Covenant theology is not a monolithic theological system. While its central formulations have been codified in Reformed confessions and systematic theologies, there has long been significant internal debate regarding the formulation, terminology, and exegetical basis of its three theological covenants: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace.
This blog post focuses primarily on internal critiques—those offered by covenant theologians themselves. Significant challenges have also been advanced by scholars outside the covenantal tradition, including Paul Williamson, Paul Henebury, Daniel Block, and others.
Before moving forward, it is important to engage the primary sources directly. Meaningful theological critique should arise from a careful reading of a tradition’s own representatives rather than from secondary caricatures. My goal is not to attack a weakened version of covenant theology, but to interact with its strongest formulations and with the theologians who have shaped it. Internal critique is one of the strongest forms of theological evaluation because it examines a system according to its own principles and representatives rather than by external standards alone.
The purpose of this assessment is therefore not merely to list disagreements, but to demonstrate that covenant theology has never truly exhibited complete uniformity regarding the formulation of its three theological covenants.
1. COVENANT OF REDEMPTION (Pactum Salutis)
DEFINED
“The covenant of redemption may be defined as the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.”
━━ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 271.
Berkhof notes that the covenant of redemption is defined as “the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.” Calvinists won’t take issue with this statement, however, it is important to take note of his wording. Berkhof says that this is an agreement, between two parties in the Godhead. He doesn’t state in the brief definition when this occurs, but we know from his writings and others that it happens in eternity past. His definition does not include the Holy Spirit—which will be an internal critique seen further in the study. His definition also takes biblical covenantal language and brings it backwards into the ontological Trinity.
ORIGIN: 16TH-17TH CENTURY
“From this, some began to construe the eternal counsels of God in covenantal terms. Caspar Olevian wrote of an eternal pactum as early as 1585, but the idea of a pretemporal covenant between the Father and the Son emerged more clearly in the 1630s. Muller has identified the idea as broached by Arminius in 1603, taken up by Paul Bayne in 1618, Edward Reynolds in 1632, David Dickson from 1635, on the continent by Johannes Cloppenburg in 1643, in England again by John Owen in 1647, and famously and idiosyncratically by Johannes Cocceius the following year.”
━━ Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, Revised (Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2019), 314.
Letham says that Olevian (1585) might be considered one of the earliest representatives of an eternal pactum, but that the idea of a “pretemporal covenant between the Father and the Son emerged more clearly in the 1630’s.” This is an important concession. Letham is acknowledging that the articulation of an pretemporal covenant is quite late and not in the earliest confessions/creeds.
MODERN DRIFT
“Despite this past consensus, Reformed theologians in our day are not unanimously persuaded that the eternal decree can be formalized as a covenant on the basis of exegesis.”
━━ Michael S. Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 80.
Horton’s concession is also important. He notes that there is a growing trend away from affirming a Covenant of Redemption on the basis of exegesis. J.V. Fesko on the other hand has probably done the most significant work to defend the Covenant of Redemption in The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption.
INTERNAL CRITIQUE FROM COVENANT THEOLOGIANS
O. Palmer Robertson
➼ Rejects the Covenant of Redemption as a distinct, pretemporal covenant
➼ Affirms God’s eternal purpose to redeem but argues that Scripture does not explicitly describe that purpose as an intra-Trinitarian covenant
➼ Considers the traditional formulation an extension beyond the bounds of the biblical evidence
“This particular “covenant” (Covenant of Redemption) finds no specific development in the classical creeds of the Reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But it has been recognized broadly among Covenant theologians since that time. The intention of God from eternity to redeem a people to himself certainly must be affirmed. Before the foundation of the world God set his covenantal love on his people. But affirming the role of redemption in the internal counsels of God is not the same as proposing the existence of a pre-creation covenant between Father and Son. A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the mysteries of God’s eternal counsels. Scripture simply does not say much on the pre-creation shape of the decrees of God. To speak concretely of an intertrinitarian “covenant” with terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to extend the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety. It should be noted further that most of the discussion in this area built on the assumption that a covenant was to be defined as a mutual contract, not as a sovereignly administered bond. In view of more recent light on the character of the biblical covenants, the feasibility of a “covenant” among members of the Trinity appears even less likely.”
━━ O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Co., 1980), 54.
Robert Letham
➼ Questions the traditional formulation of the pactum salutis as an intra-Trinitarian covenant
➼ Argues that many classic formulations are effectively binitarian, omitting the Holy Spirit from the eternal counsel
➼ Maintains that applying covenant categories to the immanent Trinity risks either subordinationism or tritheism, depending on how covenant is defined
➼ Contends that the principal proof texts concern Christ’s incarnate mediatorial work rather than eternal intra-Trinitarian relations.
➼ Contends that the principal proof texts concern Christ’s incarnate mediatorial work rather than eternal intra-Trinitarian relations
“To distinguish between an electing decree and a Trinitarian covenant seems highly questionable.”
━━ Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, Revised, (Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2019), 318.
“A. A. Hodge describes what, in effect, is a divine committee meeting, the Spirit’s having sent apologies for absence, but those apologies are not even noted. Such constructions are binitarian. Furthermore, inevitable problems arise in applying covenant concepts to God. There are two kinds of covenants in the Bible. The first kind is a one-sided imposition. Applied to the relations of the Father and the Son (leaving the Holy Spirit aside!), this would mean subordination. The other covenant type is a quid pro quo, a voluntary contract between two or more persons. This requires the parties to be autonomous agents. Applied to the Trinity, it implies that the Trinitarian persons each have their own will, entailing something approaching tritheism. Both of these elements are present in the pactum salutis. Constructions such as these veer toward either subordinationism or tritheism.”
━━ Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, Revised, (Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2019), 319.
“Furthermore, the biblical texts cited in support of the pactum salutis all refer to the incarnate Christ in his work as Mediator. In doing so, they do not apply to the intra-Trinitarian relations as such.”
