Dispensational Federalists believe that the concept of a theological Covenant of Grace is not unscriptural but deny the classical formulation where the mosaic covenant is considered part of its organic unity. An alternative model of The Covenant of Grace is affirmed.
It might be a surprise to some, but terms like ‘Dispensational Federalism’ aren’t without precedent in theological discussion. In fact, it is not uncommon for dispensationalists to consider their view of the biblical covenants as the very strength of their system.
Larry Pettegrew, for example, suggests that another good name for dispensationalism could be, “Biblical covenantalism”. And he said that because, “this system is not built on the foundation of dispensations, but on the major biblical covenants, specifically the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New. These biblical covenants form the backbone of what is usually called dispensationalism.”[1]
So, as we start to talk about The Covenant of Grace, we are starting to focus on the relationship between the various biblical covenants. And historically, this is where many of the differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism start to become more evident. And for those following what we have written to date, this is also where Dispensational Federalism begins to reveal its truly dispensational contours.
Organic Unity
While not all covenant theologians would agree, I think it’s fair to say that the reformed majority would uphold what they refer to as the ‘organic unity’ of the covenant of grace.
To understand this, we need to imagine the promise in Genesis 3:15 as a seed, the Abrahamic Covenant then naturally grows into a shoot, the Mosaic and Davidic covenants continue to develop into a plant, before finally coming to fulfilment and flowering in Christ and the New Covenant. In this way, all the biblical covenants after the fall are considered under the one theological banner of The Covenant of Grace. They each share in organic unity, and they are all considered gracious in nature. That needs to be understood by dispensationalists to comprehend their system.
Dispensationalism on the other hand, with its belief in a conditional Mosaic Covenant that is entirely different in species to the Abrahamic, is somewhat jarring to the reformed mind. That’s probably an understatement. It might be better to say that it shatters this idyllic picture of the organic unity of redemptive history. To them, Dispensationalism strikes as something of an uncomfortable dualism. It seems fractured, disjointed, incoherent, and emphasises an entirely unnatural discontinuity.
Not surprisingly, this is a major point of difference.
The Covenant of Grace
More will need to be said to show the basis of our position, but let me give you a glimpse of how we understand The Covenant of Grace by saying this:
Adam’s failure in Eden casts a dark legal shadow over the entire history of redemption. An almost invisible shadow, yet an ever-present reality existing as a perpetual reminder of the perfect standard of obedience that is still required for mankind to merit eternal life; in spite of the fact that it remains out of reach and is utterly impossible for fallen man to attain.
To be clear, we are suggesting that the Mosaic Covenant is best understood as another instantiation of that first standard of righteousness, a terrifying flash of legal lightning and fire that illuminates this ghostly shadow in the dark sky above mount Sinai, which lasts until the coming of Christ, and temporarily republishes what many refer to as The Covenant of Works.
Further, we believe that this bi-lateral covenant was made with the people of Israel[2] until the arrival of the promised Christ.
Now, we expect at this point that some well-meaning covenant theologians may rise up and say, ‘There it is, that’s the heresy! That’s not just a material, but a formal republication of the covenant of works, and that necessarily entails salvation by works!’
And that indeed would be the case if the theological lens through which you were looking was from the standpoint of the classical organic-unity-model of the covenant of grace.
By that model, if the substantially gracious mosaic section of the covenant of grace was removed, and a substantially legal one put in its place, then there is only one route by which the way of salvation by grace can travel. It can only pass through the choke point of an entirely legal economy.
But that is the great limitation of the classical organic-unity-model. We do not believe that model best reflects the biblical data, and that is not the model of the covenant of grace that Dispensational Federalists espouse.
We propose a model with two covenantal layers.
First, the Mosaic Covenant is understood as a republication of The Covenant of Works, they are inherently linked, consist of a single substance, and correspond to, ‘The Law’.
Secondly, the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants, are understood to share organic unity, consist of a single substance, constitute what we refer to as, ‘The Covenant of Grace’, and correspond to, ‘The Gospel’.
In this model, a law-gospel model, when we propose a formal republication of The Covenant of Works, the inability to keep the law is undergirded by a gospel layer of saving grace that flows uninterrupted throughout redemptive history.
In this model, the accusation of heresy doesn’t stand. In this model, the republication debate is resolved. In this model, the extent of the covenantal continuities and discontinuities can be precisely stated. In this model, the deeply held covenantal convictions of dispensationalism, particularly regarding the conditional nature of the mosaic covenant, have been translated into reformed categories giving opportunity for a more fruitful discussion of specific differences. And in this model, the amount of biblical data that can now be read in a straightforward manner is quite staggering.
Further, it is our contention that the substance-accidents distinction often utilized in conjunction with the classical understanding of The Covenant of Grace is unnecessary. To us, it is like trying to make blood travel simultaneously in two directions through one vein. The law-gospel model of The Covenant of Grace, however, allows for both covenantal veins and arteries. Here, the law and the gospel remain unmixed, unconfused, undiluted, and clearly delineated. We believe this dynamic is at the heart of much confusion between the two systems regarding the Mosaic Covenant.
We plan to substantiate what we have just stated, point out some of its historic origins, show its resonance with dispensational convictions, and present the biblical basis of this position in upcoming articles. But first, we will keep sketching our covenantal outline and introduce you to Tenet No.5, The Abrahamic Covenant.
There, you will really start to see the foundation of our dispensational distinctives.
[1] Pettegrew, Larry; Faculty, Shepherd’s Theological Seminary. Forsaking Israel: How It Happened and Why It Matters (2nd Edition) (Kindle Locations 4930-4933). Kindle Edition.
[2] Our intention is to provide further clarification of the exact nature of the formal republication proposed. To give a general idea, we understand it to be almost identical to the complex, formal republication held by Thomas Boston, with the exception that two covenants are not made at Mt Sinai, the Abrahamic being already in existence and not being nullified by the giving of the Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:17). Refer also to ‘The Law is Not of Faith’, p97. We understand both covenants being operative during the period of the mosaic economy, the Mosaic (The Covenant of Works republished) not in an absolute sense, considering the Israelites continued relation unto the Abrahamic (The Covenant of Grace).
Dispensational Federalism 