Covenant Theology vs.

Dispensational Theology

ST3527 Systematic Theology II

Robert Ryan

May 2017
 1

Table of Contents

Introduction and Thesis…………………………………..2

Body……………………………………………………...4

Application and Conclusion……………………………..13

Bibliography…………………………………………….17
 2

Introduction and Thesis Statements

This paper is my exercise toward understanding the basics of covenant and dispensational

theologies and how they contrast. In the process will be learning much about these two

systematizations of Scripture because I am quite unfamiliar with both. At the beginning of this

paper I don’t know whether my understanding of Scripture falls under covenant or dispensational

theology.

Based on the little I do know about these two systems of human thought, I believe the

system best reflective of Scripture will align with some of the understandings I currently hold

from my own study and familiarity with Scripture.

Because God is one, my first prediction is that one of the systems will be closer to

confirming that the terms “old testament” and “new testament” are artificial constructions that

interrupt a unified continuum. “The LORD our God is ONE.” One Father, one faith, one

baptism, one Body of great diversity, one way of salvation (trust and obey), one Way of life (to

love the LORD your God and your neighbor as yourself), one congregation (called kahal in

Tanakh and ekklesia in the Messianic writings), and one ultimate end for redemption

(conformity to the image of God, from glory to glory). I have no label for these beliefs, but to

summarize, I believe that one system will better support the concept that The Bible constitutes a

single, complete story of One, although reflected through a myriad of paradoxes and diversity of

expression.

At the same time I predict that one of the systems will be better at identifying important

distinctions made in Scripture, such as the distinction between the root (Israel) and the wild

branches (Gentiles). Considering the crystal clear covenants, promises, and ubiquitous
 3

reaffirmations made to Jewish believers throughout the entirety of Scripture, I predict that one of

the systems will have more of a tendency not to ignore, minimize or allegorize the remnant of

Israel and its predestined, irrevocable, unconditional calling.

My thesis is that neither covenant theology nor dispensational theology will fully support

both the grand unity of Scripture and the LORD’s irrevocable promises for the Jewish remnant.

From the little I know about the two systems, one will likely be stronger in one area and the

other stronger in the other. My hope is that covenant theology and dispensational theology will

both make significant contributions to an accurate understanding of the mind of God found in

Scripture.

A question to be considered as I study the two systems: Is it truly possible for Scripture,

which reveals the mind of God, to be minutely systematized? Is it healthy to assume that the

mind of God can be systematized by human theologians? Even before defining the two systems

assigned for this paper, would it not be healthy to question the assumption that the Word

(logos/logic/mind) of God can be fully systematized by human scholars?

2 Corinthians 13.12 reminds us that we see through a glass in obscurity and that we know

only in part. In 8.2 we read that “if anyone thinks to have known anything, not yet does he know

as it is necessary to know.” Isaias tells us that Adonai’s thoughts and ways are far above ours.

Indeed, Scripture reveals to us the mind of God in everything pertaining to life and godliness,

revealing to us His perfections and making clear the way of salvation and survival through faith

in His Messiah in the midst of a fallen world. Yet Scripture is replete with paradoxical truths

(apparent contradictions) such as the Holy Trinity and the relation between the sovereignty of

God and the responsibility of man. To think that we can systematize all of the data from 66
 4

separate pieces of inspired writing (including all of the history and dogmatics) into man-made

categories seems like an exercise in hubris. Is it not extremely unlikely that the mind of God can

be captured, analyzed and categorized by individual theologians--or even members of a

team--with comprehensive accuracy and understanding? At the same time I greatly respect and

appreciate the scholars who have extensively translated, studied, and interpreted Scripture while

exercising the principle of the analogy of faith. But those scholars are men, and their work will

be corrupted with their own ideas and presuppositions.

I predict that even with my cursory overview of the two systems of theology, it will become

evident that the mind of God and breadth of Scripture--from the sometimes paradoxical style of

Hebrew thought and poetry in the Tanak to the intriguing Hebrew-Greek style of expression in

the Messianic Writings--cannot be fully systematized by human translators and interpreters.