━━ Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, Revised, (Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2019), 320.
“The nagging suspicion remains, however, that the application of covenant concepts to the eternal life of the Trinity loses more than it gains, even if one recognizes that analogical predication is involved and an exact equivalence is ruled out. Clearly, all of God’s works are Trinitarian. Salvation rests ultimately on the eternal counsel of God, all three persons inseparably involved. Talk of the eternal Trinitarian counsel avoids these problems, maintaining the indivisibility of the Trinity as well as the hypostatic distinctions, while achieving all that was intended by the pactum salutis.”
━━ Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, Revised, (Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2019), 324.
Herman Hoeksema
➼ Distinguishes between God’s covenant with Christ as the incarnate Mediator and any supposed eternal covenant within the Trinity
➼ Argues that many traditional formulations of the pactum salutis effectively exclude the Holy Spirit and therefore risk compromising orthodox Trinitarianism and the co-equality of the divine persons
➼ Contends that the principal proof texts traditionally cited for the pactum salutis concern Christ in His mediatorial office according to His human nature rather than eternal intra-Trinitarian relations
“To gain a correct understanding of the counsel of peace, or the covenant of redemption, it is of the utmost importance that we distinguish sharply between the covenant that God establishes with Christ as the Servant of the Lord, standing at the head of those whom the Father gave Him, and the eternal covenant of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Failure to make this distinction became the cause that the covenant of redemption was presented as a relation or agreement between the Father and the Son, and that no place was found in this covenant for the Holy Spirit, and that the result was practically a denial of the Holy Trinity and of the co-equality of the Son with the Father. This was inevitable.”
━━ Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, Third Printing, 1976), 297.
“For the Scriptural passages that mention the covenant that God establishes with Christ according to His human nature and as Servant of the Lord were used as proof for the covenant of redemption. And it stands to reason that in all those Scriptural passages Christ appears as subordinated to the Father.”
━━ Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, Third Printing, 1976), 298.
Having briefly surveyed several covenant theologians and their works, we can summarize their conclusions:
O. Palmer Robertson → Questions the biblical warrant for positing an eternal covenant between the Father and the Son, preferring to speak of God’s eternal purpose or decree.
Robert Letham → Argues that many traditional formulations of the pactum salutis create unnecessary Trinitarian tensions by omitting the Holy Spirit, relying on mediatorial texts, and applying covenant categories to the immanent Trinity where the eternal Trinitarian counsel sufficiently explains the biblical data.
Herman Hoeksema → Maintains that traditional formulations confuse Christ’s mediatorial covenant with an eternal intra-Trinitarian covenant, resulting in questionable proof-texting and theological difficulties.
Michael Horton → Observes that many modern Reformed theologians are no longer persuaded that the eternal decree can be formalized as a covenant on exegetical grounds.
Although there are still many who would seek to defend the pactum salutis (e.g., Fesko, Bavinck, Berkhof, Vos, etc.) the truth remains that there are a number of serious issues with the theology. There are significant unresolved questions regarding the exegetical, theological, and Trinitarian coherence of the traditional formulation of the pactum salutis—even among covenant theologians themselves. Interestingly, all four men above are arguing from different angles the weakness of the Covenant of Redemption. These weaknesses have been picked up by New Covenant Theologians, Dispensationalists, and Progressive Covenantalists. Even Louis Berkhof acknowledges that one of the doctrine’s classic proof texts—Zechariah 6:13—was misapplied by earlier covenant theologians:
“The name “counsel of peace” is derived from Zech. 6:13. Coccejus and others found in this passage a reference to an agreement between the Father and the Son. This was clearly a mistake, for the words refer to the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah.”
━━ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 266.
With all of these admissions, an important question is raised. If one of the doctrine’s historic proof texts is acknowledged to have been misinterpreted, and if respected covenant theologians continue to question the remaining exegetical evidence, what compelling reason remains for retaining the covenantal formulation itself? Robertson calls us to exegetical restraint. Letham warns that traditional formulations can introduce unnecessary Trinitarian difficulties. Hoeksema argues that texts have been pressed beyond their intended scope.
This then leads to another question that must be seriously considered by my brothers and sisters: Is there a better way to express the same theological truths?
I believe there is. I return to Letham’s conclusion on the Covenant of Redemption:
“The nagging suspicion remains, however, that the application of covenant concepts to the eternal life of the Trinity loses more than it gains, even if one recognizes that analogical predication is involved and an exact equivalence is ruled out. Clearly, all of God’s works are Trinitarian. Salvation rests ultimately on the eternal counsel of God, all three persons inseparably involved. Talk of the eternal Trinitarian counsel avoids these problems, maintaining the indivisibility of the Trinity as well as the hypostatic distinctions, while achieving all that was intended by the pactum salutis.“
━━ Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, Revised, (Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2019), 324.
Letham’s proposal is noteworthy and one that I find perfectly in line with scripture. Letham reframes the discussion around the eternal Trinitarian counsel instead of an eternal covenant. This resolves the issues raised above and retains the general aim of the pactum salutis.
2. COVENANT OF WORKS (Federal Headship)
DEFINED
“The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”
━━ The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VII, 2. https://www.freepresbyterian.org/wcf-7/
The 1646 WCF makes it clear that this was the first covenant made with man. It was called a covenant of works. In the covenant of works life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
ORIGIN (16TH CENTURY)
“. . .it appears that Roman Catholic theologians were some of the first to place Adam in covenant with God.”
━━ J.V. Fesko, Death in Adam, Life in Christ: The Doctrine of Imputation, Reformed Exegetical and Doctrinal Studies (Fearn: Mentor Imprint, 2023), 72.
There is dispute about the origin of the Covenant of Works. Fesko’s assessment seems to most strongly to point in the direction of Ambrogio Catarino—a sixteenth-century Dominican. In attempting to explain original sin and the immaculate conception of Mary he toyed with the idea of a covenant made between God and Adam.
