Dispensational Federalists affirm the ultimately unconditional, unilateral, and everlasting nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is a gracious gospel promise (Gal. 3:8) and shares organic unity with the promised seed of the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15).
In previous articles, we have pointed out that the Mosaic Covenant should be understood as a conditional covenant, or a covenant characterized by a works principle. Given this, we can draw a clear point of difference with all forms of covenant theology that comprehend the Mosaic Covenant as substantially gracious.
But identifying this particular difference still falls short of distinguishing Dispensational Federalism from every other version of Reformed Covenant Theology. Many Reformed Baptists, for example, also believe that the Mosaic Covenant was conditional. Jeffrey Johnson illustrates this by saying, “the Mosaic Covenant was not part of the covenant of Grace, but the covenant of works.”[1] So, to really understand the unique features of a Dispensational Federalism, we need to turn our attention to how we understand the Abrahamic Covenant.
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
What we will cover in this article is by no means intended to be comprehensive, but the first point we want to make, is to simply say that we affirm the Abrahamic Covenant to be gracious. It is not a covenant of works.
Now, this statement shouldn’t raise too many eyebrows. Church history could bring forth a host of both Reformed and Dispensational voices all affirming this same truth. But what is worth noting, is that this simple affirmation does raise a significant point of difference with some of our Reformed Baptist brothers.
With the Abrahamic Covenant in view, one Reformed Baptist author comes to the conclusion that, “This covenant can be classified as a covenant based on works, or obedience.” [2] Which is not something we can agree with. In fact, it’s a point that we consider to be an embarrassingly weak link in their covenantal system. Is the Abrahamic Covenant really a covenant of works?
But without going further and arguing the point, the present aim is to simply state our position. And as we begin by affirming the gracious nature of the Abrahamic covenant, we begin to distinguish ourselves from some forms of Reformed Baptist covenant theology. More differences will become apparent as we progress further, however, we need to be conscious of what is starting to take place. And this is where Dispensationalists need to take heart, because there is a wide spectrum of covenantal views that we are beginning to bump into.
THE COVENANTAL SPECTRUM
What I would love Dispensationalists to understand, is that Covenant Theology doesn’t represent a single monolithic view that stands in opposition to Dispensationalism. The whole argument between these two theological traditions might be improved if this was given better consideration, allowing the discussion to be reframed more appropriately for a new generation.
When we looked at the Mosaic Covenant, we made a big deal of all the different views represented within the single realm of Reformed Covenant Theology. At one end of the spectrum, some understood it as a pure covenant of grace, while at the other end, some consider it an organically independent covenant of works. Noticeably, these views are diametrically opposed to each other, yet they all somewhat happily co-exist under the single banner of Reformed Covenant Theology.
But now, as we come to consider the Abrahamic Covenant, I trust you can start to see that this problem is only compounding. Some understand the Abrahamic Covenant to be a covenant of grace, while others see is as a covenant of works. Again, we encounter diametrically opposing views attempting to explain another biblical covenant.
If you were to ask the seemingly simple question, What does covenant theology teach regarding the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants?, there is no single answer. There are simply dozens of possible permutations. To put it another way, a Reformed Baptist might say that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are both covenants of works, while someone following a more classical formulation might affirm that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are both covenants of grace. It all starts to become quite nonsensical.
Given this predicament, just imagine being a poor dispensationalist for one moment, and having someone say to you that, Covenant theology is right, and dispensationalism is wrong! But since Covenant Theology represents such vastly different views, what does a claim like this even mean?
WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF THIS?
These are my suggestions:
- While there is much bravado amongst some proponents of Covenant Theology in our present day regarding the superiority of their theology in relation to Dispensationalism, it might be worth taking a more humble approach by acknowledging that Covenant Theology doesn’t even give a unified answer as to the meaning of the various biblical covenants. It is still an area of theology that requires significant progress, refinement, and clarification.
- It remains a meaningful exercise to continue formulating a Dispensational Federalism and placing our views within the wider spectrum of covenantal views to enable a more fruitful discussion of specific differences. In a more general sense, there needs to be a far better framework for theological engagement that accommodates all the nuances of the various covenantal positions. This would enable accurate comparison and analysis of all the competing covenantal views. Perhaps we can call it, The Covenantal Spectral Framework.
- It is worth considering that Dispensationalists might actually see some things in the scriptures that Covenant Theologians have missed, and our input into the wider discussion may even help bring aspects of covenantal clarity (Eph. 4:13).
In future articles we will continue to focus on further details of the Abrahamic Covenant. How do we understand the land promises? How do we understand the promises in relation to the physical descendants of Abraham? Is the Abrahamic Covenant temporary or everlasting? Do the promises of the covenant find their full realization in the first coming of Jesus, or the second? The answer to questions like this will continue to define a uniquely Dispensational Federalism.
We are keen to keep pushing this project forward. Our dispensational distinctives really do flow from our understanding of the biblical covenants. They all come from our covenant theology!
[1] Jeffrey Johnson, The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism, Chapter 5. The Old Covenant Based on Works.
[2] Samuel Renihan, The mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. Chapter 6, The Abrahamic Covenant, 3. The Expansion of the Covenant.
Dispensational Federalism 