Now for the first task. What exactly is “covenant theology” and “dispensationalism”?

​Body

Let’s define some terms with the help of ​Holman’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary​:1

DISPENSATION English term derived from the Latin dispensatio that is commonly
used to translate the Greek oikonomia. Etymologically the Greek word refers to the
law or management of a household. The verb form oikonomeo means to manage,
administer, regulate, or plan.

COVENANT Oath-bound promise whereby one party solemnly pledges to bless or

serve another party in some specified way. Sometimes the keeping of the promise
depends upon the meeting of certain conditions by the party to whom the promise is
made. On other occasions the promise is made unilaterally and unconditionally.

1
​Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen,
Trent C. Butler, and Bill Latta, eds. ​Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary​. Nashville, TN:
Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
 5

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: Discussion of what the Bible itself teaches about God
and His dealings with human beings and the rest of creation.

From the ​Dictionary of Christianity in America we read about the beliefs of C.I. Scofield. He

taught that “the Bible, when interpreted literally, was clear in its divisions and plans for Jews,

Gentiles and the church. For example, he argued that the division of law and grace was so

distinct ‘that Scripture never, in any dispensation, mingles these two principles.’” He defined a

dispensation as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some

specific revelation of the will of God.” 2 Seven dispensations were identified in the biblical text:

(​1)In the dispensation of innocency (Gen 1:28–3:13), God required a simple test of
Adam and Eve, warning them of the consequence of disobedience. (2) The
dispensation of conscience (Gen 3:23–7:23) required that people do good and abstain
from evil according to what their consciences dictated. (3) The dispensation of human
government (Gen 8:20–11:9) asked people to govern the world for God, as his
stewards. (4) The dispensation of promise (Gen 12:1—Ex 19:8) was specifically
Hebrew in intention and seemed to require the faith of Israel in God’s promises. (5)
The Law (Ex 19:8—Mt 27:53) also applied to Israel, requiring her obedience to the
laws given by God to the nation. During this time Gentiles continued to live under the
dispensation of human government. (6) The dispensation of grace (Mt 27:35; John
1:17) began with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, extends to all people and
requires faith in Christ’s work of atonement. (7) At the end of the present dispensation
will come the pretribulation rapture of the church, the great tribulation and Christ’s
return to establish the millennial kingdom, which is the seventh dispensation, the
fullness of times (Eph 1:10; Dan 9:20–27; Rev 20, 21). God’s plans for Jews, Gentiles
and the church will be brought to fulfillment.3

2
​DanielG. Reid, ​Dictionary of Christianity in America. ​Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1990. See “Scofield Reference Bible.” (accessed from LOGOS
3-25-17).

3
​Ibid.
 6

Dispensationalist theology “views the world like a household that is managed by

God. God is running the world like a manager of a household, ‘administering its

affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of

time,’” according to Charles Ryrie. The following schematic is from Charles Ryrie’s

Dispensationalism Today.4 It gives us a little flavor of the dispensationalist’s bent

toward organizing and categorizing in a progressive way:

THE DISPENSATIONS OF PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM

Patriarchal Mosaic Ecclesial Zionic Zionic

Adam to Sinai Sinai to Ascension to Part 1: Part 2: Eternal

ascension of second Millenium state
Messiah coming

John MacArthur’s narrow summary definition of dispensationalism says “there is a

difference between Israel and the Church. Therefore promises to Israel will be fulfilled.”5

4
​Charles Ryrie, ​Dispensationalism Today​, Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1995.
Print, p.136.
5
​John MacArthur, found at ​www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA010/
With-regard-to-Dispensationalism-where-exactly-do-you-stand​. Accessed January 12,
2017.
 7

​According to Paul Enns of Havadar Ministries, Covenant Theology is “a system of

interpreting the Scriptures on the basis of two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant

of grace...Covenant theology is a theological system founded on Replacement Theology, which

maintains that God has replaced the Jewish people with the church and that Christians are now