Digging deeper into the history of the Covenant of Works is outside the scope of this post, but I have put together a document if you are interested in further investigation:
https://abidingfoundations.com/2025/01/28/origins-of-the-covenant-of-works-ambrogio-catarinos-doctrine-of-covenantal-solidarity-and-its-influence/
INTERNAL CRITIQUE FROM COVENANT THEOLOGIANS
Shane Lems documents that there are several who have reformulated or denied the covenant of works within the Dutch tradition:
“Interestingly, those within the Dutch tradition who have reformulated or denied the covenant of works have had little influence outside of their respective circles. The most notable are Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965), Simon de Graaf (1889-1955), Klaas Schilder (1890-1952), Anthony Hoekema (1913-1988), and G.C. Berkouwer (1903-1996). These five, we must add, are quite recent theologians in Dutch Reformed history. While these men may have been important in their day, none of them have been as influential as the above named theologians.”
━━ Shane Lems, The Covenant of Works in Dutch Reformed Orthodoxy, https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/covenant-works-dutch-reformed-orthodoxy
G. C. Berkouwer
➼ Rejects the traditional works/grace antithesis
➼ Argues Scripture does not present two alternative covenantal arrangements
➼ Believes Adam’s relationship with God was gracious from the beginning
➼ Warns that the terminology encourages merit theology
➼ Questions whether “Covenant of Works” is helpful biblical language
“While we differ from Barth [who denied a covenant of works in both substance and language], we shall have to face up to a further question: Does the interrelation of the law and the Gospel have only a ‘salvation-historical’ aspect, or does it have reference to the ‘lapsarian’ situation of man’s own guilt and lostness? Can we speak of a prolapsarian state in which there was a ‘law’? Was there a ‘nomological’ existence of man apart from and even prior to the distinction of the law and the Gospel? If there was, can we search there, perhaps, for the fundamental structure of what it means to be a ‘man’? R. Schippers, in weighing all of these questions, has affirmed that there was a law in man’s ‘prolapsarian state,’ and that that law was there apart from the Gospel. At the same time, we no longer may speak of this law in abstraction. Schippers’ statement has reference to the creation of God which must certainly be distinguished from man’s guilt and fallenness and therefore from the Gospel of God’s grace which saves.
It stands to reason that we may not draw conclusions concerning the relation of the law and the Gospel or build a case for the ‘priority’ of the law on such a basis as this. Man’s original life under God’s rule cannot be regarded, for even a moment, apart from God’s love and communion. Within that communion man was subjected to God’s holy and good command; furthermore, because of that communion the commandment was never an impersonal or a statutory rule. God’s commandment expresses his lordship over life. Therefore, any discussion of the usus legis, in its various dimensions, is only conceivable in terms of this absolute goodness of God’s commandment for creaturely man. The fact that this accent was sounded so frequently in Reformation and post-Reformation times is no evidence of the darkening of the Gospel, and is no recognition of a ‘legal order’ above or before the ‘order of grace.’ What we see in this accent is only the enigmatic nature of guilt in the face of God’s loving communion or the goodness of his rule.
Because of that fact we can never construe an antithesis between the covenant of ‘works’ and ‘grace.’ We err if we interpret this distinction as though God’s original covenant had to do with our work or our achievement or our fulfillment of his law, while the later covenant of grace has reference to the pure gift of his mercy apart from all our works. If we assume this we are compelled to say that God’s original relation to man was strictly ‘legal,’ or that the structure of that relation was determined by man’s merit. In that case, we lose sight of the fact that man’s obedience to God’s command can never be different from a thankful response to God’s own fellowship. Therefore S. G. DeGraff has rightly said that the concept which sees God’s favor only at the end of man’s way of obedience is open to serious dispute. Man participates in God’s favor, communion and love already at the very beginning. In that fact we see the awful reality of his guilt and apostasy.
There is good reason to ask if this terminological distinction of a ‘covenant of works’ and a ‘covenant of grace’ is really so very happy. DeGraaf has rejected the concept of the ‘covenant of works’ and has said that it calls forth more problems than it can possibly solve. If we view that term in contrast to the covenant of grace, he contends, we have no option but to say that God preferred – at least at first – to hold himself aloof and not to commune with men. He wished to judge men on the basis of their own merits and achievements. Here, of course, DeGraaf’s intention is very clear and incontestable. He wanted to be done with the antithesis of merit and grace, when seen as two possible ‘phases’ in this one relation of God and man. Even the obedience which men originally owed to God could only be regarded as the product of God’s own love and graciousness, and could only root in God’s own fellowship. If we drive a wedge between these concepts of works and grace we interpose the notion of an impersonal legalism within the original relation of God and man. In that way we convert Schippers’ statement, that the law could exist apart from the Gospel, into a declaration that the law could exist apart from the favor and fellowship of God.
Vainly do we search the Scriptures for any such antithesis in the covenants of works and grace. Certainly there is a chasm between works and grace as those two terms are used by the Apostle Paul. But we find no indication that these terms point to alternative paths which were once laid out by God. Rather they point us to a much more radical antithesis. The way of works is condemned by God because it is not the way of God.
Therefore whoever burdens the so-called ‘covenant of works’ with the notion of achievement and presumes that we gain God’s favor in that way, must endorse the idea of a ‘nomological’ ur-existence of man and must cut asunder the law of God from the fellowship of God. In that way he isolates and hypostatizes the law. It is not clear how this infusion of meritum can leave room for a genuine criticism of Rome concerning the question of the meritoriousness of works. Certainly it is better to say that God’s commandment has always functioned exactly as it was originally intended. That is, it has always functioned within the situation of fellowship, where a man shares in God’s favor and is thus enjoined to abide in his love.
