Throughout the history of the Reformed theology, the Covenant Theology (CT) has been discussed and argued. Just before I start, I’d like you to know Puritanism is not what God wants. It was the first task I had to do in the Reformed church. Draw a clear line between the orthodox Reformed and Puritanism. The CT is related to the nature of the reformation done in 17^th century England. I see that God is much concerned about the CT because that is when the Reformed theology started to deviate from God’s truth. In many ways, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) is helpful. But the Divines were mixture of people from different churches. I think many people writing a confession together pose a risk.

Concerning the dreams I had, I did not know a single Reformed doctrine until 2017. God answered to my question why the Protestant is the same as the Roman Catholic church. It is because they share philosophy-based theology. It is not surprising that many Reformed theologians talk a lot about Plato or Aristotle. These Greek philosophers did not know God.

There are many theologians who wrote on the CT. And I think each interprets it differently so it will cause only confusion if I refute all the different interpretations. The root of the doctrine (although God showed me that it did not have a root!) is the misinterpretation of Romans 5:12-20. To take down the CT, one must understand the two natures of Christ, Adam’s nature, imputation of righteousness, and God’s eternal covenant of grace. I leave this task to the two men who will carry out the new reformation.

Reformed theologians say that there are two covenant heads: Adam and Christ. But in fact, the CT sees that there is only one covenant head, which is Adam. Christ came only because Adam failed. The CT followers (or the Covenant theologians) Adam did not need Christ in the garden of Eden and already had the Holy Spirit. How was it possible for Adam to rebel against God if he was sin-free and had the Holy Spirit? That does not make a sense. I consider most of the CT followers as the worshipers of Adam.

This is why the CT (together with the active obedience of Christ) must go. They say the doctrine came from what Paul wrote. The Apostle saw that there are two kinds of covenant: one with the free woman and the other with the slave woman (Gal 4:21-31). In other words, there are the unconditional and the conditional covenant. Paul said in the Book of Galatians (3:16-17) that the conditional Mosaic covenant comes after the unconditional covenant with Abraham. Therefore, the covenant of grace is what God wills from the beginning. But the CT followers say, “NO. The covenant with Adam comes before that with Abraham. So, the eternal covenant is conditional. One must work.” And they put the active obedience of Christ (AOC) together. Even though they say the work was done by Christ, they emphasize that the work was done by the man Christ. Thus, it separates Christ’s two natures. Christ’s two natures can never be separated. The original doctrine of AOC was from Anselm of Canterbury, and his theory is that Christ had to keep the Law perfectly to save both Himself and His church because he was a man. This idea is heretical, but this was never condemned. Anselm’s theology relies on human reasoning/logics. Aquinas rejects Sola Gratia (and the Trinity because of the influence of Greek philosophy). And Owen who loved Thomism adopted this doctrine and change it saying Christ did not need to do it, but He did it for his church. This is very bad. At least, Anselm stick to his principles. While what Anselm built was a bad one, what Owen built was worse. This convinced people at that time and even now. Many follow the CT because of what Owen and his friends did. This is what I have understood so far.

There are two major issues: one is that the Law is no longer what Paul describes in the NT as revealing one’s sins but being obedient to the Law becomes the only way to become and stay righteous. One rebellion is the end of righteousness. How shall we explain the life of Romans 7? Therefore, many in the Reformed churches cannot understand the life of saints described in Romans 7. The other issue is that it separates the Law and Christ’s work done on the cross. The fulfillment of the Law is love (Rom 13:10) and this love was shown on the cross (Rom 5:8). Therefore, the CT restricts the meaning of the death of Christ. They say we need more than Christ’s death. I think this is worse than Korah’s rebellion. Indeed, God saw Judah was more treacherous than the Northern Israel (Jer 3:11).

What the CT and the AOC emphasise is a moral life. Some ministers insist that people in the church will not keep the Law without the AOC doctrine. They do not know God. This doctrine was written because of the nature of the Reformation done in the 17^th century England. Puritanism was strong then. The CT followers say there must be a reason Christ had to live for 30 + years and the reason was because He had to keep all the Law perfectly. Christ’s public life started at the age of 30, indicating the start of the priesthood as shown in Numbers 4:3 and in the Book of Ezekiel (1:1).

As we get rid of the CT, we will have more understanding of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. To explain it, the Book of Job plays an important role. Job thought he was better than Adam (Job 31:33) and kept all God’s commandments. But God gave him much suffering. Thus, he argues that God is unrighteous (or less righteous than him). Three friends were given the task to rebuke Job, but their knowledge of God was superficial. Job was happy with the righteousness that comes from works. But God’s intention was to make him know that the righteousness from works of a creature is nothing. The true righteousness is the Creator’s love and mercy. A mere creature cannot be a part of such righteousness until God gives. The Covenant Theology and the AOC cannot explain the richness of God’s love and righteousness.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (John 13:34)