Blog

Before delving into a consideration of the defunct covenant theology of Dispensationalism, it is necessary to ensure that the reader is aware of how the term “covenant” will be used throughout this section of articles. There has been no shortage of ink spilled throughout church history by theologians striving to offer the most precise definition of covenant. In the Patristic era of church history, Saint Augustine defined the biblical depiction of covenant as simply “an agreement between two or more persons.”[1] Similarly, during the years surrounding the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin represented much of the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition in understanding the biblical covenants as “a bond of fellowship between God and His people.”[2] In more recent years, O. Palmer Robertson has defined covenant as “a bond-in-blood sovereignly administered,”[3] whereas Meredith G. Kline proposed that a covenant is “a divinely sanctioned commitment.”[4] When sifting through the doctrinal conclusions about covenant that have been postulated throughout church history, it can be very difficult to identify which definition does the best justice to Scripture. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this section within the Dismantling Dispensationalism series, I have chosen a definition of covenant that comes from the Particular Baptist tradition. In his work The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom, Samuel Renihan offers a clear definition of how Particular Baptists have traditionally understood the Bible’s portrayal of covenant.

A covenant in Hebrew [and] in Greek is a guaranteed commitment. Two parties make commitments to one another. Their commitments are often summed up in ‘I will, you will statements.’ Different covenants have different kinds of commitments, and the varying kinds of commitments in these covenants result in different kinds of covenants…A commitment, in and of itself, however, is not a covenant. Sanctions or threats must be put into place to guarantee the fulfillments of the parties’ commitments. This adds a degree of legality and formality that a generic commitment would not carry… In summary, a covenant is a… sanctioned commitment defining the relationship between [two or more parties].[5]

As evidenced from the context leading up to Renihan’s definition of covenant, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom proposes an understanding that is rooted in the theology of the seventeenth century Particular Baptists.[6] Perhaps what is most helpful from Renihan’s definition is his distinction between the covenants that one can observe in Scripture, and the different kinds of commitments that are associated with each respective covenant. While it is certainly true that it is important to carefully analyze each of the biblical covenants to discern similarities and differences that may exist between them, it is likewise important to offer a definition that is broad enough to encompass what is common amongst all the covenants in Scripture. Said differently, it is necessary to have a definition that is broad enough to capture what undergirds the biblical concept of covenant, and from that broad definition, be able to transition into more narrow explanations of what distinguishes each biblical covenant from the others. If this manner of awareness is not maintained, then one will traverse into erroneous understandings of the biblical concept of covenant. For example, O. Palmer Robertson’s insistence that a covenant must be understood as “a bond-in-blood sovereignly administered” does not consider the reality that there covenants in Scripture that do not involve any shedding of blood (such as the Davidic Covenant; 2 Sam. 7:8-17).[7] Furthermore, in Biblical Doctrine, John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue follow this same faulty line of reasoning when they argue that “a covenant is instituted by blood (Heb. 9:16-18).”[8] Thus, may we proceed into our evaluation of the biblical covenants by paying special attention to the intricate details that distinguish them from one another, without losing sight of the broader continuity that exists between them.

Dispensationalists Reject the Covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace

When canvassing Dispensationalism’s understanding of the biblical covenants, it does not take long to see significant theological problems arise. The first significant defection observable within all varieties of Dispensationalism—whether “Classic/Traditional,” “Revised,” or “Progressive”—is the rejection of the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. In a previous article, I shared a brief summarization of how Particular Baptists have historically defined those covenants.[9] For the benefit of the reader, I have included that overview below.

• The covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) refers to the eternal plan of redemption made between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Isa. 53:10-12; John 17:4, 6; Titus 1:1-3). In this eternal covenant, every person whom Jesus Christ would redeem in time was chosen in Him before the universe was ever created (Eph. 1:3-14). As shown below, the requirements and fulfillment of the covenant of works and covenant of grace were planned in eternity past within this intra-trinitarian pact. 

• The covenant of works refers to the agreement that God made with Adam in the Garden of Eden (Isa. 24:1-6; Hos. 6:7). Acting as future mankind’s representative head, Adam was given a clear command from God: eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and die; abstain from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and enjoy eternal, unblemished fellowship with God (Gen. 2:16-17). The basic principle embedded within the pre-Fall covenant of works continues to have direct application to all of humanity’s relationship to God: “obey God perfectly and live; fail to do so and perish” (Gal. 3:10-12). After Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden, not only are all of humanity regarded as guilty of Adam’s sin before God, but we are all sinners by nature (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-14). Thus, all of humanity enters into a covenant of works relationship with God by virtue of their mutual descent from Adam and by virtue of their own individual responsibility to love and obey God perfectly throughout the totality of their life (Matt. 22:34-40). 

• The covenant of grace refers to the one plan of redemption that is manifested throughout the Bible: God saves sinners by His grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Gen. 3:15; 12:1-3; Ex. 34:28; Jer. 31:31-37; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). Said differently, it is the orchestration of the divine solution whereby sinners can enjoy a right relationship with the triune God in Christ. In the covenant of grace, the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ (the second Adam) is credited to all who will ever be saved by virtue of His perfect life, substitutionary atoning death, bodily resurrection and ascension into Heaven (Rom. 4:23-25). Because Jesus Christ perfectly fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant of works (perfect obedience to God) during His life and bore the penalty of the elect’s sin in His person on the cross, all those who belong to Him are reconciled to God and come to enter into an eternal relationship with Him as sons in the covenant of grace (John 1:12; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 John 3:1-2). Where Adam failed as mankind’s representative head in the covenant of works, Christ perfectly succeeded on behalf of His people so that they might enjoy the eternal blessings offered in the covenant of grace: the New Covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20). 

The aforementioned covenantal macrostructure is foundational to a Particular Baptist understanding of the biblical covenants.[10] That is to say, one cannot meaningfully identify with the Particular Baptist theological heritage if one rejects the covenants of redemption, works and grace. Historically, Particular Baptists have recognized that it is utterly impossible for man to relate to God—at any point of his creaturely existence—apart from being in a covenantal relationship with Him. Indeed, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a moment of human history where man has not stood in a covenantal relationship with God (Gen. 2:15-17; Rom. 5:12-21).[11] Renihan succinctly unpacks this notion in The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom.

Because God is one of the contracting parties in [his covenants with man], and because    covenants are not a natural feature of the Creator-creature relationship, all covenants are the result of God’s own free initiative to carry out His purposes and to do good to mankind. Covenants are not “take it or leave it” options. God imposes His covenants on man and determines the commitments.[12]

Renihan’s expressed convictions are further encapsulated in chapter seven of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2LBCF), wherein it is stated that “the distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant (Luke 17:10; Job 35:7-8).”[13] It is with this theological and confessional backdrop in mind that will enable one to embark upon a critical analysis of Dispensationalism’s aversion to the covenants of redemption, works and grace. As will be seen in the following article, each of the three main classifications of Dispensationalism will be categorized with the primary source that corresponds to that respective classification. The goal of this organizational methodology will be 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.

---

[1] https://rts.instructure.com/courses/1153/files/61146

[2] http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/item/3794-calvin-s-doctrine-of-the-covenant

[3] https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/covenant.html

[4] Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, KS: Two Ages Press, 2000), Page 2.

[5] Samuel D. Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), Pages 40-41, 55.

[6] Renihan cites the works of Robert Purnell (1606-1666) and Nehemiah Coxe (d. 5 May, 1689) as being in substantial agreement to his definition of covenant that he employs in The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom.

[7] Thomas Schreiner cites additional biblical covenants that do not involve any shedding of blood in this article; some of the covenants referenced are strictly between fellow men- https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-biblical-covenants/

[8] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Page 513.

[9] https://covenantconfessions.com/dismantling-dispensationalism-it-has-no-concept-of-the-law-gospel-distinction-in-scripture/

[10] This argument is thoroughly articulated and defended throughout the totality of this book- Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Padeobaptist Federalism (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013).

[11] Cornelius Van Til and William Edgar, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), Page 51.

[12] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Page 41.

[13] https://www.arbca.com/1689-chapter7