Author: Vlach, Michael
Genre: Theology - General
Tags: Dispensationalism, Modern Authors / Theological Issues
Series:


Rick Shrader‘s Review:

Note: The following book review is an article regarding the New Creation Model written by Rick and Don Shrader for a gathering of family and friends later this year (2025). The main text being shared has been Michael Vlach’s book, The New Creation Model. The article, responds to Vlach’s book and the New Creationist view in general.

The New Creation Model of the New Heaven and Earth

By Rick and Don Shrader

Progressive Dispensationalists have largely adopted the “New Creation Model” of the eternal kingdom. This view was explained by Craig Blaising in his early books on progressive dispensationalism (1992, 1993). In 1999 Blaising explained the view more fully in his defense of premillennialism in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. He writes, “The new creation model of eternal life draws on biblical texts that speak of a future everlasting Kingdom, of a new earth and the renewal of life on it, of bodily resurrection (especially of the physical nature of Christ’s resurrection body), of social and even political concourse among the redeemed” (p. 162). Vlach, in his introduction to his latest book The New Creation Model (p. 5), gives credit to Blaising for coining the terms “New Creation Model” and “Spiritual Vision Model.”

The New Creationist view was also made popular by Randy Alcorn in his book, Heaven in 2020, and now defended by Michael Vlach in his books He Will Reign Forever (2020) and especially in his recent book, The New Creation Model (NCM) in 2023. The view holds that the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1) will be the present earth restored without sin or corruption, and that all believers will continue to live on it eternally much as we do now with lively activity, culture, exploration, and productivity. The New Jerusalem will be the center of the new earth and Jesus Christ and God the Father will have their throne there (Rev. 21:3, 22:1, 3). The view also constantly opposes what the authors call the Spiritual Vision Model (SVM), which pictures heaven as an eternally immaterial place (a “nirvana” or “empyrean” existence) as opposed to the NCM’s view of an eternally material place.

The NCM explains the following biblical statements as a restoration rather than a total remake from the ashes or annihilation/remake of the current heaven and earth: “the former shall not be remembered,” Isa 65:17; “they will perish … they will be changed,” Psa 102:26 (quoted in Heb 1:10-12); “the elements will melt with a fervent heat … and will be burned up … will be dissolved being on fire” 2 Pet 3:10-12; “the earth and heaven fled away … there was found no place for them” Rev. 20:11; “the first earth had passed away” Rev. 21:1,4. In the end, Vlach will say (p. 260) that either view of earth’s change still lends itself to his view of eternal life on the new earth. What NCM does oppose is any form of a “Spiritual Vision Model” (SVM) that makes “heaven” out to be anywhere else such as far outside the new heavens and new earth or any eternal dualism between material and immaterial.

 

Basic Tenets of the New Creation Model:

The kingdom is both millennial and eternal.

Since the kingdom is always said to be “forever,” it cannot be limited to a thousand years. Vlach writes, “When Jesus has reigned successfully over the earth, nations, and enemies, He then hands the kingdom over to God the Father. According to 1 Cor. 15:28 this occurs so God can be ‘all in all.’ Jesus, thus, functions as a bridge from the Millennial to the Eternal Kingdom” (NCM, p. 259). The millennial kingdom is, therefore, only the first phase of the eternal kingdom which follows. In the dispensational plan of progressive dispensationalism, this fourth and final dispensation is called “Zionic” dispensation containing both the millennial and eternal kingdoms. The existence of the literal new heaven and earth is not seriously challenged by premillennialists.

The new earth is the same as the current earth.

God’s plan has always been for the creation in Genesis 1 to be His eternal creation. Again, Vlach writes, “The New Creation Model addresses the nature of eternal life and God’s new creation purposes. It asserts that eternal life and the coming kingdom of God bring the restoration of all creation in all its dimensions from the negative effects of the Fall. This includes both the resurrection of saved humanity and the restoration of all creation” (Vlach, NCM, 23). Here the NCM pictures the new earth as a near replica of the present earth but without sin or decay. Again, something not seriously challenged by premillennialists.

The “Spiritual Vision Model” of heaven is unbiblical.

Any heavenly or spiritual (i.e., non-physical) definition of heaven and eternity has come from a Platonic and Neo-Platonic history. This theological cancer, they say, has infected most of church history from Augustine to Aquinas to the Reformers, the Puritans and Jonathan Edwards. It is the root of amillennialism and even early dispensationalism. Vlach says, “Within Christendom the Spiritual Vision model has been most present in the Roman Catholic tradition, particularly in the Middle Ages. It also exists in the Eastern Orthodox Church and liberal Protestant mainline denominations” (NCM, p. 146). Vlach also lists Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism, Hinduism, and Buddhism (p. 146) as religions that believe in the SVM. Blaising and Vlach’s reason for including this non-Christian history is to show that a completely immaterial afterlife has pagan, not Christian, roots.

God’s dominion mandate will have failed without the eternal kingdom.

God gave the mandate to Adam to take care of the earth but Adam failed by disobedience. The millennium brings the earth back most of the way but not all the way to an Edenic state. Therefore, there must be a further rectification for God’s purpose to succeed. Randy Alcorn thinks the non-earthly spiritual state accuses God of failure. He writes, “This faulty theology accuses God of failure. Why? Because it assumes he will never accomplish a lasting state of righteousness on earth. (Even the millennium ends in rebellion). Instead, he finally has to resort to making mankind less human (disembodied) and destroying the earth he made. God’s magnificent sovereign plan of the ages is reduced, in our minds, to a failed experiment” (Heaven, 159). Vlach simply says, “God does not give up on His creation” (NCM, 76). Here premillennialists (and dispensationalists) might agree with the need to fulfill the creation mandate, but most would not agree that the millennial kingdom fails to do so.

The biblical emphasis on land and earth must continue eternally.

The NCM focuses on the earth and land. The OT millennial passages are often quoted to show how God will restore Israel’s land as well as make the whole earth productive. But since this kingdom is always called eternal or everlasting, this “earthy” emphasis must continue eternally. Vlach writes, “Revelation 5:10 states: ‘You have made them to be a kingdom of priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.’ This is fulfilled in Revelation 20 when Jesus reigns with His saints on the earth. In the Eternal Kingdom, the saints will reign from a new Jerusalem and a new earth. Man and earth are inseparably linked from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22” (NCM, p. 72). Earlier, Blaising had written, “Blessing on Israel and all nations, blessing on the land of Israel and on all the earth, come together in the holistic scope of the promised eschatological kingdom” (The Millennium—Three Views, p. 195).

Nations will exist in the new earth as Jew and Gentile.

Progressive Dispensationalism often speaks of “the one people of God.” By this they refer to the eternal state where there will only be saved people in their national or ethnic identities. These will be either Jew or Gentile. Blaising writes: “The prophetic promises envision Christ ruling forever over the nations of the redeemed. The church is not another ‘people-group’ in that picture. Those Jews and Gentiles who compose the church prior to Christ’s coming join the redeemed Jews and Gentiles of earlier dispensations to share equally in resurrection glory” (Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 50). Vlach, similarly, affirms, “the church is not a distinct anthropological group. Instead, the church is the redeemed humanity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ” (NCM, p. 336). In the eschatological kingdom, only Jews and Gentiles are necessary to represent the one people of God.

 

Concerns about the New Creation Model:

Millennial passages applied to the new creation.

