Our previous article made the claim that the theological concept of a covenant of grace is not unscriptural. Contrary to this, dispensationalists often claim that because the bible never uses the term, ‘The Covenant of Grace’, it has no biblical basis.
Now, the desire for a biblical basis is always legitimate, but there is more going on that is causing confusion here, and to explain this we need to say a little more about the concept of ‘organic unity’.
Dispensationalists would agree that in Genesis 3:15, we have the protoevangelium, the first gospel. It is a promise of grace, the promise of a seed, the promise of a saviour that will bring salvation and restore mankind from his fallen state.
Further, we would also believe that when God entered a formal covenant with Abraham, it formalized that same promise. The Abrahamic Covenant is rightly understood as an elaboration and expansion of God’s same plan for salvation. It cannot be divorced from the initial promise.
In the same way, the Davidic Covenant further unfolds the details of this redeemer and this plan of redemption. The New Covenant continues the pattern. It is inherently related, and the same seed of the woman that was promised, arrives in Jesus.
Now, if we agree that the various biblical covenants mentioned are connected to each other, we are saying they share ‘organic unity’. And given this, it is not only biblical to view the various biblical covenants individually, but we can also view them connected as a whole, as a singular Covenant of Grace. This is a legitimate and biblical way to think. The Covenant of Grace is simply a description of God’s way of salvation by faith in the promised Christ that sweeps uninterrupted throughout redemptive history.
Of course, there may be some who disagree with the title that is applied to these organically connected covenants. Perhaps we could use the biblical term, ‘the covenants of promise’, from Ephesians 2:12. But call it what you like, the concept of organic unity should at least be acknowledged, and the content to which the title refers remains a biblical reality.
But arguing over the title doesn’t help us identify our more significant differences. The more foundational question we need to ask is, what are the constituent parts that legitimately make up the whole of The Covenant of Grace? Specifically, we are asking, does the Mosaic Covenant share organic unity with The Covenant of Grace?[1]
That reveals a real point of difference.
Dispensational Federalists are making the argument that the Mosaic Covenant does not share organic unity with The Covenant of Grace. We believe it is a distinct covenant and is organically independent. We believe that the Mosaic Covenant is characterized by its legal nature, while the Covenant of Grace is characterized by its gracious nature.
But what we also find interesting, is that within the Reformed tradition itself, Simpson, Owen, Witsius, Fisher, Burroughs, Crisp, Cameron, Bolton, and Boston, also believed that the Mosaic Covenant was distinct from the Covenant of Grace.[2]
This very dispensational conviction of a strong law-gospel emphasis doesn’t exist in an entirely separate theological universe. It has always been part of the covenantal conversation.
In our next article, we intend to get to the Abrahamic Covenant. That will highlight another key difference.
[1] Another question we need to ask is, what defines the exact nature, essence, and substance of this unity?
[2] The Law is Not of Faith, p104.
Dispensational Federalism 