God’s only chosen people...Covenant theology essentially makes up covenants—covenants that

are not discussed in Scripture, but rather, they say, are implied by scripture.”6 With respect to

dispensational theology he writes that the “hallmarks of dispensational theology would include a

commitment to a literal hermeneutic...and also a view of Israel as the special people of God to

whom He will keep His promises...And what that comes down to is really an issue of

hermeneutics—how you approach the interpretation of the Bible. Do you use a more literal

method, or do you rely on allegory to explain various parts of Scripture? “7

R. Scott Clark, in a blogpost titled “Covenant Theology is not Replacement Theology​”,

writes:

...Reformed covenant theology distinguishes the old and new covenants (2

Cor. 3; Heb. 7-10). It recognizes that the church was temporarily
administered through a typological, national people, but the church has
existed since Adam, Noah, and Abraham; and it existed under Moses and
David; and it exists under Christ...the church has always been one, under
various administrations, under types, shadows, and now under the reality in
Christ, because the object of faith has always been one. Jesus the Messiah

6
​Paul Enns, ​Covenant Theology,​ a blog post from HaDavar Messianic Ministries
found at
http://www.hadavar.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Covenant-Theology.pdf​.
Accessed February 15th, 2017.

7
​Ibid.
 8

was the object of faith of the typological church (Heb. 11; Luke 24; 2 Cor. 3),
and he remains the object of faith.8

It is interesting that in the definition above, there is a hint of “dispensationalism” in

covenant theology itself when Clark uses phrases like “temporarily administered” or

“under various administrations.” At the same time, probably no dispensationalist would

disagree with the hallmark of covenant theology claimed by Clark when he writes that,

“the object of faith has always been one, Jesus the Messiah”. There are definitely

overlapping concepts between the two systems.

A succinct description of both dispensational and covenant theologies is found in a 2006

Desiring God ​article.9 Dispensationalism is described as indicating: 1) Several stages of

revelation (different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements) which test mankind to be

faithful in that time; 2) Literal interpretation of scripture (there is a literal meaning even behind

figurative passages); and 3) A distinction between believing Israel and the church (two peoples

of God--although both are saved by Christ through faith).

Covenant Theology is described as indicating that 1) God’s relationship to His creation and

man is structured through covenants rather than dispensations; 2) There is one covenant of grace

(not mentioned directly in Scripture) and all of the other covenants are simply differing

8
​R.
Scott Clark, “Covenant Theology is not Replacement Theology” [This post first
appeared in 2008 on the HB] heidelblog.net, Wednesday, August 21, 2013, accessed
February 21, 2017.
9
​ ​“What
does John Piper Believe about Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and
New Covenant Theology?” ​ Desiring God, ​January 23, 2006 found at
www.desiringgod.org/artiles/what-does-john-piper-believe-about-dispensationalism-coven
ant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology​. Accessed February 9,2017.
 9

administrations of it, or expressions of the covenant of grace. ​The Dictionary of American

Christianity​ defines Covenant Theology as:

A doctrine or system of theology explaining the relationship between

God and mankind in terms of a compact, or covenant; also called
federal theology….Reformed covenant theology has taught that God
offers grace and salvation to mankind. To those who by faith accept
God’s offer of salvation—on his terms—he assuredly grants salvation.
Thus, mankind gains assurance from its covenant relationship with
God. Although there are many variations, theologians have discerned
three covenants in Scripture: The Covenant of Works (offered to Adam,
in which he failed); the Covenant of Grace (offered after the Fall of
Adam, again to Abraham and renewed in Christ); and, for some
theologians, the Covenant of Redemption (the eternal promise of God’s
salvation underlying the Covenant of Grace).10