NCM writers constantly quote millennial passages and apply the context to eternity. Of course, they believe that the kingdom of the OT prophets is “eternal” and therefore these contexts must also be read into the new heaven and earth beyond the millennium. The question becomes, do those passages refer specifically to a time when there will be a new heaven and earth? When reading Alcorn’s book (Heaven), I (Rick) listed over 40 millennial passages applied to the new heaven and earth (including Isa 11 and 35!). Alcorn quotes amillennialist Anthony Hoekema saying, “Keeping the doctrine of the new earth in mind. . .will open up the meaning of large portions of Old Testament prophetic literature in surprisingly new ways” (p. 244). Coming from an amillennialist, these “new ways” are concerning (as we note in the next section). But the concern here is that premillennialists have traditionally seen the OT promises to Israel fulfilled in their present land on this present earth.

Amillennial affinity to the NCM (“New Earth Amillennialism”).

Though recent amillennialists deny an earthly millennium they do not object to a more literal new earth kingdom. Vlach writes, “The newer version of Amillennialism—New Earth Amillennialism—contains real New Creation Model elements. It takes a more literal approach to Old Testament prophecies and expects some literal fulfillment of these on a tangible new earth in the Eternal State.” (NCM, p. 386). Vlach, of course, still disagrees with amillennialism over the actual millennium but he ends that section of his book by saying, “But the systems, overall, seem to be trending in the direction of the New Creation Model and against the Spiritual Vision Model” (NCM, p. 389). But when one considers progressive dispensationalism’s “already” spiritual kingdom existing in the age of grace, that narrows the differences of a “not yet” literal kingdom quite a bit.

Rev 21-22 is a description of the New Jerusalem city.

Revelation 21 & 22 is the only extended passage of Scripture that actually describes the new heaven and earth. McClain writes of that passage, “It is interesting to observe that, while the account of the new universe is confined to a single verse, no less than 25 verses are used to describe its great city in detail. (The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 511). Though not very much is said about the new earth itself in Revelation 21 & 22 (21:1, 24-27; 22:2), much is said about the New Jerusalem in Scripture. The city sits upon the new earth but is an entity earlier existing and described in other NT passages (John 14:2; Gal. 4:26; Heb. 11:10; 12:22-23; 13:14; Rev. 3:12). The New Jerusalem is the eternal home of the church. Pentecost says, “Since Scripture reveals that the church will be with Christ, it is concluded that the eternal abode of the church will likewise be in the new earth, in that heavenly city, New Jerusalem, that has been especially prepared by God for the saints” (Things to Come, p. 562). But, in the NCM, the church seems to fade away also along with the references to its city. Vlach (while quoting Blaising) says that older dispensationalists (all “classical” and some “revised” i.e., traditional) put believers in heaven during the eternal kingdom. Vlach calls this “elements of the Spiritual Vision perspective” (NCM, 328). He then claims that McClain, Pentecost, and Hoyt put them on the earth. But he doesn’t explain further that these men put the church in the New Jerusalem which sits upon the new earth not somewhere in heaven. A reading of each man shows that they put them in the New Jerusalem which sits on the new earth. See Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 562; Hoyt, The End Times, p. 225; and McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 511. Vlach says that Walvoord places “heavenly people in heaven.” But Walvoord also writes, “A principal feature of the new earth will be the New Jerusalem pictured as a bride adorned for her husband and a city which comes down from God out of heaven to the new earth (Rev. 21:2, 9-10) . . . In these brief terms is given a description of the ultimate resting place of the saints beyond which Scripture revelation does not do in its unfolding of the endless ages of eternity” (The Millennial Kingdom, p. 333-334). As eternity begins, the New Jerusalem has come down to the earth (Rev. 21:1) and is not the new “heaven” (upon some ethereal cloud) or new earth but the city on the earth where the church dwells as the church with other resurrected people. To this point in the NT, the New Jerusalem has been in heaven (now), above the earth (in the millennium), and will eventually be on the new earth (in eternity). Vlach does not make it clear that traditional dispensationalists who place the church and other believers in the New Jerusalem (whether now, in the millennium, or for eternity) are not placing them in some cloudy, non-material existence which he calls a Spiritual Vision Model.

The absence of the church in the NCM.

