I Can’t Reconcile Covenant Theology

Introduction:

At my church , I was and am under the teaching of pastors that adhere to the system of theology known as covenant theology.  I have tried for years to understand and reconcile covenant theology with Scripture and I just have not been able to do it.  The more I have tried, the more inconsistencies and statements I found that were in conflict with Scripture.  I finally came to a point where I had to try and find another way to understand what the Bible taught about redemptive history and the covenants.  Dispensationalism [the other major Biblical theological system] made even less sense than covenant theology.  So, for a while I was left more or less twisting in the wind for an understandable theology.

A few years ago, through a blogging friend from Rochester, NY, I discovered some writers who presented another view of redemptive history.  This view held that redemptive history unfolded through a series of historical covenants that contained promises and fulfillments as well as a focus on Jesus Christ rather than the nation of Israel.  This view accepts the Bible’s reporting of covenants exactly as stated by Scripture and is known as New Covenant Theology.  While it is in the process of being developed, it does have some historical roots from the early reformation.  My views as expressed in this article borrows greatly from new covenant theology, but is not meant to necessarily be in lock step with the views of the leaders of this theology.  Although I have learned much from these new covenant theologians, my views are based on my understanding of Biblical revelation.  I am also indebted to numerous covenant theologians and pastors in my denomination as well as others. They have been and continue to be a tremendous blessing to me.  I just cannot accept their teaching on covenant theology and especially the single covenant of grace view.

My purpose here is to point out my objections to Covenant Theology as explained by Louis Berkhof in chapter 13 of his book, A Summary of Christian Doctrine.  While I believe new covenant theology bests explains redemptive history, I am not going to attempt to explain my view of it here.  This article will focus totally on my objections to one aspect of covenant theology known as the covenant of grace.  

A. covenant of grace defined
Berkhof presents the covenant theology perspective that a single covenant of grace covers all of redemptive history after the fall of Adam, rather than a series of historical biblical covenants that are presented in Scripture.  This is the part of covenant theology that I will address.  Since Scripture does not mention a covenant of grace that covers all of redemptive history, it is entirely a theologically deduced covenant.  I think it would be correct to call this period a part of the gospel of grace, but not the covenant of grace.  Paul says in Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.  In the book of Romans Paul explains this gospel.  He never refers to a covenant of grace in any of his epistles.

NOTE:  Direct quotes from Berkhof’s book will be italicized and underlined in this article.    

Berkhof gives the following definition for the covenant of grace: So conceived, it may be defined as that gracious agreement between God and the elect sinner in Christ, in which God gives Himself with all the blessings of salvation to the elect sinner, and the latter embraces God and all His gracious gifts by faith.

Berkhof presents the covenant theology perspective that a single covenant of grace covers all of redemptive history after the fall of Adam, rather than a series of historical biblical covenants that are presented in Scripture.  The different biblical covenants are viewed as different administrations of the one covenant of grace.  This is the part of Covenant Theology that I will address.  Since Scripture does not mention a covenant of grace, it is entirely a theologically deduced covenant. 

B. Parties of the Covenant
Berkhof states: The contracting parties. God is the first party in the covenant. He establishes the covenant and determines the relation in which the second party will stand to Him. It is not so easy to determine who the second party is. The prevailing opinion in Reformed circles is that it is the elect sinner in Christ. 

It is understandable that it is difficult for covenant theologians to determine who the second party in the covenant of grace is since the deduced covenant of grace spans several historic biblical covenants that are between God and different parties.  Covenant theology claims that all of Abraham’s descendents were in the Covenant of Promise.  This would mean both elect and non-elect were parties in this covenant instead of just the elect sinner in Christ.  No wonder it is not easy for Reformed circles to determine who the second party is in the Covenant of Grace since they have a contradiction before they get out of Genesis 17.  While the covenant of circumcision was made with all of Abraham’s physical descendents, the covenant of promise made with Abraham was made with the elect and not all the physical offspring of Abraham as Paul explains in Romans 9:6-8, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”  Paul is pretty clear here.  It is the children of the promise who are Abraham’s offspring, not the children of the flesh [physical descendents]. 

Then 430 years later God made another covenant at Mt. Sinai with the people that God delivered out of Egypt and them alone.  Deut. 5:3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.  Therefore, the Mosaic or Old Covenant was made with the nation of Israel and them alone.  This covenant had a beginning at Mt. Sinai and it had an end when Jesus was crucified on the cross of Calvary.  Many and in fact most of these people were not saved [Heb. 3:16-19, Rom. 9:27].  Therefore, Covenant theology fails to acknowledge that most of those with whom God made the Mosaic Covenant were not saved.  They were not elect.   

