IS COVENANT THEOLOGY BIBLICAL ?

And the answer is a resounding No! It's false doctrine. That's exactly right folks; Covenant Theology is a heresy not found in Scripture. Oh... there's no doubt that those who espouse such a view make every attempt to justify it from the Bible but so what? What heresy that attempts to pass for Christianity does not use the Bible?  What sense would it make to try and set forth a doctrine as "Christian" without at least referring to one verse in the Bible. That would fool no one!  Even Satan quoted Scripture. So what else is new? But in fact most heresies refer to many passages of Scripture and the result is the many winds of false doctrines, cults and false gospels that are running rampant  in modern day evangelicalism.

Any doctrine that says unregenerates are "in the covenant" and/or places undue legalistic burdens to "keep the sabbath" and spearheads campaigns to close down businesses on Sunday, forbids people to shop or eat out, and many other such legalistic requirements not found in Scripture is obviously far removed from redemption that sets men free from bondage, delivers them from sin and makes them new creatures in Christ.

Covenant Theology says that Little Willie is "in the covenant" by reason of his having been born to parents who are believers. Any babe in Christ who only reads the first three chapters of the Gospel of John will immediately see that this is in complete opposition to the teachings of the Son of God. And I have chosen my words very carefully here folks. To "be in opposition to the teachings of the Son of God" is in essence to call God a liar!

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son. 1John 5:10

And what is that witness?
In John chapter one it is written...

11  He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Question; Were "his own"... in the covenant? After all, these were Jews who had the law, the sabbaths and circumcision! So... were they "IN" the "covenant"?  If you say Yes then.... Which covenant were they "in"?  It cannot be the New Covenant  because the New Covenant says... "I give unto them eternal life and they shall NEVER perish". But to reject Christ is to perish folks! This is the teaching covenant theology would have us buy into and which casts a shadow upon the Person and Work of the Son of God who came to SAVE His people from their sins! Are the "his own" of this verse... His people? Yes or No? If Yes then didn't He save them from their sins? But if No then how is it they are said to be in the covenant?

12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Question; Are those who do not believe on the name of Jesus Christ, sons of God? Absolutely No!

Question; Are those who are not yet the sons of God... In the Covenant? Covenant theologians will answer an unequivocal Yes to this question. They say Little Willie, who shows absolutely no sign of having been born of God, which is the ONLY way into the New Covenant... is 'in the covenant'.. because he has been born, not of God but of 'believing parents'! This is what covenant theology teaches folks and it is heresy. The very next verse is in clear opposition to it.

13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

A covenant theologian cannot handle this passage without twisting it and calling God a liar! The passage clearly tells us in no uncertain terms that the one and only way to become a son of God is by regeneration. These and these alone are the true sons of God who are in the New Covenant. The passage also clearly militates against any kind of birth that has anything at all to do with flesh and this includes children who are born to people claiming to be believers. But covenant theologians say... "OOoohhh no... there is another way into the covenant. John 1 don't really mean what it says! After all, you must take Scripture wholistically; put it in context; good and necessary consequences... and all that. I mean... C'mon Eve; hath God said???  Nahhh; God doesn't *really* mean what He says now...".

Whenever a covenant theologian uses the phrase "in the covenant" it does well to ask... Which covenant are you talking about? But you had better be careful with that one because I will tell you that such a question to covenant theologians will immediately produce fangs and talons. Try it. It's like telling a "Calvinist" that Arminians are not Christians. At that point the "Calvinist" becomes your mortal enemy.

A likely response to the question from the covenant theologian will often be one of the foundational pillars of their heresy that says....

"There is only one covenant with two [different] "administrations".

But not only is such a notion completely and totally foreign to Scripture... it is in blatant opposition to Scripture... and you know what that means right? It means the person who believes that is again calling God a liar! 1John 5:10.

The NT clearly talks about two Covenants... not two administrations of one covenant;... but Two Covenants... One, Two! Galatians 4 and Hebrews chapters 8 thru 10 along with 12:24 and 13:20. The Old covenant and the New covenant... not the "old/new administration"... !

More from John... chapter three.

3  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

And why can't he see it? Because folks... he is stone cold dead in his sin. And in such a condition he is, by nature, a God-hater. Now I ask you... can one who hates God be "in the covenant"? Well he can certainly be in "a" covenant, for Esau, who not only hated God but was himself hated by God.. was "in the covenant". And so was every other unbelieving Jew who perished in his sin... "in the covenant" and that includes all who were under Moses! This is the dilemma covenant theology runs into with their claim that there is "only one covenant". If there's only ONE covenant and everybody's 'in' it then that means people in the covenant can end up in Hell! But folks.. that's simply a variation on the Arminian theme that Christ has died for everybody but most of those everybodies perish in their sin! Did not Messiah die for ALL who are "in" the Covenant? If members of the Old covenant perished in their sin, and members of the New covenant also perish in their sin then what, pray tell, is the difference between the two? This makes Moses and Jesus Christ *equal* but that's heresy!

In no way can such people as Esau be said to be in the New Covenant. Jesus Christ says they can't.

5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus says unregenerates CANNOT be in the Kingdom; Covenant theologians say... Yes they CAN!

This passage is in harmony with chapter one and teaches that there is only one way into the Kingdom; Regeneration.  Anybody who denies that and says there is some other way is a thief and a robber!!  John 10. There is ONLY ONE WAY INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD!! REGENERATION!  And to be IN the Kingdom of God is to be IN the New Covenant!  This is what the New Covenant and Redemption are all about folks. Read all about it in Ezekiel 36:25ff / Jer 31:31-34 / Galatians 3 & 4 and Hebrews 8 to 10. In all of these passages you will not find a single syllable about "children of believers" or of "one covenant with two administrations". If you want to see what the Bible says about an "administration" in terms of a covenant then look at....