No fault of God’s creation or communion has brought a man to sever this fellowship with God, Furthermore, what remains after this break is not the law in its isolation but the threatened judgment as prescribed by the law. Nonetheless, precisely this interrelatedness of sin and judgment must be seen in the light of God’s mercy. For God has turned in mercy toward our world. In mercy his commandment is reinstated in all its cogency and lucidity. In mercy it is seen as the sense and the seal of his communion again.
We make a ‘problem’ of God’s commandment only when we break this bond of communion between God and man and empty the law of its meaning. In so doing we find that the law is a lex accusans which kills and condemns and that God, in the law, is our ‘enemy.’ Why he is our enemy is clear to anyone who fathoms the meaning and the depths of his command. When we understand that fact we appreciate the real harmony of the law and the Gospel. For God does not confront us in a naked judgment but in the preaching of the Gospel. He confronts us in the glad tidings proclaimed within this situation of guilt and despite our disruption of communion. That is: he does not let us pine away in our loneliness or wither under the wilting judgments of the law. He blesses us with salvation which is preached to the ends of the earth. He implores all men everywhere to repent. Therefore there is no dualism in the law and the Gospel. The one can never be disjoined from the other. Therefore, too, it is no depreciation of the law when the Church strives to do her only task: namely, to preach the Gospel.
━━ G.C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Sin, trans. Philip C. Holtrop (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 206-10. https://allkirk.net/2014/10/21/berkouwer-on-the-covenant-of-works/
O.Palmer Robertson
➼ Rejects the traditional title “Covenant of Works”
➼ Renames the covenant “Covenant of Creation”
➼ Argues the traditional terminology lacks precision
➼ Believes grace characterized God’s relationship with Adam before the Fall
➼ Warns that the traditional terminology obscures both grace before the Fall and works within the New Covenant
“However, the terminology traditionally associated with this scheme has significant limitations.”
━━ O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Co., 1980), 55.
“Yet the nomenclature chosen to designate these two epochs suffers from a lack of preciseness. To speak of a covenant of “works” in contrast with a covenant of “grace” appears to suggest that grace was not operative in the covenant of works. As a matter of fact, the totality of God’s relationship with man is a matter of grace. Although “grace” may not have been operative in the sense of a merciful relationship despite sin, the creational bond between God and man indeed was gracious. This terminology further suggests that works have no place in the covenant of grace. But from the biblical perspective, works play a most essential role in the covenant of grace. Christ works for the salvation of his people. His accomplishment of righteousness for sinful men represents an essential aspect of redemption. Still further, those redeemed in Christ certainly must work. They are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Eph. 2:10). Scripture consistently indicates that the final judgment of man shall be according to works. While salvation is by faith, judgment is by works. Furthermore, the covenant of “works” terminology has tended to concentrate attention on one single element of the creational bond between God and man. The non-eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been viewed as that one “work” which man as created had to perform. Rather than seeing the broader implications of man’s responsibility to his Creator, attention has been directed more exclusively toward Adam’s probation-test.”
━━ O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Co., 1980), 56.
John Murray
➼ Rejects the term “Covenant of Works”
➼ Argues Scripture never explicitly calls the Adamic arrangement a covenant
➼ Maintains covenant language in Scripture is ordinarily redemptive
➼ Believes the traditional formulation minimizes the gracious character of God’s relationship with Adam
➼ Notes that the earliest Reformed confessions did not teach a Covenant of Works
“Towards the end of the 16th century the administration dispensed to Adam in Eden, focused in the prohibition to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, had come to be interpreted as a covenant, frequently called the Covenant of Works, sometimes a covenant of life, or the Legal Covenant. It is, however, significant that the early covenant theologians did not construe this Adamic administration as a covenant, far less as a covenant of works. Reformed creeds of the 16th century such as the French Confession (1559), the Scottish Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Thirty-Nine Articles (1562), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Second Helvetic (1566) do not exhibit any such construction of the Edenic institution. After the pattern of the theological thought prevailing at the time of their preparation, the term ‘covenant,’ insofar as it pertained to God’s relations with men, was interpreted as designating the relation constituted by redemptive provisions and as belonging, therefore, to the sphere of saving grace.”
━━ John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: 4, Studies in Theology, Covenant Theology, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 217-218.
“This administration has often been denoted ‘The Covenant of Works.’ There are two observations. (1) The term is not felicitous, for the reason that the elements of grace entering into the administration are not properly provided for by the term ‘works’. (2) It is not designated a covenant in Scripture. Hosea 6:7 may be interpreted otherwise and does not provide the basis for such a construction of the Adamic economy. Besides, Scripture always uses the term covenant, when applied to God’s administration to men, in reference to a provision that is redemptive or closely related to redemptive design.”
━━ John Murray, The Adamic Administration, in Collected Writings of John Murray 4 Vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 249.
Anthony Hoekema
➼ Rejects the expression “Covenant of Works”
➼ Believes the Adamic administration was gracious from the outset
➼ Argues Scripture never identifies it as a covenant
➼ Notes the absence of covenant ratification or oath in Genesis
➼ Maintains covenant language in Scripture belongs to the sphere of redemption
➼ Affirms the theological truths traditionally associated with the doctrine while rejecting the doctrine itself
“. . . we ought not to call the arrangement God made with Adam and Eve before the Fall a “covenant of works.”
First, the idea of calling this arrangement a covenant of works does not do justice to the elements of grace that entered into this “Adamic administration.” For, though it is true that Adam and Eve were to receive the blessing of continued life in fellowship with God along the path of “works” (that is, by perfect obedience to God’s commands), it by no means follows that they would by such obedience earn or merit this continued fellowship, understood by many to include everlasting life. God was indeed entitled to perfect obedience from his human creatures; he was not obligated, however, to give them a reward for such obedience. That he promised (by implication) to give man such a reward must be understood as a gift of God’s grace.
