Introduction: “Covenant Theology” Misunderstood
This essay arises from a recent dialogue I had regarding covenant theology, combined with reflections on other conversations and podcasts where similar themes appeared in which a version of covenant theology is used by leaders to undergird practices like paedo-communion. However, that underlying framework was not covenant theology as defined biblically and confessionally, but rather mono-covenantalism. This mono-covenantal framework conflates the covenant of works and the covenant of grace into a single structure, erasing the vital distinctions between the legal promise (“Do this and live”) and the gospel promise (“Believe in Christ and live”).
What makes this issue so challenging—and dangerous—is that those advocating mono-covenantalism often use biblical language and reasoning to support their views. For Christians in the pews, who want to trust their pastors and leaders, this can sound persuasive. Yet, as was the case in Paul’s day with the Judaizers and circumcision, these teachings bind consciences in ways that distort the gospel and lead to confusion and spiritual harm. This essay looks to provide the theological tools to recognize mono-covenantalism for what it is, while also using the counterfeit of mono-covenantalism to show how a Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional Covenant Theology preserves the two-covenant structure of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, thereby preserving the gospel’s clarity and freeing Christians to live in the joy of Christ.
Jack Miller’s own theological journey provides a narrative thread for this essay. In 1970, Miller wrestled deeply with the implications of covenant theology. Jack’s growing understanding of the two-covenant structure—particularly the discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants articulated by Jesus in John 7:37–39—reshaped his theology and practice. This understanding was not new but aligned with the historic, biblical, reformed, and confessional teaching of covenant theology. Miller’s discoveries reshaped his theology and ministry, deepening his understanding of the Spirit’s role in bringing new life under the gospel promise, which fueled his pastoral work and global gospel initiatives.
The broader issue is that many who believe they are affirming covenant theology are, in fact, advocating for a one-covenant structure, which is neither biblical nor in line with the Reformed Confessions. Mono-covenantalism often masquerades as covenant theology, but its implications distort justification, sanctification, and the gospel itself. This essay looks to address this misconception by articulating the biblical, historical, and confessional two-covenant structure and exposing the dangers of mono-covenantalism.
The Root Problem: Mono-Covenantalism
Mono-covenantalism collapses the covenant of works (sometimes called the covenant of life or the covenant of creation) and the covenant of grace into a single framework. While looking to emphasize the unity of God’s redemptive plan, it conflates the legal promise (“Do this and live”) with the gospel promise (“Believe in Christ and live”), leading to profound theological and pastoral errors.
We do not object to the use of alternative designations like “covenant of life” or “covenant of creation.” Our focus is on the underlying principle of the legal promise, which governs life and death based on obedience. However, to still be consistent with the Confessional language, going forward we will use the term covenant of works when speaking of the legal promise.
It is true that in a sense, God is gracious in all His covenantal dealings with man, for He is a God of all grace. Even in the covenant of works, God graciously condescended to establish a relationship with Adam, offering the promise of eternal life upon perfect obedience. However, this acknowledgment does not warrant conflating the legal promise in Adam with the gospel promise in Christ. The covenant of works, regardless of its gracious initiation, remains fundamentally distinct from the covenant of grace because it is based on the legal promise. Mono-covenantalism denies this foundational distinction, treating all of God’s covenants as gracious while obscuring the distinct roles of the legal promise and the gospel promise in redemptive history.
By folding the covenant of works into the covenant of grace, mono-covenantalism creates a framework in which salvation emphasizes covenantal faithfulness over faith alone. This conflation undermines the gospel by obscuring the clear biblical teaching that all people, including covenant children, are born under the legal promise and remain under God’s wrath until they embrace the gospel promise through faith in Christ.
This error is as dangerous as classical dispensationalism, though it arises from different concerns. Both systems fail to preserve the essential distinctions God has revealed in Scripture. Mono-covenantalism has also fueled movements like Theonomy, Reconstructionism, Christian Nationalism, and Shepherdism—a term I will use to describe the teachings of Norman Shepherd during the Justification Controversy at Westminster Seminary. These frameworks distort the gospel by imposing legalistic burdens on believers and entire societies, binding consciences in ways Scripture does not.