It is concerning that the church is seldom referred to in the discussion of the NCM. It seems that due to the emphasis on “nations” that the church dissolves into (at least loses its distinctiveness among) saved Jews or Gentiles. Vlach writes, “The main difference from earlier dispensationalism, though, is the belief that the church is not a distinct anthropological group. Instead, the church is the redeemed humanity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Participating in the church does not mean losing one’s ethnic identity” (Vlach, p. 336). Blaising says, “In the final consummation, the resurrected or translated church of this dispensation (composed of Jews and Gentiles) will be joined by resurrected Old Testament saints (Jews and Gentiles) and by translated or resurrected millennial saints (Jews and Gentiles) so as altogether to be redeemed peoples (Jews and Gentiles) that constitute Israel and the Gentile nations of the final multinational worldwide kingdom order” (Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, p. 211). However, Ephesians 3:21 says, “to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” The New Jerusalem, as stated above, is the home of the church spoken of throughout the New Testament. In Rev 21 it retains the names of the 12 apostles throughout eternity (21:14) and is the subject of the angel who says to John, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife” (21:9). If the church loses its identity merely by becoming Jew or Gentile among “one people of God,” then we have a kind of reverse supersessionism where the church becomes Israel (and Gentiles) rather than the other way around.

The Holistic emphasis of the NCM.

This holistic view is also a major tenet of progressive dispensationalism. It teaches that the spiritual (salvific) aspect of the kingdom requires social/political as well as spiritual work to be done. The NCM sees that aspect of the kingdom continuing into eternity where the dominion mandate of cultural formation must continue also. Blaising writes, “Consequently, progressive dispensationalism advocated a holistic and unified view of eternal salvation. God will save humankind in its ethnic and national plurality . . . In progressive dispensationalism, the political-social and spiritual purposes of God complement one another. The spiritual does not replace the political nor do the two run independent of each other. They are related aspects in a holistic plan of redemption” (Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 47-48). Vlach adds, “A new creationist approach means applying the Christian worldview to every area. It seriously accounts for all aspects of our environment—including the social, cultural, and political realms. Since all aspects of reality matter to God, we should apply a Christian worldview on all areas” (NCM, p. 394). In progressive dispensationalism’s view of today’s “spiritual kingdom,” this holistic emphasis also demands that the Christian be active in these areas today as well.

The neglect of the heavenly dwelling/throne of God.

While the NCM does emphasize the throne (singular) of God and of the Lamb (Rev 22:1,3), the celestial visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, Paul and John, are hardly dealt with. One wonders what happens to God’s heavenly throne throughout eternity. Will the substance of Isaiah’s vision of chapter 6, and Ezekiel’s of chapter 1, and John’s of chapter 4, disappear? Will the sea of glass and the cherubim disappear as well? We know that the lake of fire will not be dissolved by the new heaven and earth. Why? Because such things are out of the realm of the new heaven and earth and so is the eternal throne and kingdom of God. A possible parallel would be that as God walked with Adam in an unspoiled earth, so He will appear with man on the new earth, but not all the time. When Adam sinned, he had to be separated from the tree of life by a cherub with a flaming sword to keep him from the tree and from the presence of God. But God did not remain in the garden. He still had a heavenly throne. We cannot think that God will be confined to a localized throne in this city throughout eternity to come.

The man-centered nature of the new creation model.

Some have commented that the NCM is too man-centered and not God-centered. The NCM seems to suggest that God will eventually acquiesce to man’s level rather than the other way around. When eternity finally arrives, will God be lowered to man’s preferred environment or will man be raised to God’s glorious environment? Pentecost warns, “There is the danger that the redeemed one will become so occupied with the anticipation of his own experience of glory that the supreme glorification of the Godhead is lost” (Things to Come, p. 582). Why could not the eternal phase of the kingdom be a new heaven and earth so much unlike the one existing now that it incorporates the new earth, the new heaven, the new Jerusalem, and God’s third heaven all together? It would be better to think that God’s eternal kingdom (Psa. 145:13, “an everlasting kingdom”) never ceases to be God’s realm and rulership (Isa. 57:15, “Who inhabits eternity”). The new heaven and earth, as well as the New Jerusalem, will be His creation within His kingdom just as the present heaven and earth are within His universal kingdom. Norman Geisler writes, “Even though Christ’s reign is less than literally eternal, the results of it are everlasting. Further, it does not continue forever in that it is subsumed under the Father’s direct control. Accordingly, His reign—both directly and indirectly—will be forever” (Systematic Theology, vol. 4, p. 474).