Second, the Bible does not call this arrangement a covenant. The only possible exception is Hosea 6:7, which describes the transgressions against God of the people of Ephraim. It reads: “Like Adam, they have broken the covenant-they were unfaithful to me there.” If this passage has been properly translated, it would seem that there was indeed a covenant that Adam transgressed in Paradise. However, the translation of kādām (the Hebrew original rendered “like Adam” in the NIV) is not at all certain. Even the NIV has a footnote here: “Or As at Adam; or Like men.” Other translations have “like men” (KJV, ASVmg), or “as a man” (Septuagint). Still other translations suggest that ke (“like”) should be read as be (“in” or “at”), and therefore render the words in question as “at Adam” (RSV, Jerusalem Bible). It would not seem wise, therefore, to base a doctrine on a single passage of this sort, the translation and meaning of which is not altogether certain.
A third objection to the concept of a covenant of works before the Fall is that there is no indication in these early chapters of Genesis of a covenant oath or a covenant ratification ceremony. When we read about the probationary or test command in Genesis 2:16-17, nothing is said about either a covenant oath or a ratification ceremony. Much light has been shed on the nature of covenants in ancient times, including those mentioned in the Bible, by recent research into ancient Near Eastern covenantal treaties. These researchers found that the covenants of the Old Testament-particularly those described in the later chapters of Genesis (beginning with chap. 15), Exodus, and Deuteronomy were always ratified by an oath and commonly accompanied by a ceremony, which in some cases involved the cutting up and/or sacrificing of animals. If such confirmatory oaths were characteristic of covenants in those days, as the evidence now indicates, we do not seem to be warranted in concluding that the arrangement God made with Adam and Eve before the Fall was covenantal in nature. . . .
My fourth objection to the use of the expression “covenant of works” for God’s dealings with Adam and Eve before the Fall is that the word covenant in Scripture is always used in a context of redemption. God establishes his covenant with fallen man, in order to pro-vide a way whereby fallen humankind can be redeemed from sin. It does not therefore seem proper to apply this word to an arrangement God made with his human creatures before the Fall.
Though we should not, therefore, read the opening chapters of Genesis as a description of a “covenant of works” between God and Adam before the Fall, we must indeed maintain the doctrinal truths that lie behind the concept of the covenant of works.”
━━ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 119-121.
“Many proponents of direct imputation also support the doctrine of the covenant of works. Although in the previous chapter (see above, pp. 117-21) I rejected the doctrine of the covenant of works, this does not imply the rejection of direct imputation, as long as we maintain that Adam was indeed the head and representative of the human race. It is significant that John Murray, one of the strongest protagonists of direct imputation, likewise rejects the doctrine of the covenant of works.”
━━ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 161, f.n 65.
Herman Hoeksema
➼ Rejects the Covenant of Works as lacking biblical support
➼ Denies Scripture promises Adam heavenly eternal life upon probation
➼ Rejects merit as incompatible with Reformed theology
➼ Questions the speculative probationary framework
➼ Argues the doctrine separates covenant from creation
➼ Believes it implies God’s original plan failed
“Nowhere do we find any proof in the Scriptures for the contention that God gave Adam the promise of eternal life if he should obey that particular command of God.”
━━ Herman Hoeksema, The Triple Knowledge: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1970), 108. Cited by Williamson, Sealed, 54.
“After a close scrutiny of the covenant of works, Herman Hoeksema came to the conclusion that it was an erroneous view. I here summarise Hoeksema’s carefully developed analysis and arguments (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 308-312): 1) It finds no support in the Word of God, but is an unwarranted deduction from God’s command to Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 2) The covenant of works postulates a period of probation for Adam, at the end of which he would have received eternal and heavenly life, but this is impossible for man except through Christ (I Cor. 15:47). Also the concept of Adam’s entering eternal life in heaven has imbedded in it the idea of merit, a notion abhorrent to Reformed theology (Luke 17:10; Rom. 11:35). 3) This view raises other problems: How long was the probationary period? Would Adam have entered heaven with all his posterity? What would then happen to the earthly creation in which Adam was prophet, priest and king? 4) The covenant of works makes the covenant between God and Adam something incidental to Adam’s creation, for it was added to Adam after his creation. What was Adam’s relationship to God prior to this covenant? 5) If one looks at the whole concept from the viewpoint of God’s sovereignty and wisdom, His original intention in establishing a covenant of works with Adam ended in failure and God found it necessary to resort to another plan to accomplish salvation.”
━━ Herman Hanko, The Covenant of Works, Mar 8th, http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/cr-news/item/1498-the-covenant-of-works
S. G. De Graaf
➼ Rejects the designation “Covenant of Works”
➼ Renames it the “Covenant of Favor”
➼ Rejects any implication that Adam could merit eternal life
➼ Emphasizes God’s favor from the very beginning of creation
“We are accustomed to speaking of this covenant as the covenant of works. However, we should not take this name to mean that man was expected to earn eternal life as a reward for doing good works, as though eternal life was man’s payment for services rendered. Because man owes everything he is and has to God, we may never speak of man earning wages paid out by God. Therefore it might be wiser to speak of the covenant of God’s favor.”
━━ S. G. De Graaf, Promise and Deliverance, From Creation to the Conquest of Canaan, Volume 1 (St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1977), 37.
G. C. Berkouwer → Scripture knows no antithesis between a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.
O. Palmer Robertson → The traditional terminology is imprecise and should be replaced with “Covenant of Creation.”
John Murray → Scripture never explicitly identifies the Adamic administration as a covenant, and the earliest Reformed confessions did not formulate such a doctrine.
Anthony Hoekema → The doctrine lacks explicit biblical support, omits covenantal features found elsewhere in Scripture, and unnecessarily minimizes God’s grace before the Fall.
Herman Hoeksema → The Covenant of Works is an unwarranted theological deduction that introduces speculative concepts foreign to Scripture.
S. G. De Graaf → The title itself is misleading because God’s covenantal relationship with Adam was grounded in divine favor rather than human merit.
