Why Are Some People So Drawn to Covenant Theology

Dr. Couch, why are some people so drawn to Covenant Theology when, as you correctly point out, it is not textual and biblical? And, how did it come about?

 

    For an excellent summary of Covenant Theology I suggest the book Dispensationalism, by Dr. Charles Ryrie (Moody). He has an excellent review of this false theological teaching. But here is a synopsis: 

    Covenant Theology promotes two covenants, (1) the covenant of works, and (2) the covenant of grace. Both ideas are not found in the Bible as admitted by J. Barton Payne, Louis Berkhof, and Charles Hodge. They say, and admit, that these so-called covenants are implied but not explicit in Scripture. Our early parents could have "worked" for salvation but they failed because of sin. This has to do with the Covenant of Works. Christ then agreed by a covenant, in eternity past, to be the Redeemer—the Covenant of Grace. The Bible does not say this about Christ. It says however that He was faithful and obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. But that does not constitute the making of a covenant (a contract) with God the Father! 

    Covenant Theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. The earliest traces of the covenant idea are found in the second level of Reformers such as Andrew Hyperious, Olevianus, Eglinus, and William Ames (1576-1633). But the first to systematize the false views of Covenant Theology was Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). Little was known at the time of this system. A theologian by the name of Herman Witsius (1636-1708) was mainly responsible for extending the idea of the Covenant of Grace back into eternity past. 

    Covenant Theology came to America with the Puritans through the writings of Francis Turretin and Herman Witsius. Charles and A. A. Hodge of Princeton expounded this view in their systematic theologies. J. Barton Payne (whom I knew personally), who was a Covenant theologian, admitted that the Covenant of Grace was not really in Genesis 3:15, which many such Covenant Theology teachers tried to claim. He had to be honest and say that the word "covenant" was not even in the verse. Oswald Allis, a Covenant theologian, also concurred and added that, if this covenant was in Genesis 3:15, "it was cryptic," i.e. it was buried or hidden somehow! Ryrie comments:

   

This is all very strange and hard to swallow, especially when the biblical covenants with Abraham, Israel, David, and others are so clearly and specifically revealed [in Scripture]. (p. 190) Many of the Covenant theologians, such as Charles Hodge and Herbert Carson cite scriptural references for the Covenant of Grace using the Abraham Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the covenants with David. With intellectual and spiritual dishonesty they simply plaster the Covenant of Grace over on top of these true covenants clearly mentioned in the Word of God! 

    One of the biggest faults of Covenant Theology, along with the fact that its so called “covenants” can not be found in Scripture, is (1) the claim that one interprets the Old Testament by interpreting back with the New Testament. The Covenant guys do not fully believe in progressive revelation, i.e. all of the Bible is flowing forward. The Old Testament should be taken as it is. While there is fulfillment in the New Testament, this is not the same as to what they mean. They re-write the Old Testament by the New! 

    (2) The allegorical interpretation that comes out of Covenant Theology. This is driven by the fact that the OT is interpreted by the NT. The kingdom mentioned in the Gospels is the Church, and therefore the idea of the kingdom in the OT is allegorized and spiritualized away rather than taken literally. 

    James Orr gives a correct criticism of the raw failure and dishonesty of Covenant Theology:

   

It failed to seize the true idea of the development [of the Bible], and by an artificial system of typology, and allegorizing interpretation, sought to read back practically the whole of the New Testament into the Old. But its most obvious defect was that, in using the idea of the Covenant as an exhaustive category, and attempting to force into it the whole material of theology, it created an artificial scheme which could only repel minds of simple and natural notions.

    On the subject and personal level I believe that Bible teachers with limited grasp attach themselves to Covenant Theology for two reasons: (1) Elitism. They like to claim that they are "Reformed" in their theology. This has a classical ring to their ears that makes them feel somehow intellectual! This generates a sense of false pride. (2) They do not let the Bible speak for itself and take it in its natural, normal meaning. They prefer to impose a false system on the Bible that cannot hold up to fair scrutiny. 

    Ryrie well summarizes:

   

1. Cov. Theo. was not the doctrinal system of the early church.
2. Cov. Theo. is not based on specific scriptural passages.
3. Cov. Theo. has a hermeneutical straightjacket that forces Scripture in reading the NT back into the OT, in an artificial typological interpretation.
4. In order to maintain a unity in the means of salvation, CT occasionally speaks about salvation by the Mosaic Law.

    Finally, some say, “Well, is not dispensationalism a new view and is not found in Scripture?” WRONG! The word dispensation (oikonomea) is used to describe the period of the church age, the Mosaic Law, and possibly the coming earthly, historic, literal millennial kingdom (which most covenant guys would deny). This is mentioned in the books of Ephesians and Colossians. Dispensationalism is not an artificial system imposed upon the Bible. We can clearly OBSERVE the various changes in the economies of the Bible, i.e. the dispensations! Remember OBSERVATION is one of the keys to Bible study. The covenant theologians have to ASSUME the reality of the so-called Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace because they are not in the Bible! 

    What I find most interesting is that the covenant guys have no answers as to what is happening in the Middle East. They have no comments about the Jews returning back to their promised homeland. I am convinced that most covenant guys are anti-Semitic, at least by their silence concerning Israel. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch