Blog

This article will embark upon a critical analysis of Dispensationalism’s aversion to the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. As will be seen below, each of the three main classifications of Dispensationalism will be categorized with the primary source that corresponds to that respective classification. This organizational methodology aims to share pertinent excerpts from the primary sources that highlight why Dispensationalists outrightly reject the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. After amassing these citations, I will provide a concluding assessment on the biblical and theological merits of the objections that are addressed from the “Classic/Traditional,” “Revised,” and “Progressive” Dispensational positions.

*Sources For Each Variation of Dispensationalism:

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism–

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Scripture Press, 1988. 

Revised Dispensationalism–

MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. 

Progressive Dispensationalism–

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. 

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism on the Covenant of Redemption

Although there is not an explicit affirmation of the covenant of redemption in the standard systematic theology textbook, Classic Dispensationalism affirms the following “essential truths embraced” regarding the salvation of sinners therein:

God by His election has chosen some but not all to salvation; Divine election was accomplished in eternity past; election does not merely rest on [divine] foreknowledge; divine election is immutable; election [is] in relation to Christ’s mediation.[1]

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism on the Covenants of Works and Grace

In “covenant theology,” the attempt is made to minimize the distinctions between different dispensations to magnify their similarities. Covenant theology, though related to other theologies, has its primary source in Cocceius (1603-1669). He postulated a so-called covenant of works before the Fall, which covenant, of course, was broken, and a     covenant of grace was instituted thereafter. There is little or no evidence of a covenant of works in the Bible except that obviously Adam and Eve suffered as a result of their disobeying God in regard to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is also clear that Adam and Eve became the recipients of the grace of God and were saved on that basis. Covenant theology generally fails to recognize distinct rules of life and the sharp distinction between the works principle as a rule of life (not as a way of salvation) in the Mosaic Covenant and the grace principle as a rule of life in the present age.[2]

Commentary

Despite not espousing a covenant of redemption proper (the theological concept is not mentioned in Chafer), there is nothing overtly wrong with any of the “essential truths embraced” regarding the salvation of sinners that he mentions in his Systematic Theology. Chafer appears to affirm the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of the elect, which is certainly a biblically derived reality (Eph. 1:3-14). However, the Bible is clear that in eternity past, there was a promise within the Godhead for the Father to redeem a particular people by the work of His Son in redemptive history, and that the Holy Spirit would apply all the saving benefits wrought by the Son to those whom the Father had commissioned Him to save through the incarnation (Titus 1:1-3; see also Isa. 53:10-12; Luke 22:29; John 17:1-8). From my perspective, the clearest and reputable theological terminology that has been utilized in church history to describe this Scriptural reality is none other than the covenant of redemption.[3] Given Chafer’s familiarity with the covenant of works/grace language, he was very likely aware of the theological language that could be employed in seeking to describe the biblical concept of God’s eternal decree to save the elect. Nevertheless, Chafer’s choice to not utilize the “covenant of redemption” terminology indicates that he took issue with it in some way or another.

 On the other hand, Chafer is abundantly transparent about the issues that he takes with the “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace” frameworks. For starters, Chafer parrots the widely held misconception that the covenants of works/grace originated in the thought of Johannes Cocceius (as can be seen below, this misbelief is also expressed by MacArthur and Mayhue in Biblical Doctrine). Although the covenant of works and covenant of grace language was not thoroughly developed until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it is false to insinuate that the “primary source” for these doctrinal categories originated with Cocceius.[4] Moreover, Chafer demonstrates two gross inconsistencies in his discussion on the covenants of works and grace. First, Chafer claims that “there is little or no evidence of a covenant of works,” but simultaneously affirms that “Adam and Eve suffered as a result of their disobeying God regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This line of reasoning presents a seemingly irresolvable conundrum for Chafer to deal with. Namely, if Adam and Eve were not in a covenantal relationship with God, then how are the consequences for their sin binding upon them and upon all their physical descendants (Rom. 5:12, 17-19; 1 Cor. 15:21)? What’s more, there are similar problems embedded within Chafer’s brief dismissal of the biblical-theological basis for the covenant of grace. When Chafer acknowledges that “[it] is… clear that Adam and Eve became the recipients of the grace of God and were saved on that basis,” but simultaneously denies the prevalence of the covenant of grace in Scripture, he must necessarily account for how the saving benefits of Christ are binding upon them and upon all His spiritual descendants (Rom. 5:15-16; 1 Cor. 15:22).

When reflecting upon each of the antecedent inconsistencies in Chafer’s thought, I am further persuaded that affirming the theological concepts of the covenants of works and grace best enable us to account for the biblical evidence on these matters. Given his hesitancy to arrive at the same conclusion, perhaps Chafer would have done well to remember this crucial conviction that has been modeled throughout church history: just because the word is not found in the Bible does not mean that the theological concept is not being clearly affirmed therein. As is the case when affirming doctrines such as the Trinity or the hypostatic union, we do not disregard the truths of a theological concept simply because the word used to describe that concept is not found within Scripture.

Revised Dispensationalism on the Covenant of Redemption

 For two reasons, we contend that it is inaccurate to describe [the] pretemporal, intra-Trinitarian agreement as a covenant. First, in Scripture, the word covenant is used to designate an agreement between two unequal parties: a sovereign lord and a vassal (or lesser person). Though there is diversity of roles within the Godhead, the persons of the Trinity are nevertheless entirely equal. There is no lord-vassal relationship that characterizes a covenantal agreement. Second, Scripture seems to indicate that a covenant is instituted by blood (Heb. 9:16-18), which certainly does not describe the pactum salutis. Therefore, this intra-Trinitarian agreement is distinctly different from a biblical covenant. It is more accurate to see it as an aspect of God’s eternal decree.[5]

Commentary

As referenced in the previous article, the broad definition that MacArthur and Mayhue provide for covenant does not sufficiently encompass the biblical evidence for the covenants that are made between God and man or between fellow men. The Davidic Covenant—which MacArthur and Mayhue acknowledge as a biblical covenant between God and man—was not instituted by blood (2 Sam. 7:8-17). Moreover, the covenant between the Gibeonites and Israel (Josh. 9:3-27), as well as between Jonathan and David (1 Sam.18:1-4), illustrate the reality that biblical covenants do not necessarily have to be between “a sovereign lord and a vassal.” It is in keeping with this logic that provides us with justification for critiquing MacArthur and Mayhue’s assertion that “it is inaccurate to describe [the] pretemporal, intra-Trinitarian agreement as a covenant.” For starters, if there are examples of biblical covenants that are made between equal parties (and there are), then on what basis can we say that the triune God couldn’t covenant within Himself? What’s more, MacArthur and Mayhue demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what is actually being affirmed by covenant theologians when they speak of a covenant of redemption.

To my knowledge, no covenant theologian has ever disagreed with there being “diversity of roles within the Godhead, [and] the persons of the Trinity [being] entirely equal.” Proponents of the covenant of redemption are not insinuating that there is any ontological inferiority or subordination between the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit within the context of that eternal, intratrinitarian agreement. Rather, those who believe the covenant of redemption to be a theological conclusion derived from Scripture recognize that it pertains to the ad extra work of God in redemptive history.[6] As such, it is the eternal agreement that in history, the Son—as the Godman—would voluntarily submit Himself to the will and authority of the Father to accomplish the eternal plan of redeeming the elect (Matt. 12:15-21; Luke 22:29; Acts 2:23, 36; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 7:22, 28; 1 Pet. 1:19-20), and that the Holy Spirit would apply those saving benefits to the elect when they come to salvation at the appointed time (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; Rom. 8:9-11, 15; Eph. 4:30; Gal. 4:5-6). Given that very little interaction with the covenant of redemption is allocated in Biblical Doctrine, one is left to wonder who MacArthur and Mayhue have in mind when raising this area of concern.

Before moving on to comment on Biblical Doctrine’s treatment of the covenants of works and grace, it is important to first ensure that one understands where the contributors are coming from when embarking upon theological inquiry. In the preface of their systematic theology textbook, MacArthur and Mayhue unapologetically identify themselves as “biblicists.”[7] Historically, the term “biblicist” or “biblicism” referred to the act of a person or group of people who sought to interpret the Bible independently and innovatively, without consulting the careful work of historical theology.[8] Said differently, biblicists were traditionally known as those who abandoned creedal formulations, which had been tried and tested over the centuries by churches all over the world, in favor of their own ideas.[9] Carl Trueman rightly observes that biblicists,

[In their efforts to] reinvent the wheel, invested a lot of time either to come up with something that looks identical to the old design or something that is actually inferior to it. This is not to demand capitulation before church tradition or a rejection of the notion of Scripture alone. Rather it is to suggest an attitude of humility toward the church’s past, which simply looks both at the good that the ancient creeds have done and also the fact that they seem to make better sense of the testimony of Scripture than any of the alternatives.[10]

Contrary to the way that the term has been utilized in previous generations of church history, MacArthur and Mayhue have defined “biblicist/biblicism” as “[possessing] an unshakeable trust in God’s inerrant and infallible Bible, rightly interpreted”[11] and as “a very strong and even unquestioning commitment to the authority of the Bible.”[12] The implementation of these definitions in Biblical Doctrine, which are completely out of line with the way that biblicist/biblicism has been understood in the past, indicates that MacArthur and Mayhue are either (1) unaware of the historical context that the word biblicist/biblicism was originally coined or (2) they are aware of the historical context and the word’s original meaning, but have intentionally opted for a redefining of the terminology. I have never had the opportunity to ask MacArthur or Mayhue about this matter, so it is not appropriate for me to definitively state their purposes for this example of revisionism. Nevertheless, given the comprehensive treatment of covenant theology throughout the scope of Biblical Doctrine, it appears that MacArthur and Mayhue are prone to theological revisionism, and ironically, they themselves are guilty of being true biblicists (i.e., they fit the description posited in the historical utilization of the term).

For example, in their only extensive treatment of the covenant of redemption, MacArthur and Mayhue affirm that there is a “pretemporal, intra-Trinitarian agreement” within the Godhead. Furthermore, they employ the phrase pactum salutis in reference to the aforementioned “pretemporal, intra-Trinitarian agreement.” Elsewhere, in its section on soteriology, Biblical Doctrine affirms the following with respect to the ad extra, trinitarian work in accomplishing the salvation of the elect.

Thus, in this intra-Trinitarian council [citing from Isaiah 53:10-12], the Father commissioned the Son to lay down his life for sinners as a sacrificial offering, and he promised him the reward of an inheritance of nations—populated with his spiritual offspring whom he would justify—and of the enjoyment of the Lord’s prosperity…     Perhaps the most significant aspect of the eternal plan of salvation is that the Father gives specific individuals to the Son on whose behalf he is to accomplish redemption. That is to say; the Father commissions the Son to be the representative and substitutionary sacrifice for a particular people—namely, all and only those whom the Father has chosen for salvation.[13]

What is the significance of these observations from Biblical Doctrine? It shows that MacArthur and Mayhue are willing to borrow identical language—and cite from identical biblical passages—used by covenant theologians to describe the covenant of redemption but are unwilling to adopt the label “covenant of redemption” to describe their own theological beliefs. These men seem to make every effort to affirm the theological concepts associated with the covenant of redemption but do not wish to affirm the existence of such an eternal covenant within the Trinity. Could it be that MacArthur and Mayhue’s commitment to Dispensationalism prohibits them from taking their theological conclusions to the fullest and most consistent extent? In the final analysis, the answer to that question is ultimately between them and the Lord.

Revised Dispensationalism on the Covenant of Works

The representative headship view (often called federal headship) asserts that the action of a representative is determinative for all members united to him. When Adam sinned, he represented all people; therefore, his sin is reckoned to his descendants… Those who affirm the representative-headship view first appeal to the parallels made with Jesus in Romans 5:12-21… The logic here suggests that if the justification and righteousness of the Lord Jesus is imputed to those in him, so too the guilt of Adam’s sin has been imputed to those he represented… Just as Christians are considered righteous because   Christ’s alien righteousness (i.e.-, righteousness that is external to the believer) is imputed to all who are Christ’s, so too Adam’s guilt is imputed to all his descendants,       even though they did not personally sin when he did. Adherents of this view also appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:22… [which] shows that death and life are linked with Adam and       Christ as two representatives of mankind… In sum, both men—Adam and Christ—are seen as representatives of humanity, and for both, the effects of their actions are placed on others. Adam is the representative of sinful humanity, and Jesus is the representative of righteous humanity. Significantly, while this view emphasizes imputation via headship with Adam, it also encompasses inherited corruption passed on from Adam to the whole of humanity. The representative view was promoted by Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669)   and became popular among many in the tradition of covenant theology, who connect this perspective with an alleged “covenant of works,” in which Adam as the head of the human race was tasked with perfect obedience for the goal of obtaining eternal life.          When Adam violated this so-called covenant of works, he failed on behalf of all mankind so that his sin was counted as the failure of all his descendants…. Scripture makes no mention of a covenant of works [between God and Adam]. Though historically referred to as federal headship, the label representative headship is preferable since it better conveys the fact that both Adam and Christ act as the legal representatives for those who are reckoned to be in them. As explained above, this position makes the best sense out of the parallels between Adam and Christ articulated in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.[14]

Commentary

Much of the same critiques levied against Biblical Doctrine’s treatment of the covenant of redemption are applicable to its assessment of the covenant of works. MacArthur and Mayhue cite two of the classic New Testament passages that covenant theologians recognize to be the biblical basis for affirming the covenant of works (Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Namely, just as Adam’s sin was binding upon all his physical descendants, so also is Jesus Christ’s righteousness binding upon all His spiritual descendants. For covenant theologians, this is possible solely on the basis of their federal (Latin: foedus, meaning “covenant”) representation of those who God appointed them head over. The passages referenced from Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 clearly teach both of those principles, and Biblical Doctrine appears to concede that reality. As was evidenced during their treatment of the covenant of redemption, MacArthur and Mayhue seem to want to affirm all the theological truths espoused by adherents to a covenant of works but do not want to identify with such a label. They even go so far as re-labeling the historic term “federal headship” to “representative headship,” all the while continuing to believe precisely what federal headship—the necessary consequence of the covenant of works—affirms based on the Bible’s collective teaching in this area.

On a separate note, it is unfortunate to see MacArthur and Mayhue commit the same historical blunder as Chafer by connecting the covenant of works to Johannes Cocceius. As stated during my critique of Chafer, although the covenant of works and covenant of grace language was not thoroughly developed until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it is a misnomer to overlook the sizable number of theologians who affirmed these doctrinal categories in their interaction with Scripture prior to the Reformation.[15] Just because the terminology is not being explicitly used in a person’s writing does not mean that the theological concept is not being clearly affirmed therein. Contemporary evangelical theologians follow this same line of argumentation when they demonstrate that the theology of penal substitutionary atonement is present in church history prior to the Reformation despite the theological label not being present until much later.[16] As such, it would be inconsistent for us to be okay with arguing in that fashion for the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement but not for the doctrine of the covenant of works.

Lastly, MacArthur and Mayhue’s claim that “Scripture makes no mention of a covenant of works [between God and Adam]” is vastly overstated. In Hosea 6:7, Israel is likened to Adam in that, as a nation, they “transgressed the covenant.” Just as Israel violated the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant to enjoy prosperity in the Promised Land (Ex. 19:5-6), so also Adam violated the terms and conditions of the covenant of works to enjoy sinless prosperity with God in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:17). There are also other texts in the Old Testament that covenant theologians have utilized over the centuries to affirm the viability of the covenant of works on biblical-theological grounds (such as Isa. 24:5-6).[17] With these thoughts in mind, let us never forget that it is one thing to disagree with the conclusions reached by a theologian’s interpretation of Scripture, but quite another to state that the Bible doesn’t mention something (as if that is simply an indisputable fact).

Revised Dispensationalism on the Covenant of Grace

Theologically derived covenants imposed on the biblical covenants can alter God’s intended revelation. Covenant theology, for example, has often used the extrabiblical covenant of grace idea to deny the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Supposedly, if all people are saved by grace through faith alone, then there can be no distinctions between Israel and the church. But this does not follow. The affirmation of this covenant of grace has often led to the false position of replacement theology or supersessionism in which the church is viewed as the replacement or fulfillment of Israel in such a way that God no longer is working with Israel as a nation. But while the saints of every age are saved by grace alone through faith alone, there are distinctions in the people of God.[18]

Commentary

This excerpt from Biblical Doctrine encapsulates its lengthiest reference to the covenant of grace. In unpacking this citation, I believe it is important to reiterate that it is impossible not to use extrabiblical language, terms, and categories to describe what the Bible teaches. Even MacArthur and Mayhue cannot avoid doing this when they speak of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, futuristic premillennialism, and so forth. In short, the issue for students of Scripture should never be whether language is “extrabiblical,” but rather, whether that language corresponds to truth that is contained in God’s Word. On the other hand, whereas MacArthur and Mayhue believe that the covenant of grace is “extrabiblical,” Particular Baptists identify the New Covenant—which is explicitly referenced in Scripture—as the covenant of grace.[19] I mention this for the purposes of solidifying how committed the Particular Baptist tradition has been to ground their theological reflection in the explicit testimony of God’s Word, even when making use of extrabiblical labels to summarize the truth therein. Samuel Renihan models this Particular Baptist distinctive nicely in explaining how Particular Baptists correlate the New Covenant with the covenant of grace.

The New Covenant [the covenant of grace] mediates the blessings obtained in the covenant of redemption. In other words, the New Covenant is the fulfilled covenant of redemption meditated to those for whom the Son was appointed head in the covenant of redemption (the elect). The New Covenant is God the Father covenanting to sinners forgiveness of sins and eternal life based on faith in God the Son, through whom they receive all the benefits. The eternal resurrected new creation life that Jesus obtained when He kept the covenant of redemption is offered to the world in Christ by the Father… The New Covenant is a covenant already completed, already kept, and delivered to Christ’s people. Jesus Christ is the mediator of a “better covenant” established on “better promises” (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6; 12:24).[20]

By way of concluding our analysis of “Revised Dispensationalism,” as exemplified within Biblical Doctrine, it is necessary to comment on MacArthur and Mayhue’s perspective on the relationship between affirming the covenant of grace and adhering to “replacement theology.” When viewed from a historical lens, Particular Baptists do not blatantly “deny the biblical distinction between Israel and the church,” nor do they ascribe to “the false position of replacement theology or supersessionism in which the church is viewed as the replacement or fulfillment of Israel in such a way that God no longer is working with Israel as a nation.” Although many Particular Baptists view Old Covenant Israel as a type of the church, that does not mean they inherently reject God working through ethnic Israelites.[21] Particular Baptists are robustly committed to affirming that God is redeeming a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation; this includes the salvation of ethnic Israelites just as much as it does the salvation of ethnic Gentiles. Perhaps MacArthur and Mayhue’s concerns are predominantly focused on those who don’t affirm a Dispensational understanding of Premillennialism? Could it be that “Revised Dispensationalists” equate “God…working with Israel as a nation” as necessitating one having to expect a restored temple, Jewish-centered worship in the physical land of Israel, and Jesus Christ physically reigning on the Earth in the future? These are important questions that will be explored in greater detail throughout future installments in the Dismantling Dispensationalism series.

Progressive Dispensationalism on the Covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace

In the sixteenth century of the Christian era, a theology arose that would eventually be labeled covenant theology. In its mature form, it viewed Israel and the church as one and the same throughout all of the history of the human race. The covenant that united them was the “covenant of grace” or the “covenant of redemption,” neither of which is explicitly revealed in Scripture but whose contents are partially found in the succession of covenants in the Bible. While this covenant of redemption had, according to this system, been preceded by the covenant of works made with Adam in the Garden of Eden, the covenant of redemption came with the fall of humankind and will last up to the final consummation. The stress here is on the sign of the covenant, the people of the covenant, and the grounds of the covenant: the sign now is baptism, the people are the church, and the grounds are grace alone. This view also has some major problems… The Bible never mentions such a “covenant of grace” or “covenant of redemption” that embraces all the other covenants.[22]

Commentary

There was not much content provided in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church on the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. In the future, it would be immensely helpful and clarifying for the universal church if a standard systematic theology textbook would be produced by an adherent(s) to “Progressive Dispensationalism.” Nevertheless, despite the absence of an extensive treatment on the covenants of redemption, works, and grace, we turn our attention to briefly engage with this excerpt produced by a popular resource in the “Progressive Dispensationalism” tradition. Just like each of the previous Dispensational classifications, it is assumed here that covenant theology “arose” in the sixteenth century of the Christian era. We have repeatedly dealt with and have satisfactorily refuted this misrepresentation in each of the preceding sections of this article. What’s more, this excerpt fundamentally misrepresents what covenant theologians believe with regards to the “covenant of redemption.” It appears that Blaising and Bock—the editors of this volume—have allowed for the covenant of redemption to be equated with the covenant of grace, despite these covenants being distinct from one another in the thought of covenant theologians. This is an embarrassing error to make, given the scholarship represented within this literary work. Furthermore, Blaising and Bock regurgitate the assertion that “the Bible never mentions… a ‘covenant of grace’ or ‘covenant of redemption’ that embraces all the other covenants.” These men, like Chafer, MacArthur and Mayhue, claim to not want to affirm any label or term if it is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Yet, unless these men are willing to carry this conviction to its logical conclusion, they incessantly undermine the legitimacy of this conviction every time they refer to the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc. A simple look into the subject index of Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church will prove that these men cannot live up to their own standards!