According to the ​Reformation Study Bible​, the covenant of redemption is a

“foundational arrangement” undergirding the other covenants agreed upon by the Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit from eternity past. Although the phrase “covenant of redemption” is

not mentioned in Scripture, this arrangement is indicated by Scripture passages such as: Ps

2.7, 9; 89.3; 2 Sam 7.11, 16; Zech 6.13; John 5.30; 6;38. The covenant of works (or life)

makes Adam the “federal head” (representative) of humanity, possibly reflected in a

passage like Hosea 6.7. Here Adam is promised perfect eternal life on the condition of

perfect obedience. The covenant of grace, under which all other biblical covenants are

subsumed, is God’s undeserved favor toward the believer, and is reflected in passages

such as Genesis 3:15; 15.18; 17.2,4,7,9,13,19, and 21. It is considered “unconditional”

10
​Reid, Daniel G., Robert Dean Linder, Bruce L. Shelley, and Harry S. Stout.
Dictionary of Christianity in America​. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990. See
“Covenant Theology.” Accessed through LOGOS, January 13, 2017.
 10

because of the gracious nature of the relationship wherein God Himself grants the believer

saving faith in both the Tanach (“OT”) and the Messianic Writings (“NT”).

​The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System, which is

critical of covenant theology, defines it in this way: “Covenant theology... is a

theologically conservative approach to the Bible that sees all of God’s dealings with

humanity as based on two or three covenants, particularly a ‘covenant of works’ and a

‘covenant of grace’...in covenant theology there is one central purpose of God in history,

to create through election and the application of the work of Christ one redeemed people,

saved through the covenant of grace.”11 In covenant theology, therefore, the creation of the

church, appears to be the ​teleos​ of all Scripture, prophecies and covenants.

​One theologian describes covenant theology as a theology that “flattens the whole Bible out

into one covenant [i.e., the comprehensive covenant of grace] where there is no real and vital

distinction between either the Old and New Covenants or Israel and the Church.”12 He is

concerned that the biblical word “covenant” in covenant theology is applied to ideas that are not

called covenants in Scripture:

The reason we should only use the word “covenant” to describe events in
Scripture that are actually called covenants is because of the importance of the
word “covenant” in Scripture and the place of prominence the concept has in
our theological systems. The danger of calling something a covenant that
Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making

11
Paul S. ​The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study
​Karleen,
System​. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Accessed through LOGOS, January
15, 2017.
12
​Swanson, Dennis M.. ​"An Introduction to New Covenant Theology."​ The Master's
Seminary Journal 18, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 158.
 11

something a cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in

Scripture. 13

Further critiquing classical covenant theology, the author writes that the covenant of works

and the covenant of grace are both theological covenants and not biblical covenants. “They are

the children of one’s theological system. Their mother is Covenant Theology and their father is

logic applied to that system. Neither of these two covenants had their origin in Scripture and

biblical exegesis. Both of them were invented by theology as the necessary consequences of a

theological system.”14

Richard Mayhue, writing in ​The Master’s Seminary Journal​, also challenges the legitimacy of

the reality of the covenants of redemption and grace in Scripture:

No explicit, uncontested exegetical evidence in either the Old or New Testaments

refers to any covenant(s) made in eternity past. Deduced or inferential evidence is
not sufficient foundation for something as important as the supposed "covenant of
redemption" or "covenant of grace." Rather direct, unquestioned declarations of
Scripture should establish that foundation, the kind that establish explicitly
revealed covenants—e.g., the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17:7), the Davidic
Covenant (2 Sam 23:5), and the New Covenant (Jer 32:40).15

​J.I. Packer answers the question “What is Covenant theology?” in this interesting way:

“The straightforward, if provocative answer to that question is that it is what is nowadays called

a hermeneutic...​A successful hermeneutic is a consistent interpretation procedure yielding a

consistent understanding of Scripture that in turn confirms the proprietary of the procedure

itself.​”16

13
​Ibid, 159.
14
​ Ibid.
15
L. Mayhue, ​"​Hebrews 13:20​:​ ​Covenant of Grace or New Covenant? An
​Richard
Exegetical Note."​ The Master's Seminary Journal 7, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 251-57.
16
I. Packer and C. H. Spurgeon on Covenant Theology,​ from a blog at Theologue,
​J.
found at ​ ​https://theologue.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/j-i-packer-and-c-h-
 12

