Why Calvinism Needs Covenant Theology

As I briefly developed in the previous article in this series, Reformed theology is a cohesive system sustained by three essential pillars—the Three Cs: Confessionalism, Calvinism, and Covenant Theology. In this series, I have been addressing the dangers of embracing one of these pillars while neglecting the others. In this article, I want to focus on what is perhaps the most concerning danger in our time: Calvinism without a covenantal framework and confessional boundaries.

Over the last few decades, Calvinism has grown in popularity, largely through the now-fading movement often called Young, Restless, and Reformed. The movement looked to a diverse set of "forefathers"—from the confessional Presbyterianism of R.C. Sproul to the "Leaky Dispensationalism" of John MacArthur and the "Christian Hedonism" of John Piper. While these men shared a high view of God’s sovereignty, they held conflicting views on the church, the sacraments, and the biblical covenants. The YRR movement tended to bridge these gaps by ignoring the "Three Cs" altogether, opting instead for a flattened version of the faith. By centring on the "cool" factor of men like Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler, the movement celebrated Calvinism as a standalone soteriology while neglecting the very confessional and covenantal frameworks that give those doctrines their proper shape. There were certainly both strengths and weaknesses in this movement, but one of its central problems was that it was never truly Reformed. It was, for the most part, merely Calvinistic.

One major issue with Calvinism detached from confessional commitments is that everyone ends up defining Calvinism for themselves. Many—if not most—modern Calvinists learned their theology primarily from popular preachers rather than from historic confessions (WCF, 2LBC, HC, BC) and documents such as the Canons of Dort. As a result, we now find multiple versions of Calvinism: some unbalanced, some dogmatic in areas where historic Reformed churches never were, others offering a “Calvinism-lite,” and still others calling themselves Calvinists while teaching and functioning in ways indistinguishable from classic Arminianism. In this environment, Calvinism becomes an empty label, untethered from any defined theological reality.

The second problem is Calvinism without the framework of covenant theology. Here, the difficulty is twofold. First, Calvinism becomes overly dependent on isolated proof texts rather than being rooted in the unified story of redemption as it unfolds through the covenants. Take, for example, the often-polemical doctrine of limited atonement. This doctrine is not grounded merely in a handful of New Testament verses asserting that Christ died for the elect. When Scripture is read covenantally, it becomes clear that covenants have always been particular, and atonement has always been directed toward the people of the covenant.

But the problem goes deeper. Calvinism detached from covenant theology tends to produce anxious Christians. Covenant theology provides a more objective framework for understanding salvation and belonging to the people of God. In churches shaped by covenant theology, there is a strong sense of the church as God’s covenant community, baptism as entrance into the covenant, and the Lord’s Supper as covenant renewal. Because of this, a Christian who is a member in good standing within the church need not live in constant anxiety over questions such as whether he is truly elect—the evidence of covenant membership and a persevering faith is already present.

In non-covenantal Calvinistic contexts, however, election often becomes a speculative doctrine rather than a covenantal comfort. Assurance turns inward and psychological instead of covenantal and objective. Salvation is reduced to a moment rather than understood as lifelong participation in God’s redemptive promises. Calvinism without covenant risks becoming a theology about salvation rather than a theology that sustains the saved.

It is important to remember that Calvinism—more accurately called the doctrines of grace—did not arise from the mere exegesis of isolated verses. It emerged from a carefully developed theological system that does justice to the whole of Scripture, read in light of God’s unfolding redemptive plan.

May God help us recover a doctrine of salvation that is fully aligned with the beautiful story of redemption revealed from Genesis to Revelation.

Nino Marques