2Co 3:7  But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

This passage tells us very clearly that the Old Covenant, which was the Mosaic Covenant was a ministration of... what?  Death!!!! Now... covenant theologians tell us that Moses was one "administration of the covenant of grace".  If that's so then they are now forced to say that the covenant of grace is a covenant of Death for that's what the ministration of Moses was! In other words, if Moses was a ministration of Death... and it was, and that was an "administration of the covenant of grace" then there is no other conclusion than that the New Covenant is a covenant of Death! Such a notion is nothing but darkness! It's heresy! How can a ministration of Death be an administration of life???
 

Following is a pericope from an article written by  R.C. Fuqua entitled.. "The Two Covenants: Are Christians Under The Law of Moses?"
====================quote==========================

No matter how many inferior "covenants" the Bible records, all  that Paul was concerned with, or that concerns us, were the "two covenants" which he so conclusively contrasted in the epistles just named, and which he repeatedly styles the "first" and the "second," or the "old" and the "new" covenants (Heb. 8:7,13). And in his exposition of the two wives of Abraham, he makes one the type or pattern, and the other the antitype or substance. This alone reduces the "covenant" issue to only two covenants.

Now "the covenant" of the Old Testament is, fundamentally, the Ten Commandments (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 9:9-11, 15). This is the first  or old covenant that Paul subjects to the stinging contrast with Christianity. Not only is the Ten Commandments covenant obsolete, but being a ministration of death, it is a "condemnation" system (2 Cor. 3:6-10) that the mercy of the New Covenant had to remove that men might be saved. No unbiased mind can read the contrast drawn by Paul and fail to see the necessity of abrogating [i.e. ending] the Ten Commandment system, the Old Covenant, in order to bring life and salvation to men through Christ. Had the Old Covenant stood, no human being could ever have been saved.
=================end quote==============================

He is saying that if the Ten Commandments are still in force then there can be no salvation. And why not?  Because... and this is a Biblical point that most people are completely unaware of... wherever the Ten Commandments are in force there is of NECESSITY the requirement of the Levitical priesthood. It was by way of the Levitical priesthood that the Law was given and carried out and NO one was allowed to be a priest who was not of the  tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron. But ladies and gentlemen herein is the Death Knell to covenant theology so read it carefully;

Jesus Christ was not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Judah!

Therefore... if Moses is still in force then so is the Levitical priesthood.
And if the Levitical priesthood is still in force then....

>>--Jesus Christ was NOT a legal priest and there is NO SALVATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY way that Christ could be a legal priest was if the priesthood was changed... and it was.
And the ONLY way for the priesthood to be changed was to change the law as well... AND IT WAS!

Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

If the law was not changed then neither was the priesthood... for they stand or fall together. And if the priesthood was not changed then Jesus Christ was not the Messiah!

Therefore... Covenant theology *rejects* Jesus Christ as Messiah and in so doing denies His salvation. It denies the Gospel!

So Fuqua's article continues...
========================quote===================

Under the Old Covenant the priesthood was of the tribe of Levi exclusively (Heb. 7:11-17). No man of another tribe could be a priest while the Covenant stood. While it stood, Christ could not be our Priest, for He was of the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). Before Christ could make His offering for our sins (which was done when He entered into heaven with His own blood -- Heb. 9:12, 24), the priesthood must be changed from the tribe of Levi to the tribe of Judah, and this change necessitated a change of the entire Law. Hence we read this: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12).

The Law was changed, therefore, that Christ might become man's Priest. Consequently, any attempt to require obedience to the Old or First Covenant is an attempt to rob the saints of their salvation. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosover of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4). If the Law is still God's law [that is, if it is still the law God intends for His people to be subject to], then it is unchanged from what it was prior to the offering of the blood of Christ; and if that is true, then Christ, who was of the tribe of Judah, did not make a lawful Priestly offering for our sins. To charge that is to reject Christ as our Savior -- is to fall from grace. This all Sabbatarians do.>
===============end quote=====================

Yea... this all covenant theologians do. Every time he says "The Ten Commandments are the eternal, UNchanging law of God" he is denying the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Every time a covenant theologian applies water to an unregenerate infant... or adult, he is rejecting Jesus Christ as Messiah and denying the Gospel.

Every time a covenant theologian says "keep the sabbath", he is rejecting Jesus Christ as Messiah and denying the Gospel.

John 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Grace came by Jesus Christ... not Moses! Therefore, Moses was in no way  "a different administration of [the covenant of] grace". Moses was a ministration of Death!

Fuqua...
====================quote===============================
To attempt to separate the Ten Commandments from the "ceremonial" or rest of the Law, preserving the Ten Commandments as God's permanent Law and abrogating the rest of the Law is to lay violent hands on a divine system . . . We are not to separate what God has "joined together." Moreover, Christ positively said that "not one jot or tittle" of the Law should be changed "till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). There was not to be the least abrogation of the Law "till all" should be abrogated or changed to admit a Priest from the tribe of Judah. The change that was required involved the utter crucifixion of the entire Law: it was nailed to the cross and expired with the human part or fleshly body of Christ (Col. 2:14; Eph.2:15). In its stead, God gave His people the New Covenant, a "better covenant" which is based on "better promises" (Heb. 8:6-9).
================end quote================

End covenant theology. If you hold covenant theology.... Repent!

Prove  All  Things                                                                                   bu5
                                                                                                                   cb5