This is a very brief understanding of the differences between Reformed and Covenant Theology.
First, let me state, some people wrongly believe Reformed Theology does not promote evangelism. This is a simple ignorance to an understanding of these systems.
In fact, every Reformed bible teach is the most ardent evangelist. Evangelism is the foundation of Reformed theology and always has been. Yet, some who wish to slander Reformed theology try to say that these Reformed Pastors do not evangelise. This is 100% false. Again, the most fervent evangelists are those who preach the Sovereignty of God.
Reformed Theology developed as a product of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. The term “Reformed” is used to distinguish the Calvinistic from the Lutheran and Anabaptist tradition – all of which are Protestant. The Reformed tradition finds its roots in the theology of Ulrich Zwingli, the first reformer in Zurich, and John Calvin of Geneva, who in his biblical commentaries, his pamphlets, but especially in the Institutes of [the] Christian Religion, developed a Protestant theology.
In general, Reformed teachings emphasize more strongly the belief that all Christian teaching and practice must find its origin directly in the Scriptures and should not be based upon tradition. Although Luther was also a Reformer, he proved more reticent to distance Reformation teaching and practice from some aspects of tradition which held sway in Roman Catholicism – although all the Reformers were reacting against it to a great degree. This can be seen in differences in liturgy (Reformed Theology rejecting anything and everything which does not find its basis in Scripture) and in views concerning the Lord’s Supper (Luther’s view being slightly closer to Rome’s than that of the Swiss Reformers).
Over time, Reformed Theology also came to denote distinctive aspects of the Reformation which find expression in the now famous “TULIP” acronym: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. Thus, Reformed Theology has a very high view of God’s sovereignty in matters of history – especially concerning the election and predestination of those who are saved. Another aspect of Reformed Theology is a strong emphasis on what it sees as a cultural mandate for Christians to live actively in society and work for the transformation of the world and its cultures.
Covenant Theology
Covenant Theology sees the relation of God to mankind as a kind of compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Covenant Theology interprets all of Scriptural truth through the interpretive lens of two or sometimes three covenants. The system was birthed out of its predecessor, Reformed Theology, apparently motivated in part as a means of softening some of the harsher aspects of Calvinistic teaching associated with the Protestant Reformation:
After Calvin’s death in 1564, Holland gradually became the center of Calvinistic theological activity. . . . Theological tension was high in Holland following the Synod of Dort (1619) . . . particularly against the teaching of double predestination (the decrees of election and reprobation). It was at this time that Cocceius advanced his theory concerning the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works, in which he soft-pedaled the doctrine of predestination. . . . This teaching, of course, was rejected by the Reformed Church. . . . [Then] Witsiu introduced his idea of a third covenant (later known as the Covenant of Redemption) which concerned God’s saving purpose before the foundation of the earth. The Reformed theologians were quick to see the possibility of reconciling the doctrine of the eternal decrees with this new idea set forth by Witsius [in 1695]. Therefore, the Reformed Church did an about face and embraced the theory of the covenant. – Clarence E. Mason, Jr., “Eschatology” (Class notes, Philadelphia College of Bible, Philadelpha, 1970), p. 55 cited in Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 242.
It is important to recognize that Covenant Theology interprets Scripture based upon two or three inferred covenants. These covenants are not explicitly found within the Bible:
Covenant theology holds to two or three theological covenants. They believe there is a Covenant of Works (between God and Adam), a Covenant of Grace (between God and the elect, some say all of fallen humanity), and possibly a Covenant of Redemption (among the Members of the Godhead). None of these are found in the Bible. Concerning the Covenant of Works, Hodge states directly that it “does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures.” – Charles Ray, “Systematic Theology and Premillennialism,” The Conservative Theological Journal, Vol. 8 No. 24, August, 2004, 165-191, p. 168.