Interestingly, Charles Spurgeon, who would agree with MacArthur’s “dispensationalist”

belief that God’s promises to Israel will be literally fulfilled, wrote that “The doctrine of the

covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the

distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity… If

anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, ‘He is one who says, Salvation

is of the Lord.'” 17

In ​Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Catholic Perspective on a Debated Point,

Andrew Preslar suggests that elements of both systems of theology make important contributions

to the history of redemption:

The classical Dispensationalist emphasis on the glory of God manifested in

the various epochs of the world resonates with an important aspect of the great
Catholic and Orthodox mystical tradition, which sees all of creation as
saturated with the glory of God, consonant with the 19th Psalm. Covenant
theology’s emphasis on salvation history resonates with Catholicism’s
emphasis on the Incarnation of the Son of God as the climax of redemptive
history and the turning point of human history, at which our nature is joined to
the divine nature (without separation and without confusion) in the Person of
the Son, such that in him all human persons can become partakers of divinity
(Peter 1:4). Thus, the ontological and the historical, the creative and the
redemptive aspects of God’s relation to the world are brought together in
Christ, and so they belong together in Christian theology.18

Here Preslar introduces the possibility that elements of both covenant theology

and dispensationalist theology are important parts of the best systemization of Scripture.

spurgeon-on-covenant-theology/​ November 23, 2014, accessed February 15, 2017.

17
​Ibid.

18
​AndrewPreslar, ​Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Catholic
Perspective on a Debate. ​A blog post ​ ​found at
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/dispensationalism-and-covenant-theology-a
-catholic-perspective-on-a-debated-point/​. Accessed 2-22-17.
 13

Perhaps another way to look at the contrast between covenant theology and dispensationalism

is to ask, “what is the teleos, or completion of God’s promises and covenants in Tanach? The

church or the Messiah?” From what I have read so far, covenant theologians and the Roman

Catholic Church would say the “church”, while dispensationalists would say “the Messiah.” What

is the ultimate and final focus found in Scripture? Jesus the Son of God, the Messiah or His Body,

His ekklesia? Can the two be separated? This is a question for another assignment but I will be

thinking about it.

Application and Conclusion

With all this data in hand I still do not feel that I have a full grasp of either dispensational or

covenant theology. But I do recognize two main contrasts and concerns: the matters of (1)

hermeneutics and (2) the treatment of the Tanakh--that is, whether the Tanakh is fully a part of

the continuum of revelation and perfectly in union with the “new testament”. With respect to the

Tanakh, covenant theologians honor all of God’s Word by placing the Tanakh on equal footing

with all of Scripture, teaching that there has always been only one God, one covenant (of grace),

and one way of salvation for Jew or Gentile, and that the Law of God found in Tanakh is never to

be disregarded or taken lightly in any way but is rather fully the Lord’s guidance for His people

both then and now. Richard Pratt writes that reformed covenant theology stresses the “continuities

between the testaments” and that it “enthusiastically embraces the Old Testament’s authority over

the modern church.”19 I greatly appreciate this unified view of Scripture and God’s dealings with

all of His people through all the ages. In light of this it seems that of all people, the covenant

theologians would rally around the literal fulfillment of all of God’s promises to His

19
​Richard L. Pratt, Jr., ​“To the Jew First: A Reformed Perspective,” ​at The Rock of
Israel website, ​http://www.rockofisrael.com/ToTheJewFirstE.htm​, accessed 4-4-17.
 14

creation--including His nation of Israel, defending to the death the sovereign election of God and

His unchangeable, irrevocable covenants with His ancient chosen people. What a paradox.

