Premillennialism: Why There Must Be a Future Earthly Kingdom of Jesus (2015) By Michael Vlach

Premillennialism: Why There Must Be a Future Earthly Kingdom of Jesus (2015)
By Michael Vlach
"A case for premillennialism, the view that there will be a future earthly kingdom of Jesus after His second coming yet before the Eternal State. Offers biblical arguments and a rationale for the premillennial view and shows why this perspective coincides with the Bible's storyline."

Other important books written by Michael Vlach:

Has the Church Replaced Israel (Oct 2010)

"The relationship between Israel and the church continues to be a controversial topic led by this question: Does the church replace, supersede, or fulfill the nation of Israel in God’s plan, or will Israel be saved and restored with a unique identity and role?

In Has the Church Replaced Israel?, author Michael J. Vlach evaluates the doctrine of replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) down through history but ultimately argues in favor of the nonsupersessionist position. Thoroughly vetting the most important hermeneutical and theological issues related to the Israel/church relationship, Vlach explains why, “there are compelling scriptural reasons in both testaments to believe in a future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel."

Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Dec 2010)

"A basic introduction to the essential beliefs of Dispensationalism. This work also refutes common myths people have about dispensational theology. A must for a proper understanding of what Dispensationalism is all about."

I am still an academically convinced dispensationlist and as far as I know always will be.  The more I read modern scholarly writing the more you see the myths repeated.  I actually saw these same errors repeated in a doctoral paper.  There is obviously (I hope well meaning) a lack of a gate guard to continue to allow the false caricatures of dispensationalism to be repeated.   

Read, enjoy, and take comfort in the scriptures.  Comments as always encouraged.

A Glimpse back in history at the Goals for New Evangelicalism (Did it happen?)

A Glimpse back in history at the Goals for New Evangelicalism (Did it happen?)

They claimed to be true to orthodox Christian beliefs.  That's easy: just redefine orthodox with the lowest common denominators.  Here are four reasons they gave for their necessity as a movement.  These points are taken from the article entitled, "New Evangelicalism" in The Dictionary of Theological Terms by Alan Cairns (pp. 257-249).

First, "they wished to place an emphasis on scholarship."  This includes heavy interaction and quotations from outright unbelievers, neo-orthodoxy and liberals.  Remember the phrase in an attempt to reach out to the scholastic world, "I'll call you a Christian, if you'll call me a scholar."  Think lowest common denominator beliefs in the Evangelical Theological Society.

Second, "new evangelicals wished to abandon the old confrontational spirit of earlier days."  This eventually created outright cooperation with liberals and Roman Catholics.  ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) is just another product of this line of thinking fleshed out.  It would surprise you the well-known names who signed the document.  Liberals are Christians.  Roman Catholics are Christians.  So they say.

Third, "new evangelicals wished to be more open to modern scientific theory."  Think evolution doesn't matter.  This is the new basic mantra across the lines of big name evangelical groups, seminaries, and coalitions.  They have the Reformed Calvinistic soteriology talk down but they praise the unbelieving scientists.  When Bible is placed against science, the new evangelicals chose the biased views of unbelieving scientists.  But they are not worried, you need Jesus not a literal fall and Adam.

Fourth, "new evangelicals wished to become more involved than old evangelicals had been in addressing the problems of society."  Think: social justice everywhere.  New mission: social justice gospel and evangelism.  Racism, capitalism, poverty, etc....  These are the new focuses in a social justice kingdom on earth.

What damage have these misplaced goals and means brought upon Christ's church?  What steps have Fundamentalists made in these same four directions?  Be careful before you answer.  Look at what schools remain and who has closed their doors.  What changes have been made?  What walls no longer exist?  Concerned?  What schools will be left when my children a college-aged?

Think.  Preach Christ alone (this 500th Reformation year).  Comments encouraged.

Historic Creeds, Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

Historic Creeds and Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

It appears to me that every orthodox Christian confession I can find declares a literal six-day creation (not to say the list below is all inclusive).  If not this specifically, then God directly made man and woman in his own image.  Evolution (in any form) does not appear at all.  To say so is academically dishonest.  Shame on new evangelicals who try to make evolution fit with their Bibles.  According to every standard creed and confession, this is not a secondary doctrine.

