Recently, there has been some good work responding to Covenant Theology. Among others, two standout offerings come from Paul Henebury and Michael Vlach.
Paul Henebury
Otherwise known as Dr Reluctant, Paul Henebury runs a blog and a website, and has written a book. Paul famously responded to The Ninety-Five Theses Against Dispensationalism with his Contra the 95 Theses. His work on answering Replacement Theology is helpful.
See also the section on the Covenants and his lengthy (and important) series critiquing Covenant Theology…
The millennial options available to those who filter their Bible interpretation through the Covenant of Grace are, Amillennialism; Postmillennialism; and, what is sometimes referred to as Covenant (or Historic) Premillennialism. ~ Paul Henebury
Paul is working on a follow-up book to “The Words of the Covenant” which will focus on the New Testament. We hope these works don’t get lost gathering dust on shelves—that they’re read and considered.
In fact, the Dr Reluctant blog is a repository of well-argued articles from a dispensational perspective which could be put into more books. Perhaps he needs an editorial assistant to sort them for future publishing.
Michael Vlach
Mike Vlach,
“We have to be a voice of respectful opposition that points out there is another way. A better way to understand Scripture.” (Facebook comment)
I came across Mike Vlach about fifteen years ago through one of his first blogs. He now teaches theology at Shepherd’s Theological Seminary. He’s authored several important books. The first offering I read was “Has the Church Replaced Israel?“
His book “He Will Reign Forever” is a must-read. Paul Henebury reviewed it in Four Parts. Mike has also addressed Covenant Theology and currently working on another book which looks at millennial views. Many of his essays can still be found in The Master’s Seminary Journals. Note that they can be accessed free online.
Some personal thoughts
I’ve sometimes come across what I deem to be unfair criticism of dispensationalism by proponents of CT. In a few cases it has been erroneous and the person’s information was likely derived from a populist-prophecy writer. It’s frustrating to me because in several cases, and in other matters, I appreciate the CT folk who’ve indulged in it. It appears they understand dispensationalism at a superficial level. For example, see Henebury’s response to the 95 Theses.
On the other hand, Henebury and Vlach are heavy lifters. They do understand CT, and interact at high levels, and in an irenic manner. The most important feature of their work is that they allow God’s word to speak for itself. They do not derive their covenantal doctrines or eschatology from a creed. This is an area where CT needs another Reformation.
May God use these men to open up His Word to more people!
Maranatha!
Sharing is caring!
