Category: Theology 101
Doctrine of Man
The Scripture is utterly silent about a covenant of grace. The Scripture does plainly teach that God had purposed to send His Son to the cross—to redeem elect sinners out of every nation—from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; 5:9; Eph. 1:2-14). However, the Scripture nowhere refers to this promise as a covenant with man.
Covenant theologians seem quite comfortable with making assertions based on presuppositions, and teaching them as biblical. For example, the division of the Law into the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial is completely arbitrary. The Scripture never divides the Law of Moses in this manner. But the distinction is required for Covenant Theology’s system to stand. Therefore, they presuppose it to be true without any biblical validation whatsoever. This allows the Decalogue to remain in force even after the Apostle Paul declares “you are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). They also deny that the Law of Moses was given as a means of justification even though the Scripture says that “doers of the law will be justified” (Rom. 2:13); and Jesus Himself said that the one who keeps the Law will live (Luke 10:25ff). Because of his presupposition of the covenant of grace, the covenant theologian cannot allow these texts to mean what they say; for they would demonstrate that the Law was given as a means of righteousness, and that contradicts the essential unity of the covenant.
But the boldest assertion of covenant theology is that where the Scripture explicitly distinguishes two different covenants, they insist only one exists, but in distinct administrations. The Hebrew writer affirms, “Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (7:22) which is a “better covenant enacted on better promises” (8:6). And, quoting Jeremiah, that the new covenant will be “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, for they did not continue in My covenant” (8:9). The Word of God says that Jesus guarantees a better covenant, not a better administration, and that this covenant is not like the one made at Sinai. Amazingly, covenant theologians find a covenant where the Bible does not affirm one, and reject a covenant where the Bible explicitly does affirm one. This is curious exegesis indeed for those who champion Sola Scriptura.
The fact is that the Scripture does not teach one covenant of grace with two administrations. Rather it teaches one plan of redemption, and two essentially different and distinct covenants: one mediated by Moses at Sinai with the nation of Israel; the other mediated by Christ at Calvary with believers (Gal. 4:21ff). The Old Covenant with Israel, is over, as it is written, "…He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (Heb. 8:13).
The Scripture reveals only one means of salvation, namely faith. Jews who obeyed the Law did not need salvation, for, by definition, salvation is rescue from the wrath merited by disobedience. None of the Jews did keep the Law, and therefore, were in need of salvation which only comes through faith. Nevertheless, it is one thing to affirm the one means of salvation, and altogether another thing to presuppose a covenant between God and man, and use that unverifiable covenant to alter the clear meaning of God’s revelation.