Although many Reformed theologians continue to defend the Covenant of Works (Bavinck, Vos, Turretin, Witsius, Fesko, Horton, etc.), the doctrine has been the subject of sustained criticism from within covenant theology itself. These objections are not isolated, nor do they arise from a single theological concern. Rather, they come from multiple directions—as we saw from the Covenant of Redemption. Some question the biblical warrant (Murray, Hoeksema), others challenge the terminology (Robertson, De Graaf), while still others reject the works/grace antithesis altogether (Berkouwer). Taken together, these critiques reveal that the traditional formulation of the Covenant of Works is far from settled, even among its strongest theological heirs.
Even classic texts that have been used by Covenant Theologians have come under fire. Hosea 6:7 has been used as a proof-text to prove a covenant was made with Adam in the garden. Hoekema already made note of this issue above when he said: “The only possible exception is Hosea 6:7, which describes the transgressions against God of the people of Ephraim. It reads: “Like Adam, they have broken the covenant-they were unfaithful to me there.” If this passage has been properly translated, it would seem that there was indeed a covenant that Adam transgressed in Paradise. However, the translation of kādām (the Hebrew original rendered “like Adam” in the NIV) is not at all certain. Even the NIV has a footnote here: “Or As at Adam; or Like men.” Other translations have “like men” (KJV, ASVmg), or “as a man” (Septuagint). Still other translations suggest that ke (“like”) should be read as be (“in” or “at”), and therefore render the words in question as “at Adam” (RSV, Jerusalem Bible). It would not seem wise, therefore, to base a doctrine on a single passage of this sort, the translation and meaning of which is not altogether certain.” Murray likewise notes above, “Hosea 6:7 may be interpreted otherwise and does not provide the basis for such a construction of the Adamic economy.”
There are much better and more coherent explanations of the text, rather than going to an isolated text and reading that backwards into Genesis 2. I have argued elsewhere that Hosea 6:7-9 is better understood as representing the city of Adam, or “at Adam” in the text of vs.7. The city of Adam is referenced in Joshua 3:16 and is connected geographically with Gilead (Hosea 6:8) and Shechem (Hosea 6:9). This means that there was a “transgression” connected to Adam/Gilead/Shechem that Hosea is referring to, not to Adam in the Garden. Francis I. Andersen picks this up in his commentary:
“Considerable progress can be made by supposing that the passage is about one act of unexampled wickedness, done by one group of people at one time and place. We suggest that that crime was murder, done at or near Adam by a gang of priests; the victim (or victims) was on the way to Shechem. This involves the identification of Adam as the town at the Jordan crossing on the main road linking Shechem to the Israelite centers in Transjordan, notably Succoth and Mahanaim. This identification, which restricts the activity to one place and one time, is a key to the interpretation which can be demonstrated with more certainty than has been possible hitherto. It has been usual to suppose that there are two or even three different places mentioned in the strophe -Adam, Gilead, and Shechem. Note, however, that v 9b does not locate anything at Shechem as such; it says that people committed murder on the road that leads to Shechem, and this could be the east-west road that crosses the Jordan at Adam. The murder could have been committed in Adam itself or elsewhere on the road. Further, Gilead is not a city, but a district. If it were not for the apparent meaning of 6:8, the identification of Gilead as a city would not have appeared in the lexicons. Gilead refers to individual towns only in the double names Jabesh Gilead and Ramoth-Gilead, where “Gilead” is attributive. Since Adam is a town in Gilead, the name “Adam-Gilead” may have existed to distinguish the city from an Adam in another district; this name, we suggest, is broken up and distributed between v 7 and v 8; it is the same town that is further designated “the city of evil-doers.” This supports the hypothesis that Adam was the scene of terrible crime. The statement that Gilead is a city of evildoers is eliminated.”
━━ Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 24 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 435-436.
As I stated under the Covenant of Redemption, with all these admissions, the same important question must be raised. If one of the doctrine’s historic proof texts is acknowledged to have been misinterpreted, and if respected covenant theologians continue to question the remaining exegetical evidence, what compelling reason remains for retaining the covenantal formulation itself?
This then naturally leads to another question that must be seriously considered by my brothers and sisters: Is there a better way to express the same theological truths?
I believe there is. The theological concerns that the Covenant of Works seeks to safeguard need not stand or fall with the covenantal formulation itself. Scripture clearly teaches Adam’s representative role as the head of humanity (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45–49), the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, and Christ’s work as the Last Adam who represents His people. These doctrines should be retained because they rest on explicit biblical teaching rather than on an inferred pre-fall covenant.
At the same time, there are far too many speculative elements that have been traditionally attached to the Covenant of works—such as a probationary period culminating in heavenly eternal life, a meritorious principle, or an implied covenant established without exegetical warrant.
For this reason, I find the concept of representative headship to be a more faithful and biblically grounded way of expressing the relationship between Adam and humanity. As John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue explain
“The most acceptable position is that Adam’s sin is imputed to all who were united to him as the representative of humanity. Adam’s guilt is our guilt. While affirming that a corrupt nature is passed down from Adam, representative headship teaches that all people are condemned because of their direct relationship to Adam. The representative-headship view (often called federal headship) asserts that the action of a representative is determinative for all members united to him. When Adam sinned, he represented all people; therefore, his sin is reckoned to his descendants. . .
The representative view was promoted by Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) and became popular among many in the tradition of covenant theology, who connect this perspective with an alleged “covenant of works,” in which Adam as the head of the human race was tasked with perfect obedience for the goal of obtaining eternal life. When Adam violated this so-called covenant of works, he failed on behalf of all mankind, so that his sin was counted as the failure of all his descendants. Nonetheless, not all covenantalists who affirm federal headship tie it to a covenant of works. For example, Anthony Hoekema declared, “Although… I rejected the doctrine of the covenant of works, this does not imply the rejection of direct imputation, as long as we maintain that Adam was indeed the head and representative of the human race. ” Hoekema was right to reject a covenant of works as the orienting principle for federal headship, since Scripture makes no mention of a covenant of works.
