What is “covenant theology?” At its fundamental level, a covenant simply is a binding contract between two parties. “Covenant theology,” then, as DeNault puts it, “is a study of the different covenants that God has made with man since the beginning of the World.”¹Pascal DeNault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, 23.

So far, this is no surprise. No one denies that God entered into various covenants with man: both mankind in general and with his people in particular. The rub comes when we attempt to determine how those covenants overlap, integrate, alter and/or map on top of one another. In fact, it even becomes difficult to know where to start the discussion.  

Where to Start?

Naturally, we should start in the beginning. But does that mean in the beginning of Scripture? Or, does that mean in the beginning when only the Godhead existed? What I mean is: in Titus 1:2 (one of the last letters in the Bible), Paul alludes to an intra-Trinitarian covenant made, to grant eternal life to God’s elect, before Genesis 1:1. Theologians call it the Covenant of Redemption or the Eternal Covenant. Our inclination is to start there, but God didn’t start there when he revealed his Word to mankind. In fact, he let that Covenant of Redemption remain a “mystery” for thousands of years until Gospel times. 

We believe in the sufficiency of Scripture—even its arrangement—so let’s start where God starts in Genesis. We will look at the Covenant of Redemption in due time. For now, though, let’s preserve the order in which God revealed it to us.

The Covenant of Works

Both Baptists and Presbyterians agree: God graciously entered into a true Covenant of Works with Adam; that is, “Eat the forbidden fruit and die . . . don’t eat it and live.” Genesis 2:16 records it: 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Genesis 2:16

Adam broke the Covenant of Works, and this is the point at which the “covenant theology” views diverge. 

The Covenant of Grace

Both Baptists and Presbyterians also agree: immediately following Adam’s disobedience, God instituted a Covenant of Grace to preserve a people (or “offspring”) for himself. God declares to the serpent in Genesis 3:15:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heal.

Genesis 3:15

However, Baptists and Presbyterians see this covenant play out much differently. Let me sketch out their respective views, and we’ll circle back in subsequent articles to explore each one in more detail. I do think it’s helpful to track out each view from beginning to end to see the difference. 

***Disclaimer: Please forgive me in advance for any sweeping generalizations. I’m trying to keep it short, and I’m trying to keep it simple for lay church members who genuinely want to understand this better. Also, please respect that each Presbyterian and Baptist congregation may view specifics slightly differently, another reason why this is topic is so confusing.***

Presbyterians: One Covenant, Two Administrations

Presbyterians describe the Covenant of Grace as “one covenant, two administrations.” That is, the Covenant of Grace is a single covenant which extends “over” the OT and NT eras, but it is administered differently in each era. DeNault explains:

The Covenant of Grace was placed under the first administration which we find in the Old Testament. This administration was elementary and temporary. Next came a second administration of the Covenant of Grace, which we find in the New Testament. This second administration is perfect and definitive.²Ibid., 24

Christ is the substance of the Covenant of Grace, but he was dispensed to mankind through two different administrations. In OT times, the Covenant of Grace was administered through the Law given to national Israel (i.e., the promises, the Passover, circumcision, the sacrificial system, etc.). In NT times, the Covenant of Grace is administered through the preaching of the Word and the ordinances (i.e, baptism and the Lord’s Supper) given to the Gospel congregations (see Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 34, 35 154).

The key point to remember in Presbyterian covenant theology: These “means of grace” were administered to a mixed race: both unregenerate souls and regenerate souls alike. For instance, both regenerate souls and unregenerate souls were allowed to take the Passover, offer sacrifices, etc. In the OT, the regenerate souls benefitted “inwardly” as their spirits were renewed by these gospel reminders. The professing unregenerate souls benefitted “outwardly” as these “means of grace” pointed them to the coming Messiah. 

The key point to remember in Presbyterian covenant theology: These “means of grace” were administered to a mixed race: both unregenerate souls and regenerate souls alike.