Notice that these covenants are not expressly taught (or called such) in Scripture. This proves to be an important observation because much of what flows out of Covenant Theology is inferred based upon logical deductions from these postulated covenants. While the logic of deduction may be sound at times, the basis upon which it rests lacks a solid Scriptural foundation. Another aspect of Covenant Theology is its insistence upon glossing over distinctions among the true Biblical covenants1 (e.g., Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, etc.) and artificially merging them into a unifying concept of “The Covenant.” This interpretive lens (a single unifying covenant) winds up being force-fit upon the various Biblical covenants which Scripture itself defines:
The Father covenanted to grant the Son to be the Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son covenanted to provide redemption for the elect by becoming incarnated in human flesh and dying a substitutionary death for them. According to Covenant Theology, a covenant of works was establishing between the triune God and Adam between creation and the fall of mankind. God required Adam’s implicit and perfect obedience. Adam was placed on temporary probation to determine if he would voluntarily subject his will to God’s will. God promised eternal life (not natural life) to Adam and his descendants in return for Adam’s perfect obedience. But because God appointed Adam to be representative head of the human race, he and his descendants would be penalized with death, “including physical, spiritual, and eternal death,” if he disobeyed God. Covenant Theology also maintains that God established a covenant of grace because Adam broke the covenant of works. Louis Berkhof defined the covenant of grace 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.” Thus God is the first party of the covenant of grace. Covenant theologians claim the second party is either (1) the sinner, (2) the elect, (3) the elect sinner in Christ, or (4) believers and their seed. Some Covenant theologians believe the covenant of grace was established immediately after Adam’s fall, while others claim it was not established until God’s covenant with Abraham. Once established, it continues throughout time as the unifying principle of history.” [emphasis mine] Renald E. Showers, “Covenant Theology: What’s in It for Israel?”, Israel My Glory, January/February 2005, 11-13, pp. 11-12.
Covenant Theology begins with a reasonable premise: God is a God of covenant and as such His covenant promises are a very important aspect within which theology must be developed. But it goes astray where it emphasizes inferred theological concepts over the plain revelation of God’s Word which contains numerous covenants made with differing parties not all of which can be neatly packaged within the framework of a single promise with the abstract “people of God” – at least not without doing violence to the Biblical covenants.
- All the covenants become merely part of “The Covenant” made with the elastic “people of God” which now finds its fulfillment entirely within the Church.
- Literal promises made to the Jews (the physical offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), have either been forfeited as a result of their rejection of Jesus or are reinterpreted as applying to the Church. Thus, for example, the literal Promised Land (Gen. 13:15; 15:18-21; 17:8; Ex. 23:31; Num. 34:2-12; Deu. 1:7; 11:24; 34:1-4; Jos. 1:4; 13:1,7-8; 2Sa. 8:3; 1Ch. 5:9; 1Ch. 18:3; 2Ch. 9:26; Ps. 105:11; Eze. 37:25; Eze. 47:13-23; etc.) is understood as a generic spiritual concept of blessing, possibly denoting our heavenly destination, and the throne of David (2S. 7:16; cf. Mat. 25:31; Luke 1:32-33; Rev. 3:21) is relocated to heaven to be presently occupied by Jesus while having nothing to do with the earthly city of Jerusalem in any age to come. In more extreme forms, this view is known as “Supercessionism” or “Replacement Theology” which, unintentionally or otherwise, facilitates the advance of anti-Semitism within Christianity.
- The concept of national Israel and its special purposes in the plan of God beyond the crucifixion is denied. There is essentially no future for Israel as a nation, except for the individual salvation of Jews who happen to come to faith (Rom. 11:26, but also see Rom. 11:1-2, 29). The recreation of Israel as a political entity is seen as an historic curiosity with little, if any, relevance to Scripture. The concept of a future time of fulfillment for promises made to the nation Israel, including a geopolitical reign of Jesus centered in Jerusalem within the Promised Land is denied.
- The concept of the “body of Christ” being a mystery unique to the New Testament, having been formed in the Book of Acts and excluding all believers prior to the giving of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost is denied (Mat 16:18; 18:17; John 7:39; 14:16; Acts 1:5; 11:15; 15:14; 1Cor. 12:13; Eph 2:15; 3:5-6; Col. 1:26-27). The Church is seen to have begun with Abram (Abraham) or even as far back as Adam and Eve. Thus, the uniqueness of the Church as the body of Christ ministering in His absence consisting only of those baptized by the Spirit is unappreciated and the doctrine of a separate rapture of the bride of Christ is predictably rejected and even ridiculed as unscriptural (1Cor. 15:51-52; 1Th. 4:7). (Many, although not all, Pentecostal congregations embrace Covenant Theology since they also fail to fully appreciate the context of events on the Day of Pentecost associated with the historical coming of the Spirit.)
- The future time of cataclysm and judgment revealed in Scripture must be reinterpreted or otherwise denied since it flies in the face of the cultural mandate that Christianity reform the societies of the world ushering in the return of Christ. Thus, partial Preterism2 (orthodox) and its cousin, full Preterism (heterodox) generally find their basis in Covenant Theology. Both of these views relocate the future tribulation to the past taking the events described as having already transpired (generally in the events of Rome surrounding Nero) and interpret cataclysmic passages as mere hyperbole.