Grounding Covenant Theology in Scripture
The foundation of covenant theology is found in the Scriptures, where the distinction between the legal promise and the gospel promise is revealed.
1. The Legal Promise: “Do This and Live”
The legal promise is first established in Genesis 2:16–17, where God commands Adam to obey perfectly, promising life for obedience and death for disobedience. This is the essence of the covenant of works, which is later summarized in Leviticus 18:5: “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them.” Paul cites this promise in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12, emphasizing that the law operates on the principle of works, not faith: “The law is not of faith, rather, ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’” The covenant of works reveals both God’s holiness and humanity’s inability, functioning as a “guardian” that drives sinners to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
2. The Gospel Promise: “Believe in Christ and Live”
The gospel promise begins in Genesis 3:15, where God declares that the seed of the woman will crush the serpent’s head. This protoevangelium is the foundation of the covenant of grace, in which God promises to save sinners through the work of a Redeemer. This promise is further developed in the Abrahamic covenant of grace (Genesis 12, 15, 17), where God pledges to bless all nations through Abraham’s offspring. In Galatians 3:16, Paul identifies Christ as the fulfillment of this promise: “The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring… who is Christ.” The gospel promise culminates in the new covenant, foretold in Jeremiah 31:31–34 and inaugurated by Christ in His death and resurrection (Hebrews 8:6–13). In John 7:37–39, Jesus proclaims the outpouring of the Spirit, who empowers believers to live in the freedom of the gospel promise. And it is critical to note that even the faith to believe in Christ is itself a gift of God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Reformational Foundations: Luther and Calvin
The distinction between the legal promise and the gospel promise is central to the theology of the Reformation. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized this dichotomy as essential for understanding the gospel and the relationship between law and grace.
1. Luther’s Law and Gospel Framework
Martin Luther described the distinction between law and gospel as the essence of Christian theology. In On the Freedom of a Christian, he wrote:
“The law says, ‘Do this,’ and it is never done. Grace says, ‘Believe in this,’ and everything is already done.”
For Luther, the law exposes human sin, revealing the impossibility of achieving righteousness through works. This drives sinners to the gospel, where they find life in Christ. While Luther did not frame his theology explicitly in covenantal terms, his insights laid the groundwork for the Reformed distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. His teaching reflects the biblical pattern in which the law reveals humanity’s inability, preparing the way for the gospel promise of salvation through faith in Christ. This is seen in Paul’s distinction between the righteousness of works and the righteousness of faith (Romans 10:5–6), where the law serves as a tutor that drives us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
2. Calvin’s Two-Covenant Framework
John Calvin expanded on Luther’s insights, articulating the two-covenant structure that became foundational to Reformed theology. In Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin distinguished between the covenant of works, established with Adam, and the covenant of grace, revealed in Christ. Calvin wrote:
“If righteousness is through works, it is based on the covenant of the law: ‘He who does them shall live by them’ [Leviticus 18:5]; but the righteousness of faith is through the covenant of grace, as declared by the preaching of the gospel” (Institutes, 2.10.8).
Calvin emphasized that the covenant of works, while broken by Adam, sets the stage for the covenant of grace, in which Christ fulfills the law’s demands on behalf of sinners. This distinction preserves the biblical and confessional teaching that justification is by faith alone, apart from works. Calvin’s articulation shaped the broader Reformed tradition, providing the foundation for the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, which explicitly distinguish between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
Calvin’s framework also affirms the relational nature of God’s covenants. The covenant of works reveals God’s justice and humanity’s need for a Redeemer, while the covenant of grace brings sinners into union with Christ, who fulfills the law’s demands and reconciles us to God. This theological clarity is essential for maintaining the gospel’s integrity, a clarity that mono-covenantalism obscures.
The Westminster Standards and Reformed Confessions
The Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism explicitly affirm the two-covenant structure, distinguishing between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
1. Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 7):
“The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience … The Lord was pleased to make a second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace, whereby He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ.”