The same principle applies to NT times. The church administers the “means of grace”—namely, the church ordinances (infant baptism, specifically, and the Lord’s Supper; the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 154 also includes others like prayer)—to a mixed race: both unregenerate souls who profess him as well as regenerate souls (although, there are warnings that the “ignorant and ungodly” not be admitted to the Lord’s Table; see WCF 29.8). The regenerate benefit inwardly as they are nourished in these gospel reminders. The professing unregenerate might benefit outwardly as these graces point them to Christ in the gospel. This is why John Ball, a Presbyterian Puritan (1585-1640), includes even the Pharisees in the Covenant of Grace, as well as infants.³Ibid., 48 Pharisees, for example were unregenerate, but they were under the Covenant of Grace because these manifold graces were available to them. 

This view has two attractive points. First, any honest reading of the OT reveals these manifold graces, which were administered through the Law, were available to both groups: regenerate and unregenerate. Second, it is easy to see the consistent unity and transition from OT Israel to the NT church. This smooths out any sharp distinctions between Israel and the Church. In fact, Calvin often will refer to the OT people as “the Church” in his commentaries.

Baptists: One Covenant, Revealed Progressively

Baptists describe the Covenant of Grace as “one covenant, revealed progressively.” For Baptists, the Covenant of Grace does not extend “over” the OT and NT. Rather, it was “promised” in the OT, but was not “inaugurated” until Christ’s work was complete. Baptists see the Covenant of Grace as (1) promised (not instituted) in Genesis 3:15, (2) expanded upon throughout the OT, but (3) not realized until Christ’s advent. They speak in terms of revealed (in the OT)/concluded (in Christ); or, announced/accomplished or decreed/ratified or promised/established—whichever you prefer. 

It was revealed, bit by bit, in the OT (or “in farther steps,” 2 LBC 7.3). To track it quickly: it was promised in the Garden (Gen 3:15), declared to Abram (Gen 12), expanded upon to King David (2 Sam 7), enlarged more to Jeremiah (Jer 31:31–34), and ultimately, realized in Christ (2 Cor 1:20).  

The substance of the covenant is “justification by faith alone in Christ alone.” The OT Law pointed forward to Christ by (1) revealing sin and (2) restraining sin (Gal 3:19-26). The NT church’s ordinances (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are intended only for regenerate saints to nourish and renew their thirsty souls. Indeed, Paul has dire warnings for those who take the Lord’s Supper unworthily (1 Cor 11:30).

The key point to remember in Baptist covenant theology: The Covenant of Grace “is” the New Covenant and only includes regenerate souls, in both OT and NT eras, who were justified by faith. The Old Covenant merely promises it. For instance, unregenerate souls are welcomed (and encouraged) to attend worship gatherings and witness the church ordinances, but both church membership and participation in the ordinances are reserved for the covenant (or regenerate) people. 

The key points to remember in Baptist covenant theology: The Covenant of Grace “is” the New Covenant and only includes regenerate souls, in both OT and NT eras, who were justified by faith.

This view has two attractive points. First, rather than imposing a covenantal view “over” Scripture texts, it emerges, quite organically, from within the successive OT texts until its glorious inauguration in the NT. MacArthur and Mayhue, for instance (though they present a progressive dispensational framework), emphasize the covenants “are biblically derived, not theologically constructed.”⁴John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, gen eds., John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 26. Second, it makes a cleaner and clearer distinction between OT Israel and the NT Church. Baptists notice distinct differences between national Israel and the NT Church, but they also see a remnant, in both eras, who are justified by faith. Denault explains:

The Baptists did not deny the principle of a natural posterity under the Old Covenant. However, they considered the importation of this principle under the New Covenant to be a fallacy dependent on an artificial and arbitrary construction of the Covenant to Grace.⁵DeNault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, 45.

Conclusion

For now, though, I’ve tried (in short form) to show the general paths these two views take. If I’ve muddied the waters further, all I can do is apologize, humbly. Please keep in mind, my intended audience is not professional theologians or academicians. I’m trying to help normal, non-seminary trained congregation members understand these covenant distinctions . . . and why they are important.

---

Author

Chip Thornton

Pastor of FBC Springville, Alabama. Chip is a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he earned his Ph.D. in expository preaching. He enjoys spending time with his family, has a passion for discipleship, and is committed to biblical exposition.