That's what they will hold to now, at the present moment. But covenant theologians have explicitly stated for centuries, that in prior covenants, salvation was indeed by works (or indeed by other ways as well). That's the whole point of covenant theology: it's not merely a description of changing eras, which indeed isn't "covenant theology" because you find them described in the middle ages, in the patristic period, etc. What makes "covenant theology" a new theology is that they argued that the different eras also included different relationships with God. God and man related to each other differently, salvation was accomplished differently, in the different dispensations and covenants. That's why you can definitively name a beginning to covenant theology, in the late 1500s; it had a specific period when it was invented, and was not a part of mainstream Christian thinking prior to that.
The words never had stable meanings. You're trying to impose form and content on a topic that never had a specific form or content. The fact that we're still arguing over this four hundred years after the Reformation should prove that if nothing else. I am a Puritan more in the line of Jonathan Edwards and John Bunyan than of Oliver Cromwell. I think my basic theology would have been very much in the Puritan mainstream when gauged against what actually existed in, e.g., colonial-era America. I think too many Anglicans read "Puritan" and immediately jump to Cromwell, with all the baggage that implies; whereas my mind goes to Jonathan Edwards. I can say the same of Calvinism; the Dutch Reformed and Scots Presbyterian forms of "Calvinism" are later formulations (dare I say systematizations) of what Calvin wrote of in his Institutes. (And there is more of John Knox than of Calvin in classic Presbyterianism, but that's a topic for another day.) Likewise Martin Luther and Lutheranism. Likewise Anglicans with Cranmer. Or Roman Catholics with Augustine and then Aquinas. Those who come before us hand us the baton; we run with it for a while, and hand it to someone else. And so it goes. The Bible remains as it is, but the shelves of devotionals and commentaries grow to the horizon in all directions. You get everything you need in the Bible; much of the other stuff can be disregarded with little of value lost. My point is that these "systematizing" theologies are, at their best, only maps to the Gospel truth, they are not themselves Gospel. Cultures and contexts change, and the challenge for each age is to make plain the Gospel to believers and unbelievers alike. Theologies are never the final word -- they are works of men, and rise and fall as men do. Only the Bible itself is foundational. Finally, I must say that I don't "permit" God's atonement for all, I simply allow for it. It may seem like hair-splitting, but it isn't. I am a fallen and fallible man. I believe that Christ's covenant promise applies to God's elect, which in my view means that salvation is specific and not universal. Many will not be saved; Christ himself makes this point many times. And if God is sovereign, then the elect have been known to him for eternity for he sees both beginning and end. Yet it is not for me to impose conditions or limits on how God may save sinners. Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, or grasp it imperfectly. It is as God wills, not as I will, and I think any believing Puritan of any age would have declared the same thing. The Puritans would probably have disdained me more for my church practice than my theology. I happen to like episcopal church governance; I like having musical instruments in church; I like a Liturgical service rather than endless windy sermonizing; and I like the symbolism inherent in the appurtenances of Anglican worship. I think the Reformed side of the Protestant house tends to be a bit too austere and colorless sometimes. (Though I will also say that the reputation the Puritans had for dourness and joylessness was unfounded, a calumny put on them by their enemies.)
What you say seems correct, particularly in light of the same author's report of what Jesus said here: John 7:39 unless there is something we are missing about the way The Holy Spirit operates within the Church and within individuals, and the way 'the world' always reacts to the ministry of The Holy Spirit. I feel that you have made your case scripturally for different 'church'; eras or 'dispensations'. I am however very doubtful about these various 'dispensations' demonstrating any gradation in God's Grace toward His creation. I think God's plan for mankind is Grace from start to finish. I think God has always been, is, and will always be eternally gracious and all 'dispensations' are equally blessed and disciplined by Him. I do not believe God has withheld any good gift from those that love Him in whatever 'dispensation', and I cannot contemplate a God who's Graciousness toward us increases with the progress of time or a 'dispensation in which God is more Graceous than any other. It may appear so to us, due to our lack of understanding of God's character and ways, but that is a fault in us and the perhaps faulty opinions of the interpreters of God's actions in scripture, not actual mutability within the Godhead over time. Heb.13:8. .
How would you describe St Paul's 'theology' when he discusses at length the Abrahamic Covenant, and how would you describe the Covenants compared in The Letter to the Hebrews with regard to how they affect our very salvation. Are these theologies , 'new fangled' or in some way not 'covenant' theologies? The Covenants in scripture are the very legal basis for all faith based salvation, (the only kind attainable for us in reality). The Abrahamic and the New Covenants are the very glue which holds the The Gospel together, the very keel of the Ark of Salvation which is The Church of Jesus Christ on Earth and in heaven. Without them there simply is no Gospel, so ignoring them as having no theological consequence is to ignore most of both the Old and New Testaments including ALL the bits that Jesus explained to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. .
I've never read any works by "covenant theologians" or by "dispensationalist theologians" so I cannot say yea or nay to your statement that they've "explicitly stated for centuries...salvation was indeed by works." You could give a quotation from one of each and carry the day on this point. What I'm gleaning here might be a great and memorable truth, to wit: Labels don't work very well. Saying "he is this" or "she is that" or "they are such-and-such" often muddies the waters, because within any group there can be a wide range of differences of belief on any number of details. The labeled group is not going to be homogeneous (unless it's a very small group... like, one or two? ). I would feel comfortable saying that I observe descriptions of covenants, and descriptions of dispensations, in Scripture; but at the same time I probably am not a true, committed covenantalist or dispensationalist or classicist, nor (upon reflection) do those labels properly fit me. What I am is a Christian. And Christians do not follow this or that theologian, but Christians follow Christ. Imperfectly, of course.