2. Larger Catechism (Q&A 20–22):
The Catechism explains that Adam’s failure under the covenant of works necessitated the covenant of grace, which is grounded in the gospel promise of salvation through Christ.
Other Reformed confessions, including the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort, share this two-covenant framework. Together, they affirm that justification is grounded solely in faith, not in covenantal faithfulness or obedience.
Jesus, the Spirit, and Covenant Discontinuity in John 7:37–39
Central to Jack Miller’s theological journey was his deep study of Isaiah, the present-tense verbs in John’s Gospel, and especially Jesus’s proclamation in John 7:37–39. These verses became pivotal for Miller, revealing Jesus’s own articulation of the profound discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. In this passage, Jesus declares, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” John immediately explains that this promise of living water refers to the Holy Spirit, whom those who believed in Jesus were to receive, but who had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39).
For Miller, this was transformative. He saw that the coming of the Spirit marked the radical shift inaugurated by Christ, moving believers from the legal promise under the old covenant to the gospel promise of the new covenant. The Spirit’s indwelling presence, promised by Jesus and fulfilled at Pentecost, was not merely an enhancement of the old covenant but the fulfillment of a new and better covenant (Hebrews 8:6). It is not an accident after all that John Calvin is known as the theologian of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, this same realization led Miller to become a fully functioning Trinitarian, profoundly reshaping his prayer life, his understanding of the gospel, and his ministry.
Miller often pointed out that these verses underscore the complete inability of the law to bring life, apart from the empowering work of the Spirit. The legal promise, though holy and good, could only reveal sin and drive people to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Jesus’s promise of the Spirit, by contrast, inaugurated an age of grace and spiritual freedom in which believers are empowered to love God and neighbor in the strength of the Spirit, not through self-reliance or mere covenantal obedience. For Miller, this was not just theology—it was a personal and pastoral reality. The gospel message that Jesus articulated in John 7 was not merely for the unconverted but also for Christians, who continually need to hear and take to heart the liberating power of grace.
This realization transformed Miller’s ministry, fueling his conviction that the gospel has the power to change anyone, anywhere, at any time. It also reinforced his critique of mono-covenantalism, which he believed failed to acknowledge the profound discontinuity between the covenants that Jesus Himself reveals in John 7:37–39. In Miller’s view, any theological framework that undermines this discontinuity risks losing the gospel’s clarity, the Spirit’s transformative power, and the freedom believers have in Christ.
Jesus’ words highlight the transition from the Old Covenant’s legal framework to the New Covenant’s Spirit-empowered life, where righteousness comes through faith and the Spirit, not through works of the law.
Shepherdism and the Distortion of Justification on the Framework of Mono-Covenantalism
Norman Shepherd used the mono-covenantal framework to introduce a tripartite view of justification: initial justification, the state of justification, and final justification. This framework effectively turned justification into a process dependent on covenantal obedience rather than a once-for-all declaration grounded in faith alone.
Shepherd’s theology, though intellectually rigorous, was ultimately a departure from the Reformation’s teaching on justification and the two-covenant structure of the Confession’s covenant theology. By collapsing the distinctions between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, Shepherd failed to maintain the biblical contrast between law and gospel. His framework emphasized covenant continuity at the expense of discontinuity, particularly in how the old covenant points to the new. For Shepherd, justification was inseparably tied to covenant obedience, creating confusion about the sufficiency of faith alone.
Jack Miller critiqued Shepherd’s theology as undermining the clarity of the gospel. He observed that Shepherd’s conflation of law and gospel led to a diminished view of grace, blurring the lines between justification and sanctification. Miller argued that by tying justification to covenantal obedience, Shepherd’s framework obscured the centrality of Christ’s finished work and the gift of righteousness received by faith. While Miller often engaged directly with Shepherd’s teachings, he also recognized that Shepherd was not alone in his views. Miller believed that the mono-covenantal framework appealed to more of the Westminster faculty, who, though less public or articulate than Shepherd, were similarly committed to this theological approach. For Miller, Shepherdism was not merely an individual aberration but reflected a broader shift within the seminary, one that he saw as deeply problematic for the church’s understanding of justification and covenant theology.