I will agree that it is hard to determine the parties in the mythical Covenant of Grace since the parties change in the different covenants.  However, if each covenant is treated as presented in the Holy Bible, it is not hard at all to determine whom the parties are and how the covenants work together in a unified gospel of grace.

C. Promises of the Covenant
Berkhof states: The promises of the covenant. The main promise of the covenant, which includes all others, is contained in the oft repeated words, "I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee," This promise includes all others, such as the promise of temporal blessings, of justification, of the Spirit of God, and of final glorification in a life that never ends.

In this statement Berkhof  clearly asserts that the promise includes justification, glorification and eternal life.  Therefore, when a person is in this covenant relationship with God, they have been regenerated and redeemed.

However, Berkhof also states: It is evident that the Bible sometimes speaks of the covenant as including some in whom the promises are never realized, such as Ishmael, Esau, the wicked sons of Eli, and the rebellious Israelites who died in their sins.  What?  How can God’s promises not be realized?  God promises eternal life through the covenant, but it is not realized in some who are included in the covenant!  How can this be? 

Some will say it was because they didn’t meet the requirements of the covenant.  But Berkhof also states: Moreover, it should be borne in mind that even the requirements are covered by the promises: God gives man all that He requires of him.   If some are included in the covenant of promise and God gives all he requires to be in the covenant, then how can some not receive the promises?  Has the Word of God failed?  This makes no sense and it is impossible for all three of these statements to be correct. 

Paul explains in Romans 9 which one of these three statements is incorrect and that is Berkhof’s assertion that the covenant of promise includes some who never receive the promises.  Paul states in Romans 9:6-8 that it is NOT the children of the flesh who are Abraham’s offspring, but it is the children of the promise are counted as offspring.  Therefore, Ishmael, Esau, the wicked sons of Eli, and the rebellious Israelites who died in their sins were NOT included in the covenant of promise even though they were included in the covenant of circumcision. 

D. Requirements of the Covenant

Berkhof states: Moreover, it should be borne in mind that even the requirements are covered by the promises: God gives man all that He requires of him. The two things which He demands of those who stand in covenant relationship to Him are (a) that they accept the covenant and the covenant promises by faith, and thus enter upon the life of the covenant; and (b) that from the principle of the new life born within them, they consecrate themselves to God in new obedience.

This does not make sense to me.  Those who are in covenant relationship with God must accept the covenant promises by faith in order to enter the covenant???  It would make sense if they were NOT in covenant relationship and through faith entered into covenant relationship, but how can you be in the covenant before faith and enter the same covenant by faith.  These are the kind of assertions that make the covenant of grace very complicated and confusing for me. 

E. Characteristics of the Covenant

(1) Berkhof states: It is grace from start to finish. It is also an eternal and inviolable covenant, to which God will always be true, though men may break it.

Berkhof here asserts that those included in the covenant are secure in the covenant even though they may break the covenant.  He also said earlier the promises were not realized in many that were included in the covenant such as Ishmael, Esau, and rebellious Israelites [see above].  I don’t know how you reconcile this contradiction, as both assertions cannot be true.  They were either not included in the covenant or they were not secure in the covenant.  It can’t be both.   

(2) Berkhof states speaking of the covenant of grace: It is essentially the same in all dispensations, though the form of its administration changes.

Well this is just not accurate as Hebrews 8:8,9 points out, “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”  First this text says ‘establish a new covenant’, not change an existing covenant.  Then it states that this new covenant is not like the mosaic covenant.  I don’t think ‘essentially the same’ reconciles with ‘not like’.  Verse 6 states that the ministry of Christ is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.  From this passage in Hebrews, how can anyone say the new covenant is essentially the same as the old covenant?  You can’t!  Paul also declared that new covenant believers were not under law, but under grace and the old covenant was a ministry of death.  He also declared himself to be a minister of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit.           

F.  Membership in the Covenant

(1) Berkhof states: From the preceding it follows that unregenerate persons may temporarily be in the covenant as a purely legal relationship.

This is not accurate with either the Mosaic covenant or the new covenant.   In the Mosaic covenant the entire nation of Israel was in a permanent covenant relationship with God whether or not they were regenerate.  The new covenant as defined in Hebrews 8 is made up of nothing but regenerate saved Christians and has no temporary members.  Therefore, neither of these covenants includes anyone on a temporary basis.  The Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant represent nearly all of redemptive history as revealed in the Holy Bible and neither have temporary covenant members.

