Why Covenant Theology?

I’ve recently been questioned as to how I came to hold to Covenant Theology. It’s a good question for me to try and answer. I didn’t grow up in a Covenantal context. Rather, I grew up in a Dispensational Bible church. In that church I was given a healthy, weekly dose of biblical exposition. It was usually morning and evening, and often in Sunday School. I don’t remember learning the system of Dispensationalism, but I certainly heard from it consistently.

When I left home to join the Navy, my father gave me a copy of J.I. Packer’s Knowing God. I didn’t enjoy reading much, and really had no love for theology. But because of the stresses of leaving home and having my faith questioned regularly by others, I dove in head first into this book. There were some hard truths within those pages. I didn’t know it was written from a Covenantal perspective. I simply recognized the truths within the book that I had been taught from Scripture all my life. I spent nearly a year reading it, often rereading pages until I understood them.

Soon after that, I got plugged into a PCA church in Hawaii where I was stationed. There I began to interact with Reformed theology, from a Covenantal perspective. I didn’t recognize so much the hermeneutical system as I did the truths within Reformed theology. I soon was able to wholeheartedly agree with Calvinism and Reformed theology. But I still wrestled with the system of hermeneutics (although I couldn’t necessarily articulate it). Dispensational thought was engrained within me, even though I didn’t know it. So when it came to eschatology and my view of the Church, I still had Dispensational leanings.

After leaving the Navy I served in a Southern Baptist church. There, I continued to study authors like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and other Reformed guys. I really had to defend being Reformed and that caused me to be more convinced of my beliefs. But Dispensational thoughts were still there.

From there, I returned to serve in the church I grew up in. I was Associate Pastor there for three years. It was during this time that I really began to look at hermeneutical systems. As I considered Dispensationalism, and I was certainly being encouraged to adopt this system, I became more and more frustrated. I liked many things about it, such as the literal approach to Scripture and the seemingly convincing eschatology. This was of course due to the fact that I was taught there that Covenant Theology treated Scripture allegorically and that it was nearly heretical to consider the Church as the fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. But the system itself still did not gel for me. One of the significant factors was the fact that many, if not most, of the authors I respected (and even those within this church respected) came from a Covenantal perspective. Because I wasn’t convinced of Dispensationalism, I felt compelled to study Covenant Theology more deeply.

I went from that church to Birmingham Theological Seminary where I pursued my Master of Divinity. It was during these years that I saw clearly several things about Covenant Theology. First, the Covenantal view of one God, with one people, and one means of salvation seemed consistent not only with Scripture in particular but seemed more consistent to God’s very nature. Although I struggled to articulate it, it seemed strange that God would have two people. This distinction, as engrained as it was in my head from birth, seemed inconsistent as I read not only the New Testament, but also as I studied the Old Testament. The way I began to understand it, the nation of Israel was the infancy of God’s revelation of His people, just as the Law had been given as a tutor to this infant people. As Christ came and fulfilled all that the Old Testament prophesied, so the expansion of His people went from infant Israel, to the adult Church. It is one and the same people. Covenant Theology teaches not that the Church replaces Israel, but that the Church is the further revelation of God’s people. Secondly, I learned that the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism wasn’t a literal hermeneutic versus an allegorical one, but rather what each system considers literal. Covenant Theology uses a literal hermeneutic. It treats Scripture that is to be understood literally, as literal. The difference is that Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism disagree over those portions which are to be understood allegorically. Certainly, Dispensationalists don’t treat every word of Scripture literally. They simply disagree with us as to what is to be understood literally and what is allegorical.

I’m not writing this to be an exhaustive treatise on Covenant Theology. It’s simply my story. And at this point of that story, Covenant Theology just makes sense to me. This doesn’t mean that I have it all sorted out. I don’t. Although I’m Covenantal, I’m still quite sympathetic to Historical Premillennialism, for example. I wouldn’t say that I hold to this view of eschatology, but I’m still open to it. And that is quite acceptable in my denomination, the PCA. In fact, a number of pastors and professors I have set under hold to Historical Premillennialism. I’m still studying Amillennialism, however, as well.

So, I can clearly say at this point that I am Reformed, a Calvinist, and that I hold to Covenant Theology. Each of these perspectives has caused my love and faith in God to grow to a deeper level, and I have a stronger desire to see His glory shine as a result. And so, until I am convinced from Scripture otherwise, I’ll stand here. To read a more "scholarly" (and I use that term very lightly) approach to Covenant Theology versus Dispensationalism, I have posted it here in three parts: Part I, Part II, and Part III.