In contrast dispensational theology tends to go too far in separating the saints (the believing

Jewish remnant) of the Tanakh from the saints of the “new testament”, suggesting that the God of

the Universe actually ran separate programs and distinct paths to salvation throughout history.

The lack of unity present in this analysis is disconcerting--almost as if God had plans A, B, C, etc.

Therefore I believe my prediction that one theological system would be more supportive of the

unity of Scripture is supported by the continuum found in covenant theology.

With respect to hermeneutics and my prediction about one system minimizing the distinct

promises given to Israel (the Jewish believing remnant), I see that covenant theology, in a noble

effort to unify all of Scripture, seems to “flatten” things out (as one commentator above

suggested) even at the expense of acknowledging the distinct irrevocable chosenness and future

promises clearly given to Israel. In this respect, Dispensational theology is stronger in its refusal

to abandon the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Tanakh.

Dispensationalism overkills on dividing the Scripture into numerous, mind-boggling

divisions that can threaten the unity of Scripture and even suggest that people in different ages are

saved in different ways. Covenant theology, on the other hand, overkills by shoehorning all of

Scripture into its unifying covenant of grace, perhaps at the risk of minimizing the place of the

actual covenants identified in Scripture, including the irrevocable promises made to Israel.

To summarize, I believe that both systems of theology make important contributions to our

understanding of Scripture and God’s ordering of history, and that the strengths of each should

become components of any comprehensive work of theology. Personally, I would have

 15

confidence in a theological system that combines the strengths of both covenant and

dispensational theologies.

With great respect for the learned theologians who have given themselves to the study of

systematics in order to help us organize our thoughts around Scriptural revelation, I do believe

that we must view these works with some degree of skepticism. Daniel Gruber expresses such

concern, writing that while systematic theology is “admirable in its attempt to bring logic and

organization to what we believe,” it can also be damaging because “anything that doesn’t fit into

that system must be rejected, distorted, or denied. We should not place the creation of a system

above what God actually says.”20 Gruber suggests that “a perplexing and beautiful thing about the

Scriptures [is that] they defy any human attempt to create a system that will contain them.”21

Scripture cannot be “reduced to simple logical prescriptions” and “over-interpretation of the bible

can lead us away from the bible itself.”22

Expressed in other words, Franz Delitzsch, in his ​System of Biblical Psychology (1855)

wherein he attempted to construct an exact, scientific, biblical psychology, admitted that “the

Scripture is no scholastic [or didactic] book of science” and “that it is true that on psychological

subjects, just as little as on dogmatical or ethical, does Scripture comprehend [or contain] any

system propounded in the language of the schools.”23 Even John Murray cautions about sweeping

theological systems: “Theology must always be undergoing reformation.The human

understanding is imperfect. ...there always remains the need for correction and reconstruction so

20
​ Daniel Gruber, ​Copernicus and the Jews​, ​Hanover, NH: Elijah Publishing, 2005.
321?
21
​Ibid.
22
​Ibid. 321.
23
System of Biblical Psychology, ​2nd ed., trans. Robert E Wallis
​Franz Delitzsch, ​A
(Edinburgh: T. & Clark, 1867), p.16.
 16

that the structure may be brought into closer approximation to the Scripture and the reproduction

be a more faithful transcript or reflection of the heavenly exemplar.​“24

24
​ John Murray, ​The Covenant of Grace, ​Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1953,
p.5.
 17

​Bibliography

Alcorn, Randy. ​“​What is Your Position on Reformed Theology And The Five Points Of
Calvinism?” ​Blogpost found at ​http://www.epm.org/resources/2016/Jul/20/What-
your-position-covenantreformed-theology/​ (July 20, 2016), accessed March 25,
2017.

Berkhof, L. ​Systematic Theology.​ Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.,
1938. Accessed from (LOGOS) January 2017.

Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, Trent C.
Butler, and Bill Latta, eds. ​Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary.​ Nashville, TN:
Holman Bible Publishers, 2003. Accessed from LOGOS, January 12, 2017.