I challenge you to read the statements made by the big "Gospel-based" groups.  Their beliefs (in writing) concerning creation are not what you think.  Notice how much space is spent on defending other views of creation and not a literal creation alone.  Is this a historical position of Christianity?  If you check out the membership and speakers in these groups it will be clear why a literal creation is not necessary (or even allowable).

New Evangelicalism for years has placated to evolutionary and old earth compromise in their ranks.  It infects both their pulpits and their seminaries.  Please read the following from a recent Gospel Coalition blog (please note, that creation was not considered a secondary issue in historical church creeds),

"The length of the Genesis 1 days, the age of the earth, and animal death and predation before the fall are all secondary or tertiary matters which must be worked out in ways consistent with our first-order commitments."


I would suggest that solving society's problems, whether social, political, or any form of social justice issues starts with a teaching of Genesis, a literal Adam and Eve, and a defense for a literal creation.  As long as main stream new evangelicalism believes the Calvinistic Gospel alone will fix all our problems, they are not only not historical, but further avoiding a cure to help society's real problem with sin.  Added to this an avoidance of teaching against evolution and then making room for evangelical leaders who embrace it does Christianity a great disservice.  Worst case this is simply false teaching not addressed because pragmatism works.

The Apostles' Creed, "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth"

The Nicene Creed. "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"

Belgic Confession (Article 12) "created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures as it seemed good unto Him"

Heidelberg Catechism (Lord's Day 9, Of God the Father) "who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them"

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create, or make of nothing, the world,...,, in the space of six days, and all very good."

London Baptist Confession. 1689 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create or make the world, and all things therein,...in the space of six days, and all very good."

Unfortunately history will once again be ignored.  New Evangelical churches will continue to teach their people creation doesn't matter.  Just repent and trust in Jesus.  Don't worry about creation or the age of the earth.

I will in the near future list the positions found within major study Bibles.

Hope this helps those who are confused on the Church's historical position on this issue.

Comments welcomed and encouraged.

Modern Worship Trends Repeating History

Loved this picture.

Can't help the same pragmatic excuses used today for worship 

The puritans would roll over in their grave at what is done today in the name of evangelical christianity in the name of worship.

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

How do we address really "bad" churches?  This is a interesting dilemma avoided in evangelical circles today.  Some tout church discipline.  Others say the gospel is all that matters (well at least a Calvinistic version).  There is an ever growing impulse to look past false teaching from the pulpit and disobedience in the pew and what is called a church is actually not.

To many this may sound judgmental (whatever this term means usually only to the one defining it).  But this concept is not new but was actually addressed nearly 400 years ago in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith (one place Presbyterians and Baptist can agree).

LBC (Ch XXVI) reads,
"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

WCF (Ch. XXV) reads,

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

I doesn't take much imagination to see that they are identical.  They both held to such a firm belief that local churches can become so corrupt in the errors that they are not actually functioning churches.  The confessions do not explicitly elaborate on what defines as error but it is clear they both believed you can err enough to no longer be a church.

Here's the sad part of the story.  Today theology has become some marginalized that you can almost believe anything without being accused of false teaching.  Here is one place (among many) where I believe new evangelicalism and their offspring have gone wrong.  Consider the following:

Does orthodoxy still matter?  Who determines what is correct doctrine?  Have problems with orthodoxy church creeds, then write another one?  Make up a new one from scratch to be as broad and inclusive as (presently) deemed necessary.

Does orthopraxy still matter?  Who determines what right Christian living and practice is?  Nearly everyone is ready with a finger to accuse of legalism or antinomianism.  Is your practice too worldly?  That's an easy fix, just redefine what is worldly (so that it doesn't include what you want to do).

Does orthpathy still matter?  Who determines what right emotions, desires, and affections are true and correct?  What forms of media and music are given full permission to affect our minds (and the minds of our children)?  What of literature and entertainment means?

In summation, pointing out and avoiding false teaching is nothing new (think: novel).  Don't think the most recent evangelical authors producing books on church discipline are coming up with some new or more biblical than the past.  Simply not true.

I think if we actually read many of our church's documents from the past, we'll find great deals with which we can agree (and take hardy counsel).  Without feeling the need to rewrite it all over again.

So is your church a real church?  What errors are we tolerating in the pew?  From the pulpit?