bodies," i.e. not immortal bodies like everyone else will have (like 1 Corinthians 15 talks about). He suggests that they might be those saved during the millennium (as "no promises are made to them of glorified bodies") but he ultimately is unsure. So, rather than thinking that, in a vision full of dragons and monsters and ubiquitous Old Testament imagery and symbolism, maybe tree of life people eat from might itself be a symbol for our eternal life (drawing n Genesis 2-3), he instead decides that since they have to eat from a literal tree of life, their bodies are mortal and unglorified. Also, he says that those in the New Jerusalem reign over them for eternity. So, because that tree of life has to be literal, we are left with different classes of saved people. Some are immortal, some not. Some reign over others (even though Revelation 22:3 never says what or whom God's servants in the New Jerusalem reign over; why couldn’t it be the earth, like Adam and Eve were supposed to?). Perhaps some don't even get to see God's face (see Revelation 22:4), since that is said of those who are immortal and reign in the New Jerusalem. I find that a lot harder to swallow than the idea of Revelation sometimes using symbolism (especially since I doubt Dr. Reagan is perfectly consistent in this literalism and believes the earth will be trampled and ruled by a lion-leopard-bear monster with seven heads - Revelation 13). Then again, at least there is no Revelation 21:4 dilemma (where some lament the seeming contradiction/"mystery" about how it says that there will be no more crying but also say that God will wipe our tears, which is literally impossible if there is no more crying).
In short, we are left with a book that rightly teaches that we have eternal destinies and the Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. It also is book that also makes some questionable arguments for controversial (and, I believe, incorrect) views on some of the details. It does, at least, have a good overall message, being that we mustn’t forget our eternal perspective in Christ. So, it's an okay read.
Displaying 1 of 1 review