The hermeneutics of the NCM.

Vlach begins his conclusion by saying, “This model is not imposed on Scripture—it arises from an inductive study of all Scripture. It also is not a new theological system but a perspective that allows one to detect all God is doing in history as revealed in the Bible” (NCM, p. 391). But the fact is that one cannot read Vlach, Blaising, or Alcorn without feeling that this view of a new heaven and earth, mentioned only briefly in a few places in the Bible, is imposed on all millennial and kingdom passages as well as on passages about heaven. In addition, this view seems to be so intricately tied to progressive dispensationalism that some of the hermeneutical concerns of that system coincide with the NCM. An example would be New Testament priority over Old Testament millennial passages, the authorial intent of the Old Testament writers, and a complementarian use of New Testament passages. Did the OT authors, who wrote of a coming kingdom, see their prophecies being fulfilled on a new earth or in the present land of Israel? Did they see the land of Israel being on a new or even renovated planet? The New Testament may expand on what the OT author saw, but it cannot change what the OT author meant.

The integrity of the millennium as the culmination of OT prophetic passages.

The fact of the NCM writers applying OT millennial passages to eternity has been mentioned. They are saying that since the kingdom is eternal, it cannot be confined to a thousand years. The fact that the OT writers did not see a “millennium” suggests that they expected the conditions they were presenting would go on eternally. Only at the end of the Bible does God reveal the thousand years as a “first phase” of the eternal kingdom. This is described (in the NCM) as the kingdom of Christ whereas eternity is the kingdom of God.

But this is also why they emphasize that if the prophesied kingdom is only the millennium, then God will have failed to keep His “eternal” promises. Vlach, in referring to eternity, says, “Perfection happens during this time that was absent before.” He goes on to show that a rod of iron shows coerciveness and “although rare, sin and death could occur (Isa. 65:20)” (NCM, p. 259). Basically he is saying, the millennial kingdom did not accomplish perfection and therefore the prophecies are not finished. Ironically, Vlach speaks often of the millennial phase (i.e., Jesus’ kingdom) being “successful.” On pages 258 & 259 this is expressed no fewer than six times in phrases such as, “The Eternal Kingdom is the perfect aftermath of Messiah’s successful reign” (NCM, p. 258). Vlach also lists the vindication of Jesus, the creation mandate of Gen. 1:26, 28, and the biblical covenants, as things that the millennium will complete (pp. 254-255). He evidently means that the millennial assignment given to Messiah is “successful” (as far as it goes) but the whole of the OT prophecies remains incomplete. 1 Cor. 15:24-28 (“He delivers the kingdom to God the Father”) is often used to show completeness but also to show that another phase of the kingdom is yet ahead.

We would say rather that all of the prophesies and requirements spoken by the OT prophets are in fact completed before “eternity” begins. Yes, it takes a thousand years to get it done, but it does get done. “Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” (1 Cor. 15:24-26). At the conclusion of the millennium, when the rebellion of Gog and Magog is attempted, Satan is cast into the lake of fire where the Beast and False Prophet have been since Armageddon. After the White Throne judgment, death and hell are cast into the lake of fire in Revelation 20 before the new heaven and earth. Paul says that the destruction of death is the last enemy. The prophets had no other requirements. Even Daniel 9 lists “the end of sins” as an accomplishment of Messiah. Kevin Bauder has written, “In other words, the future promises a time when the just will be raised from the dead and visibly glorified. When this glorification takes place, the whole created order will be restored to the splendor that it enjoyed before the fall. The present fallen creation must be restored, so the restoration must occur before the destruction of the heavens and the earth by fire (2 Pet 3:7–10). In the long run God wins within human history. He wins before the creation of the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21–22).” Knick of Time, 9/13/24, “God, Creation, and Humanity, Part 8: “The Future of Human Dominion.”