Another point raised in this excerpt mirrors a concern articulated by MacArthur and Mayhue: “In its mature form, [covenant theology] viewed Israel and the church as one and the same throughout all of the history of the human race.” In my estimation, this critique would be far more relevant for adherents to the Presbyterian and Reformed system of covenant theology. We have demonstrated on several occasions in this article that Particular Baptists do not “view Israel and the church as one and the same throughout all of the history of the human race.” As such, this area of criticism rendered by Blaising and Bock should not, in any respect, alter how a Particular Baptist feels about affirming the covenant of grace on biblical-theological grounds. Lastly, I did not understand the authorial intention communicated in this portion of the excerpt: “The stress here is on the sign of the covenant, the people of the covenant, and the grounds of the covenant: the sign now is baptism, the people are the church, and the grounds are grace alone.” Given the ambiguity of meaning and lack of relevance to discussing the covenants of redemption, works, and grace, no substantial commentary will be necessary on this matter.

In the final analysis, it is my prayer that this lengthy article will facilitate helpful interaction with the reasoning behind why “Classic/Traditional,” “Revised,” and “Progressive” Dispensationalists reject the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. In the forthcoming articles, we will seek to examine areas of agreement and disagreement between Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists on each of the major covenants found within the Bible.[23]

---

[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Scripture Press, 1988), Pages 101-102.

[2] Chafer, Systematic Theology, Page 310.

[3] See the following paper for an extensive treatment on the covenant of redemption from a Particular Baptist perspective- https://thelogcollege.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rb-cov-theo-renihans.pdf

“The covenant of redemption informs and unites all of redemptive history. The pactum salutis establishes the redemption of the elect through Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension as that which is the driving purpose of history. God’s decree is that from fallen humanity, the Son, empowered by the Spirit, should redeem a specific number of his own people to be granted to him as a reward for the completion of his work on their behalf (emphasis mine) … Christ. What is it that Christ claims that he has come to do? He claims that he has come to redeem those whom the Father has given to him. His purpose is to accomplish the pactum salutis in time and history. The New Covenant goes no further than the pactum salutis, not only because Christ specifically said that his mission was purely to redeem the elect, but also because the New Covenant is made in Christ’s blood, redeeming blood whose salvific benefits have never been and will never be applied to any but the elect. This means that the parties of the New Covenant are no other than God and Christ, and the elect in Him.”

[4] R. Scott Clark has done extensive work in demonstrating the covenantal concepts that were present as early as the Patristic era of church history. While I disagree with his understanding of the covenant of grace, I wholeheartedly agree with his scholarship on the historical origins of “covenant theology”- https://rscottclark.org/2001/09/a-brief-history-of-covenant-theology/

[5] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Page 513.

[6] https://journal.rts.edu/article/the-covenant-of-redemption/

[7] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Page 26.

[8] https://founders.org/reviews/the-creedal-imperative-by-carl-truman/

[9] https://founders.org/reviews/the-creedal-imperative-by-carl-truman/

[10] Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), Page 107.

[11] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Page 26.

[12] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Page 925.

[13] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Pages 514-515.

[14] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Pages 465-466.

[15] A thorough treatment of the covenant of works, as a theological concept affirmed centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation era of church history, can be found at the following link. Although the term “covenant of works” is not explicitly used by these ancient theologians, they are unquestionably affirming the doctrine associated thereto- https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/haddington-house-journal/05_025.pdf

[16] A solid historical flyover of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement being expounded upon in theologians prior to the Protestant Reformation. Although the label “penal substitution” is not explicitly used by these ancient Christians, they are unquestionably affirming the doctrine associated thereto in their writings- https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-calvin-popularize-penal-substitution/

[17]Here is a good, introductory level treatment of this matter from a Particular Baptist perspective- https://www.rbap.net/a-typical-objection-to-the-covenant-of-works-2/

[18]MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Page 871. 

[19] A succinct explanation of a distinctively Particular Baptist perspective on the New Covenant being identified as the “covenant of grace” can be accessed here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToNqtrbWWDs

[20] Samuel D. Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), Pages 170-171.

[21] An exploration of Particular Baptist viewpoints on the relationship between Israel and the Church can be accessed here- https://www.1689federalism.com/israel-and-the-church-see-the-difference/

[22] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), Pages 364-365.

[23] The Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants will be examined in those future articles.