Though historically referred to as federal headship, the label representative headship is preferable since it better conveys the fact that both Adam and Christ act as the legal representatives for those who are reckoned to be in them. As explained above, this position makes the best sense out of the parallels between Adam and Christ articulated in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.”
━━ John MacArthur & Richard Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 464-466.
This observation is extremely helpful because MacArthur and Mayhue acknowledge that the doctrine of federal (representative) headship does not require the theological superstructure of a Covenant of Works. In the quotation above, they side with Hoekema’s rejection of the Covenant of Works, while retaining Adam’s representative headship.
Representative headship preserves everything Scripture explicitly teaches concerning Adam’s federal relationship to humanity and Christ’s representative work on behalf of His people while avoiding the exegetical and theological difficulties that have led even many covenant theologians to reconsider the traditional doctrine.
3. COVENANT OF GRACE
DEFINED
“Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.”
━━ The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VII, 3. http://freepresbyterian.org/wcf-7/
“The covenant of grace may be defined as that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience.”
━━ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 277.
Both the 1646 WCF and Berkhof note that a second covenant was made called the Covenant of Grace. Through the Covenant of Grace God freely offers unto sinners [Berkhof adds elect] life and salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
ORIGINS (16TH CENTURY)
“In the early 1520s, the Swiss Reformed theologian Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531) was teaching what would later become known as “the covenant of redemption” between the Father and the Son from all eternity. He also distinguished between the covenant of works as a legal covenant and the covenant of grace as a gracious covenant. A few years later Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75) published the first Protestant book devoted to explaining the covenant of grace. Like the early fathers, this work stressed the graciousness and unity of the covenant of grace.”
━━ R. Scott Clark, The History of Covenant Theology, https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/history-covenant-theology.
What is clear from Clark’s historical study is that the doctrine appears traceable to Oecolampadius and Bullinger in the 16th century.
INTERNAL CRITIQUES FROM COVENANT THEOLOGIANS
O. Palmer Robertston
➼ Rejects the traditional works/grace terminology as imprecise
➼ Renames the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Redemption
➼ Argues grace characterized God’s relationship with Adam before the Fall
➼ Maintains that works remain essential within redemption
➼ Believes the traditional terminology creates false theological contrasts
“However, the terminology traditionally associated with this scheme has significant limitations.”
━━ O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Co., 1980), 55.
“Yet the nomenclature chosen to designate these two epochs suffers from a lack of preciseness. To speak of a covenant of “works” in contrast with a covenant of “grace” appears to suggest that grace was not operative in the covenant of works. As a matter of fact, the totality of God’s relationship with man is a matter of grace. Although “grace” may not have been operative in the sense of a merciful relationship despite sin, the creational bond between God and man indeed was gracious. This terminology further suggests that works have no place in the covenant of grace. But from the biblical perspective, works play a most essential role in the covenant of grace. Christ works for the salvation of his people. His accomplishment of righteousness for sinful men represents an essential aspect of redemption. Still further, those redeemed in Christ certainly must work. They are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Eph. 2:10). Scripture consistently indicates that the final judgment of man shall be according to works. While salvation is by faith, judgment is by works. Furthermore, the covenant of “works” terminology has tended to concentrate attention on one single element of the creational bond between God and man. The non-eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been viewed as that one “work” which man as created had to perform. Rather than seeing the broader implications of man’s responsibility to his Creator, attention has been directed more exclusively toward Adam’s probation-test.”
━━ O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Co., 1980), 56.
Louis Berkhof
➼ Admits difficulty identifying the covenant’s human party
➼ Acknowledges significant disagreement among Reformed theologians
➼ Notes competing views regarding the recipients of the Covenant of Grace
➼ Demonstrates that covenant theologians have never been unanimous regarding its administration
“Just as in the covenant of works, so in the covenant of grace God is the first of the contracting parties, the party that takes the initiative, and graciously determines the relation in which the second party will stand to Him. He appears in this covenant, however, not merely as a sovereign and a benevolent God, but also, and especially, as a gracious and forgiving Father, willing to pardon sin and to restore sinners to His blessed communion.
It is not easy to determine precisely who the second party is. In general it may be said that God naturally established the covenant of grace with fallen man. Historically, there is no definite indication of any limitation until we come to the time of Abraham. In course of time it became perfectly evident, however, that this new covenant relation was not meant to include all men. When God formally established the covenant with Abraham, He limited it to the patriarch and his seed. Consequently, the question arises as to the exact limits of the covenant.
Reformed theologians are not unanimous in answering this question. Some simply say that God made the covenant with the sinner, but this suggests no limitation whatsoever, and therefore does not satisfy. Others assert that He established it with Abraham and his seed, that is, his natural, but especially his spiritual, descendants; or, put in a more general form, with believers and their seed. The great majority of them, however, maintain that He entered into covenant relationship with the elect or the elect sinner in Christ.”
━━ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 273.
1646 Westminster Federalism vs. 1689 Federalism
This deserves an entire dissertation in order to properly discuss the dialogue between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists, however it will be important to note in brief the significant areas of disagreement.
1646 Westminster Federalism
➼ One Covenant of Grace
➼ Multiple administrations
➼ Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants are administrations of one Covenant of Grace
➼ Old and New Testaments differ only in administration
1689 Federalism
➼ One Covenant of Grace
➼ Revealed progressively
➼ Formally established only in the New Covenant
➼ Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants are preparatory revelations rather than administrations
➼ Intentionally rejects Westminster’s administration language
For a tabular distinction between the 1646/1689 confessions please see here: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html
Jeff Johnson’s quotation illustrates the disagreement:
“What is interesting about paragraph 2 is the absence of the main distinctive of Presbyterian covenant theology: that the Old and New Covenants are two different administrations of the same covenant of grace. The Westminster Confession states: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (7:6). This allows for Presbyterians to incorporate unbelieving children into the covenant of grace. This phrase was removed from the 1689, and for good reason. The 1689 does not claim that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. Rather, it simply says that the covenant of grace was innately revealed in the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15), and then with greater clarity it was revealed throughout the progression of the Old Testament dispensation until it came to its fullest manifestation in the New Testament: “This covenant is revealed [not established] in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by further steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament” (7:3).”