“Covenant Theology is not Replacement Theology.” ​Heidleblog.net Posted by R. Scott

Clark, Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Accessed 2-17-17.

“Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology.” ​ found at ​www.sermonaudio.com/

​saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=1231391141​ accessed 2-18-17​.

Delitzsch, Franz. ​A System of Biblical Psychology.

Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. ​Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible.​ Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1988. Accessed from LOGOS 1-17.

Gruber, Daniel. ​Copernicus and the Jews.​ Hanover, NH: Elijah Publishing, 2005.

Hawley, Grant.​ “MacArthur's Leaky Dispensationalism.”​ accessed 3-25-17 at

​https://faithalone.org/magazine/y2011/11C2.html​.

Hoekema, Anthony A. ​Created in God's Image​. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1994.

Jacobs, Loren, from​ ​“​Jesus Made Me Kosher​”​, a radio show broadcast ​ ​September 7th,
2011. Found at ​http://www.shema.com/author/jesus-made-me-kosher/
(Dispensationalism, part 1, ​JMMK 09-07-11.

Karleen, Paul S. ​The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System.
 18

New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Accessed from (LOGOS) 2-17-17.

Larsen, Timothy, D. W. Bebbington, and Mark A. Noll. ​Biographical Dictionary of

Evangelicals.​ Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Accessed from (LOGOS) 2-17.

MacArthur, John. “​With regard to Dispensationalism, where exactly do you stand?”​found

on Youtube at
​www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA010/With-regard-to-Dispensationalism-
​where-exactly-do-you-stand​. Accessed January 12, 2017.

Marsden, G.M. ​Fundamentalism and American Culture. ​(1980); C. I. Scofield, Rightly

Dividing the Word of Truth (1888).

Murray, Andrew. ​The New Covenant: A Covenant of Grace​. chapter XIV found at
​https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/murray_andrew/two/two14.cfm​. Accessed
2-10-17.
Murray, John. ​The Covenant of Grace. ​Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 2005.

Pratt, Richard L. Jr. ​“To the Jew First: A Reformed Perspective​” at The Rock of Israel
website, ​http://www.rockofisrael.com/ToTheJewFirstE.htm​, accessed 4-4-17.

Preslar, Andrew. ​Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Catholic Perspective on a

Debate. ​blog post, June 21, 2014 found at ​http://www.calledtocommunion.com/
​2014/06/dispensationalism-and-covenant-theology-
​a-catholic-perspective-on-a-debated-point/​. ​Accessed 2-22-17.

Reid, Daniel G., Robert Dean Linder, Bruce L. Shelley, and Harry S. Stout. ​Dictionary of
Christianity in America​. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990. Accessed
from (LOGOS) 2-17.

Rusten, Sharon with E. Michael. ​The Complete Book of When & Where in the Bible and
Throughout History.​ Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2005. See
“Scofield Reference Bible.” Accessed from (LOGOS) 2-17.

Ryle, J​ ​. C. A​re You Ready For The End Of Time? ​(Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus,
2001); reprint of Coming Events and Present Duties. Accessed 2-12-17 from
​http://middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/rylelit.htm​.
 19

Ryrie, Charles C. ​Dispensationalism Today​. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1995. Print.

​ he Reformation Study Bible: New King James Version​. Orlando, FL:

Sproul, R. C. T
Reformation Trust, a Division of Ligonier Ministries, 2016. Print.

Swanson, Dennis M. ​"An Introduction to New Covenant Theology."​ The Master's

Seminary Journal 18, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 149-163.

Wax, Trevin. ​“A Word to My Calvinist Friends.​” blogpost found at

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2012/08/28/a-word-to-my-calvinist-fri
ends/​.

“What Does John Piper Believe about Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New
Covenant Theology.” ​Desiring God (January 23, 2006). ​Accessed February 9, 2017
at ​www.desiringgod.org/artiles/what-does-john-piper-believe-about-
​dispensationalism-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology​.
20