If we turn to Covenant theology’s own explanations of their system we find a curious dualism of frankness and subterfuge. I do not use “frankness” in the ethical sense, just in the sense that there is sometimes a willingness to face the text and deal with what it actually says. Likewise, by “subterfuge” I am not saying there is an unethical motive in these men, but that they almost instinctively avoid the clear implications of passages which undermine their teaching. Robertson, for example, when dealing with the inauguration of the Abrahamic covenant, carefully picks his way through Genesis 15 (and 12:1) without mentioning God’s land-promise (Ch. 8). He first constructs his thesis with the help of certain NT texts, and then deals with the land issue once he has a typological framework to put it in. He is more “up-front” when he refers to Jeremiah 31, 32 and Ezekiel 34 and 37 on pages 41-42 of his book, but this plain speaking about God’s planting of His people “in this land” to “give them one heart and one way”, and his explicitly linking the land promise to Jacob through the Abrahamic covenant, does not last for long. Needless to say the land promise to Israel withers under the flame of Reformed typology as Robertson’s book progresses (Ch. 13), and the Church becomes “Israel” through its participation in the new covenant.
In none of this does one find any solid exegetical demonstration. Instead, at the crucial moment, in order to get where they want to go, CT’s will rely upon human reasoning (e.g. “if this, then that”) to lop off covenanted promises which contravene their theological covenants. The land promise stated over and over in the Abrahamic covenant (e.g. 12:1, 7; 15:18-21; 17:7-8) and repeated in the prophets (e.g. Isa. 44; Jer. 25:5; 31:31-40; 32:36-41; 33:14-26; Ezek. 36:26-36), is ushered into a room marked “obscurity” using the covenant of grace. How ironic; the land promise is expressly stated and restated all over the OT, and the covenant of grace never once puts in an appearance! But this maneuver can be carried out under the auspices of this brand of theology due to what Gerhaardus Vos called “a consciousness of the covenant”, meaning the covenant of grace. I might humbly point out that there are other, more perspicuous covenants that ought to have our attention as Bible readers.
Another noted Covenant theologian who exemplifies the phenomena I have been referring to is Michael Horton. His book God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, takes back with one hand what it appears to give with the other. Placing an enormous burden of proof on Galatians 4:22-31, which it was never supposed to bear, Horton sometimes seems to interpret the covenant passages at face value. He repeatedly admits that both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were unconditional. He rivals any dispensationalist in his belief in the unilateral nature of these biblical covenants. But then he makes the land promise part of the Mosaic covenant, whence it can be safely dispatched. As he says for example,
The Mosaic (Sinai) covenant is an oath of the people swearing personal performance of the conditions for “living long in the land,” while the Abrahamic covenant is a promise by God himself that he will unilaterally bring about the salvation of his people through the seed of Abraham.
This is an amazing statement. Although he is right to say that possession of the land was tied to obedience to the Mosaic covenant (e.g. Lev. 26), even the Mosaic covenant looked forward to a New covenant whereby God would circumcise the heart (Deut. 30:6), so that “in the latter days” they would not be forsaken, but would be remembered because of the existing terms of the Abrahamic covenant (Deut.4:30-31; 30:19-20).
What happened? Is the Abrahamic covenant only about salvation as Horton claims? I invite anyone to read Genesis 12-17, Jeremiah 33 or Ezekiel 36 and demonstrate such a single track in regards to the Abrahamic covenant. It is a patently false reading. In fact, there is no provision for salvation at all in the Abrahamic covenant itself. Although the Seed promise (singular) is there, it is developed through the New covenant, not per se the terms of the Abrahamic. All the talk about typology (Horton’s book is also filled with it) cannot alter these facts.
That God must be gracious to sinners if they are to be saved is not at issue. What is at issue is whether there is any such thing as the covenant of grace (I have focused on it since it is the main support for CT’s interpretations and theology). I have no qualms in describing it is a figment overlaid on the biblical covenants. It is the lens which makes CT’s see only the salvation of the church in the covenants. It is what encourages them to transform the NT Church into “new Israel”. It stands behind many of the dogmas of covenant theology. But the covenant of grace, together with the “covenant of works”, is nonetheless absent from the Word of God.
 O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 41
 Ibid. 42
 E.g. 289
 See Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, 42, 45, 48-49
 Ibid. 48