Paedo-Communion: A Pastoral Error and the Distortion of Justification
Paedo-communion, while not explicitly connected to Shepherd’s teachings, arises from the same mono-covenantal assumptions. Advocates often conflate the doctrine of election with speculative views of passive or eternal justification, presuming that covenant children are full participants in the covenant of grace without the need for personal faith. These views attempt to locate justification in the eternal mind of God, disconnected from its application in history through the covenant of grace. Jack Miller recognized that such speculative notions blurred the biblical teaching that justification comes through faith alone in Christ alone. He observed that this conflation often led churches, parents of covenant children, and the children themselves to presume upon their baptism as a guarantee of salvation, in a way that reminded him of the sacramentalism of Roman Catholicism or the Lutheran state church mentality, which deemphasized the necessity of regeneration and conversion.
Miller argued that justification must be understood as the act of God applied in history through faith in Christ, not as a pre-historical reality deduced from the doctrine of election. While election and the covenant of redemption are eternal realities, justification occurs within the covenant of grace as sinners embrace Christ by faith. As John Calvin emphasized in his final arrangement of the Institutes, justification is inseparably tied to faith and rightly belongs in its discussion, for “we justify Christ by our faith when we confess him to be our righteousness” (Institutes, 3.11.7). Calvin’s placement of justification under faith underscores that it is no abstract decree, but the work of God applied to sinners who lay hold of Christ in the gospel promise. As Miller wrote, “Even the elect as sons of Adam are under condemnation. Before their conversion, they are under divine wrath as other sinners.” This error, he warned, was rooted in the faulty presupposition of an eternal justification that undermines the urgency of conversion and new life in the Spirit.
Miller viewed paedo-communion as a pastoral error, failing to address the reality that covenant children are born under the legal promise and remain under God’s wrath until they embrace the gospel promise through faith. While baptism signifies God’s covenant promises, it does not guarantee salvation. “Covenant children must hear the full gospel,” Miller argued, “including the seriousness of their position under the law’s demands, so they may come to Christ by faith.” To presume covenant children’s participation in the gospel promise apart from personal faith is to distort the pastoral care required to lead them to Christ.
Theonomy, Reconstructionism, and Christian Nationalism
Mono-covenantalism, combined with post-millennial eschatology, fuels movements such as Theonomy, Reconstructionism, and Christian Nationalism. While these movements often claim to uphold God’s law and advance His kingdom, their theological framework conflates the legal promise and gospel promise, leading to significant distortions in their understanding of law, grace, and the mission of the church.
Theonomy seeks to apply Mosaic civil law as the binding standard for contemporary society, interpreting God’s law as universally normative for all cultures and governments. While proponents argue this is an act of covenantal faithfulness, their mono-covenantal assumptions often flatten the distinctions between the covenants and obscure the greater fulfillment of the law in Christ. The law’s purpose is not to reestablish an earthly civil order but to expose human sin, reveal humanity’s desperate need for Christ, and guide believers in Spirit-empowered love. As Paul teaches, “Through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20), and it is only in union with Christ that the law is fulfilled in love. Theonomy fails to account for this transformative role of the gospel and, instead, reduces God’s law to a societal code.
Reconstructionism, expanding on Theonomy, envisions the comprehensive reordering of society according to biblical principles, emphasizing the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28 as a call for Christians to reshape culture. While the dominion mandate reflects humanity’s purpose to glorify God in all creation, this movement often prioritizes external systems of governance over the internal transformation brought by the Spirit. The gospel does not call for Christians to build theocratic states but to proclaim the kingdom of Christ, where transformation flows not from societal structures but from hearts regenerated by grace. True dominion begins in the soul and flows outward in love for God and neighbor, not as a political or cultural agenda but as a reflection of the kingdom that is not of this world (John 18:36).
Christian Nationalism conflates national identity with Christian identity, often treating the nation-state as an extension of God’s covenant people. This approach misunderstands the church’s mission, which is to proclaim Christ as Lord over all nations, uniting people from every tongue, tribe, and nation (Revelation 7:9). While it is natural to desire the gospel’s impact within one’s own culture, the gospel itself transcends all boundaries, calling the church to proclaim the riches of God’s mercy to the ends of the earth. Christian Nationalism often reduces this universal scope, obscuring the truth that Christ’s kingdom is advanced not through national dominance but through the Spirit-empowered witness of the gospel.