(2) Berkhof states: Children of believers, however, enter the covenant as a legal arrangement by birth, but this does not necessarily mean that they also at once enter it as a communion of life, nor even that they will ever enter it in that sense.

Berkhof here asserts that children of believers enter into the covenant as a legal arrangement at birth, but they may never enter it as a communion of life.  From #1 above these children are temporarily in the covenant at birth and some of them prove to be unregenerate and are expelled when they become covenant breakers.  Hebrews 8 alone disproves this view, and Paul in Romans 9 makes it clear that it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God.  Paul even goes on in Romans 9 to state that while Esau was in the womb with Jacob, which was before either had done anything good or bad, God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”  If ever there was a full-blooded covenant child it was Esau.  Does this mean God hates some covenant children before they even have a chance to be covenant breakers?  The Bible gives no support for children of believers being born into the new covenant in any way and although Abraham’s descendents in the Old Testament were born in into the physical covenant of circumcision, they were not included in the covenant of promise according to Paul in Romans 9.  

G. Different dispensations of the Covenant

Berkhof states: The covenant at Sinai is essentially the same as that established with Abraham, but now takes in the whole nation of Israel, and thus became a national covenant. Though it strongly stresses the keeping of the law, it should not be regarded as a renewed covenant of works.
It strongly stresses keeping the law????  No, it was a legal or works covenant that required keeping the law.  The covenant contract was the Ten Commandments.  Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.  AND   Exodus 34:27,28 And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. him. All the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

While it had a gracious purpose, pointed to mercy, and a coming redeemer, the covenant at Sinai promised blessings for obedience to the law and curses for disobedience to the law.  It did more than strongly stress the keeping of the law since keeping the law was the very terms of the covenant as pointed out in Exodus 19:5,6 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”  Israel responded by accepting the terms of the Mosaic covenant.  Exodus 19:7,8 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

This does not mean anyone other than Jesus Christ succeeded in keeping this covenant or that no one was redeemed under this covenant.  The remnant that was saved under the old covenant was saved by faith in the coming redeemer.

H. Covenant breakers

Berkhof states: The covenant of grace is a GRACIOUS covenant, because it is a fruit and manifestation of the grace of God to sinners. It is grace from start to finish. It is also an eternal and inviolable covenant, to which God will always be true, though men may break it.

By asserting both the old and new covenants are just one covenant some contradictions and problems arise with this statement.
1) How can men break a covenant that Berkhop states that God gives man all he requires of him to be in the covenant? 
2) How can God be said to be true to his covenant promise if men are expelled from it due to breaking it? 

When you consider each of these covenants as they are presented in Scripture, the confusion clears up.  Men can break the old covenant as Hebrews 8:9 states in speaking of the old covenant:  For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.  Men broke the old covenant and God was true to his word as spelled out in the terms of the old [Mosaic] covenant.  In the new covenant God gives man all he requires.  Therefore, God is true to his word and man cannot break covenant per the terms of the new covenant.  God states in Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.     

In Exodus 19:5 God says: “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples,……… Speaking of new covenant believers Peter says in 1 Peter 2:9: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.  The distinction between old covenant members [Israel] and new covenant members [believers] couldn’t be more striking.  With the old covenant it is IF YOU OBEY and with new covenant members it is YOU ARE A CHOSEN RACE.   

Summary

Sinners were saved by grace alone through faith alone throughout redemptive history including the old [Mosaic] covenant and all the covenants had a gracious purpose in God’s plan.  However, when there are so many major differences in the covenants, I don’t see how it is possible to arbitrarily deduce that they are all actually just one covenant when Scripture does not report it that way.  There is certainly one gospel of grace that covers the entire period, but I believe Scripture shows this is done with separate covenants that have different parties covered, different promises, different requirements, and different characteristics.  Old covenant membership is based on physical birth, whereas new covenant membership is based on the Spirit giving a new heart and spiritual life.  Paul points out in Romans 9:27 that only a remnant of old covenant Israel was saved, while 100% of those born of God in the new covenant are saved [Rom. 8:29-30].  God gives all he requires to covenant members in the new covenant of grace including the faith to believe, but old covenant members [Israel] was under law and only a remnant was saved by God’s grace.  The bottom line difference is that old covenant membership was by physical birth, while new covenant membership is by spiritual birth.  This precludes any possibility that children of believers are in the new covenant by physical birth.