━━ Jeff Johnson, The Confession of 1689 and Covenant Theology. https://founders.org/articles/the-confession-of-1689-and-covenant-theology/
Mosaic Covenant Debate
➼ Some covenant theologians identify the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Grace
➼ Others identify it as a Covenant of Works
➼ Others call it a mixed covenant
➼ There has never been uniform agreement within covenant theology
“The history of covenant theology is anything but uniform with regard to the nature of the Old or Mosaic Covenant. Many held that it was a covenant of grace. Others thought that it was a covenant of works. Yet others believed that it was a mixed covenant.”
━━ Sam Waldon, Conviction & Charity: 1689 Baptist Covenant Theology. https://g3min.org/conviction-charity-1689-baptist-covenant-theology/?srsltid=AfmBOorrNz7-7TTDWMtWan0tuQnv4kXYuSigdTrbj5xPHQieCXz8Y6e-
O. Palmer Robertson → The traditional Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace terminology lacks precision and should be reformulated.
Louis Berkhof → Covenant theologians have never reached consensus regarding who the Covenant of Grace is formally made with.
Westminster and 1689 Federalism → Even among confessional covenant theologians there is fundamental disagreement regarding whether the Covenant of Grace was administered throughout the Old Testament or established only in the New Covenant.
Sam Waldron → Covenant theologians remain divided over the very nature of the Mosaic Covenant itself.
Unlike the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Works, the primary issue surrounding the Covenant of Grace is not its existence but its definition. This continues to be debated today. Covenant theologians agree that salvation has always been by grace through faith in Christ, the disagreement concerns the theological framework used to explain this reality. Is the Covenant of Grace one covenant administered throughout redemptive history? Is it revealed progressively but only formally established in the New Covenant? Is the Mosaic Covenant gracious, legal, or a mixture of both? These questions have received remarkably different answers from covenant theologians themselves.
Once again, the pattern we are observing should not be glossed by. The internal disagreements are not peripheral matters but tough at the very structure holding up covenantalism. Covenant theologians disagree over the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and now the Covenant of Grace—its parties, its administrations, its relationship to the biblical covenants, and even the character of the Mosaic Covenant. It must be remembered, that this not by itself disprove covenant theology, but it does demonstrate that the theological superstructure often presented as settled orthodoxy is anything but settled.
Is there a better way to express the same theological truths?
I believe there is.
New Covenant Theologians, Progressive Covenantalists, and Dispensationalists have all affirmed that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone across both testaments (continuity). However, because there is continuity across both testaments does this then require a covenant? Do we not have the New Covenant? Do we not understand that justification is by faith alone, in Christ alone, and that we are imputed with Christ’s righteousness and brought into union with Him?
Though I would take issue with John Reisinger’s belief that the bible is structured around two covenants, his general criticisms are spot on:
“We agree that the Bible is structured around two covenants. However, the two covenants that you [Covenant Theologians] keep talking about, namely, a covenant of works with Adam in the garden of Eden and a covenant of grace made with Adam immediately after the fall, have no textual basis in the Word of God. They are both theological covenants and not biblical covenants. They are the children of one’s theological system. Their mother is Covenant Theology and their father is logic applied to that system. Neither of these two covenants had their origin in Scripture texts and biblical exegesis. Both of them were invented by theology as the necessary consequences of a theological system.”
━━ John Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, New Covenant Media, 1998), 129. Brackets added by me.
Paul Williamson’s criticisms are also helpful to conclude with:
“Admittedly, this concept of a single, overarching ‘covenant of grace’ helpfully serves to keep the continuity and theological relationship between the various divine-human covenants clearly in focus. Unfortunately, however, some of the terminology that has thus been introduced into the discussion has proved problematic and potentially misleading. Moreover, superimposing a covenantal framework on the entire canon is not without its difficulties, not least of which is the somewhat hypothetical nature of the major theological construct (i.e, the covenant of grace). Therefore, while fully acknowledging that all the divine-human covenants ultimately serve the same overarching divine purpose (see below), it seems preferable in a biblical-theological investigation to articulate that purpose as simply and unambiguously as possible. Thus, rather than speaking in terms of a single, overarching ‘covenant of grace’, the unity and continuity of the various divine-human covenants will be explored in terms of God’s universal purpose – a purpose that is given clear expression in the Genesis creation narratives, and that finds its ultimate fulfilment in the new creation inaugurated through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
━━ Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath : A Biblical Theology of Covenant (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007), 30-31.
Conclusion
The purpose of this survey has not been to demonstrate that covenant theology is false merely because disagreements exist. Rather, it has been to show that the three theological covenants central to covenant theology are themselves matters of ongoing debate among covenant theologians, and that there are some significant hurdles that must be overcome. Questions concerning their biblical warrant, terminology, historical development, administration, and theological coherence demonstrate that these doctrines are not confessed with uniformity.
In my judgment, these hurdles have all been overcome by Dispensationalism. Dispensational theology has shed itself of these theological covenants and moved towards a more viable framework grounded in induction and biblical exegesis.
I recommend that these theological covenants be set aside, and a more biblical approach be taken:
| COVENANT THEOLOGY | DISPENSATIONALISM |
| Covenant of Redemption (Pactum Salutis) | Eternal Trinitarian Counsel/Decree |
| Covenant of Works (Federal Headship) | Representative Headship |
| Covenant of Grace | Singular, Unchanging Means of Salvation |