These movements often reflect a “remnant theology” of fewness, where the church’s mission is perceived primarily as defending doctrinal purity against the world rather than proclaiming the gospel’s transforming power. This remnant theology distorts the church’s calling, reducing the gospel to a tool for societal preservation or moral improvement. By contrast, Scripture proclaims the gospel as the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16), an abundant grace poured out in the age of Pentecost. The church’s mission is not to build earthly kingdoms but to declare the excellencies of Christ and to live out His grace as His body, empowered by the Spirit to love God and neighbor.
The irony of these mono-covenantal movements is their claim to uphold God’s law while failing to keep it. The very law they seek to impose is the law they cannot fulfill apart from Christ. As Paul lamented, “For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15). Human efforts to achieve righteousness through the law, whether personal or societal, are ultimately impotent. The gospel reveals that the only righteousness acceptable in heaven is the righteousness of Christ, imputed to believers by faith and received in union with Him. It is only in this union that believers are empowered by the Spirit to uphold God’s law—not as a means of salvation but as an expression of love and gratitude.
There is an even greater irony that mono-covenantalism obscures: though these movements are outwardly rigorous in their claims, they cannot produce the heart-level obedience that God requires. True law-keeping flows from faith in Christ, where the Spirit transforms sinners into worshipers who uphold the law in love. “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31). Biblical covenant theology, with its two-covenant structure, preserves this truth, guarding the clarity of the gospel and pointing believers to Christ’s finished work as the only source of righteousness and life.
Conclusion: The Two-Covenant Framework of Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional Covenant Theology
This essay began with the assertion that Covenant Theology is NOT Mono-Covenantalism. Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional Covenant Theology is grounded in the two-covenant framework, which preserves the gospel’s clarity and guards against distortions like classical dispensationalism and mono-covenantalism. Both errors, though arising from different concerns, fail to maintain the biblical distinctions between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, leading to significant theological confusion and practical missteps.
The two-covenant framework—distinguishing between the covenant of works (sometimes called the covenant of life or the covenant of creation) and the covenant of grace—is the foundation of Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional Covenant Theology. It preserves the essential distinction between the legal promise (“Do this and live,” Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12) and the gospel promise (“Believe in Christ and live”), revealing both God’s justice and mercy. The covenant of works exposes humanity’s sin and inability to achieve righteousness, while the covenant of grace proclaims salvation entirely of grace, fulfilled in Christ and apart from human merit.
This two-covenant structure is enshrined in the Reformed confessions and creeds, including the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, “Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace” (WCF 7.3). Rooted in Scripture and the confessions, this framework not only maintains the integrity of the gospel but also ensures that law and gospel retain their distinct and God-given roles.
Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional Covenant Theology addresses the errors of dispensationalism, which fractures redemptive history into disconnected covenants, and mono-covenantalism, which collapses the covenant of works into the covenant of grace. The latter, especially when combined with post-millennial eschatology and a misapplication of the third use of the law, diminishes the clarity of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. These errors arise not from Scripture but from theological distortions that fail to uphold its two-covenant structure, as faithfully summarized in the Reformed confessions.
By holding to the two-covenant structure, Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional Covenant Theology serves as the corrective to errors on both ends of the theological spectrum—dispensationalism’s fractured framework and mono-covenantalism’s flattened approach.
By preserving the gospel’s clarity, the two-covenant framework equips the church to proclaim Christ’s finished work with confidence, calling sinners to faith and empowering believers to live in the freedom of grace. It magnifies the glory of Christ, in whom all the promises of God find their “yes” and “amen” (2 Corinthians 1:20).
Finally, please do not let anyone tell you that covenant theology is mono-covenantalism to support their errant views of Theonomy, Reconstruction, Christian Nationalism, or Shepherdism; or errant practices such as paedo-communion.
Because, after all, Mono-Covenantalism is NOT Covenant Theology!