How does the kingdom last forever?

The prophets did say that the kingdom would last forever. What about that? It is correct to say that the OT prophets knew nothing of a “thousand” year kingdom. That was not revealed until Rev. 20. They always referred to the kingdom as “eternal.” But neither did they think that since the kingdom is eternal that the prophetic requirements would never be brought to a completed condition. Surely they believed that at some time these requirements would exist and they would go on living in the enjoyment of them. Actually, the NCM is saying this very thing. When the new heaven and new earth and the New Jerusalem appear, all is perfect and complete. There is a new heaven and a new earth existing with these conditions. The question is whether that is all there is or ever will be. Premillennialists have often described this time as a “merger” into the eternal or everlasting kingdom of God the Father. Hoyt says, “When the last purpose of God is accomplished in the mediatorial kingdom, and every enemy is at last brought to subjection to the Son (1 Cor. 15:24-28), the mediatorial kingdom will be merged with the universal kingdom and there will be one throne (Rev. 22:3)” (“Dispensational Premillennialism,” The Meaning of the Millennium, Four Views, p. 72). He wrote that in 1977 before anyone had mentioned the NCM. But Vlach himself says, “Perhaps it is the merger of the Universal Kingdom throne of the Father with the Davidic throne of Jesus the Messiah” (NCM. P. 257).  The point is that once all the prophetic requirements are met within the first thousand years of the kingdom, then the new heaven and earth with all its enjoyments including the New Jerusalem, all are mixed into God’s universal kingdom that has been existing from eternity past and will for eternity future. “For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit” (Isa. 57:15). “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations” (Psa. 145:13).

The “Beatific Vision” remains throughout eternity.

It remains to be said that all of the rebuttal of a “Spiritual Vision Model” is beside the point. In addition, I believe the way it is described (floating on clouds and playing harps) is not a view any serious dispensationalist ever had. Too much ink has been spilled describing a pagan and/or non-Christian view of “heaven.” No Bible believer denies a new heaven and a new earth as described in Revelation 21-22. This is sometimes ascribed to some dispensationalists because they placed the New Jerusalem (with resurrected believers in it) in heaven, circling the earth, or eventually on the earth. Yet, are we, at the same time, to believe that the reality of the heavenly visions (again) of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and even Paul and John, no longer exist? We don’t think that God will be limited entirely to dwelling forever, without change of location, inside the New Jerusalem or on the new earth or in the new universe. Will the heavenly throne of God with the circular rainbow that John saw, which Ezekiel saw on the outstretched wings of majestic cherubim, the sea of glass extending beyond the galaxies, somehow disappear? We ought rather to think, as Solomon admitted when he dedicated the first earthly temple, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built?” (2 Kings 8:27).

A final NCM concession.

Vlach ends chapter 19 on the millennial and eternal kingdoms by pointing out that one may believe the new heaven and new earth come about by “replacement,” or be “restored/renovated” or even “annihilated,” “But an entirely new planet could still be tangible and consistent with this model. Many who believe the present earth will be annihilated also hold that a tangible earth will replace it. That is not our view, but it does believe in a tangible planet earth that God’s people will inhabit for eternity. So the main thing is that the new earth of Revelation 21-22 is a tangible earth with real human and cultural activities on it” (NCM, p. 260). This is an important difference among dispensational premillennialists. The point of view we have espoused here, and that many dispensationalists have taken, would be compatible with this concession.

 

 

 

 

Quotes from this book:

No items found