Ok let’s be precise: the word for covenants is found plenty in the Scriptures (Hebrew: berith). The key innovation (error) introduced in the 16th century was the idea that the covenants constituted different legal eras, different eras of salvation, and different relationships with God. For thousands of years prior to that, prophets and theologians described different berith covenants but insisted on a single epoch, the single legal relationship which stood unchanged between us and God for ever. The prime example of that is John Davenant himself: he’s on the outskirts of Anglican orthodoxy by trying flirting with Reformed theology, but even he can’t get himself to shake the timeless idea that whatever covenants he posits, will have to be one and unchanging for all time. So the two covenants he proposes are from the beginning of Creation until the end of the World; rather than being in succession or being condition or time bound. That’s how a proper apostolic theologian thought about eras of church history. Different berith covenants, sure, but always the same one eternal relationship of God to man, a single legal framework, a single and unchanging will of God.
You really have me curious. Have you personally read the works of these alleged 16th Century covenant theologians, and have you seen them state in print that the covenants constituted different eras of salvation? If so, what are the names of these theologians? (If not, can you consider the possibility, however remote you suppose the possibility might be, that you're repeating an unsubstantiated slander?) I have been reading some more things online in an effort to find these primary sources of which you speak, and so far no luck. When I find people who make the claim about 'two ways of salvation,' they offer no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, I found some interesting folks who say the 'two ways of salvation' claim is not correct. I'll post links for anyone who wants to look at them. The first, an essay by Michael Vlatch, says: "First, while affirming that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone, Dispensationalism teaches that God has worked in different ways in different eras of history...." https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/dispensational-theology/ The next fellow seems to have been in a position to know what dispensationalists are supposed to believe: "As a Christian who was a member of two dispensationalist churches for 18 years and earned a seminary degree from a dispensationalist seminary (SES), I affirm that I have never heard a dispensationalist pastor or Bible teacher hold to two salvations." https://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/does-dispensationalism-teach-two-modes-of-salvation/ This third exhibit might be of most interest to you, since the author, Adam Graham, clearly opposes dispensationalism (he's a "hostile witness" ) and writes a brief analysis of its errors as he perceives them: https://www.nokingbutchrist.org/what-is-wrong-with-dispensationalism/ Despite the position he takes, he is honest in stating: "Though the exact views of the eras of human history, or dispensations, may differ, dispensationalists are consistent in insisting that throughout every age salvation is through grace alone, by the works of Christ, not of man." We may never know for sure where this apparent slur against dispensationalists originated, but I can't help speculating that it seems like a dirty trick the Jesuits might have pulled to 'divide and conquer' their Protestant adversaries. After all, what could set Christians against one another faster than the belief that some of us have fallen into the worst sort of heresy, the kind that questions the way of salvation itself?
I think perhaps the crux of this debate hinges around the fact that 'Dispensationalism', (the theological system of thought and method of interpretations of Holy Writ), is a branch of eschatology, not simply a convenient method of labelling the different eras of the history of God's interventions, with respect to sin, righteousness and judgment. The Apostolic Church has, since its inception on the Day of Pentecost, seen a new era emerging out the old in the fact that scripture speaks of a New Covenant over and against one that already previously existed. Rexlion is correct in thinking that there are 'dispensations' in God's plan of redemption. "Unto the dispensation of the fulness of the times," that is, "which He purposed in Himself" (Eph 1:9) with a view to the economy of (the gracious administration belonging to) the fulness of the times (Greek, "fit times," "seasons"). More comprehensive than "the fulness of the time" (Gal. 4:4). The whole of the Gospel times (plural) is meant, with the benefits to the Church dispensed in them severally and successively. Compare "the ages to come" (Eph 2:7). "The ends of the ages" (Greek, 1 Cor. 10:11); "the times (same Greek as here, 'the seasons,' or 'fitly appointed times') of the Gentiles" (Lu 21:24); "the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power" (Acts 1:7); "the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:20, 21). The coming of Jesus at the first advent, "in the fulness of time," was one of these "times." The descent of the Holy Ghost, "when Pentecost was fully come" (Acts 2:1), was another. The testimony given by the apostles to Him "in due time" ("in its own seasons," Greek) (1 Tim. 2:6) was another. The conversion of the Jews "when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," the second coming of Christ, the "restitution of all things," the millennial kingdom, the new heaven and earth, shall be severally instances of "the dispensation of the fulness of the times," that is, "the dispensation of" the Gospel events and benefits belonging to their respective "times," when severally filled up or completed. God the Father, according to His own good pleasure and purpose, is the Dispenser both of the Gospel benefits and of their several fitting times (Acts 1:7). But these 'dispensations' are not what 'Dispensationalism' has concocted regarding its understanding of the meaning of the millennium and definition for 'The Church'. I think that is what Stalwart is rightly objecting to. 'Dispensationalism' teaches that the millennium is not a stage in God's single universal redemptive action in Christ, but specifically a period in which the Old Testament promises to the Nation of Israel will be fulfilled in strictly literal form. But to apply Old Testament prophesies of the age of salvation specifically to the millennium runs counter to the general New Testament interpretation of those prophesies, which find their fulfilment in the salvation already achieved by Christ and to be consummated in the age to come. This is also how Revelation itself interprets such prophesies in Chapter 21. It is possible that the millennium is taken too literally when it is understood as a precise period of time and it is also possible that The Church, (ecclesia), as defined by God in scripture, did not begin only at Pentecost, (though this certainly does apply to the Apostolic part of the Church, it probably doesn't to the Catholic (i.e. Universal) portion of it, which also includes the Old Testament saints.). It is possible that the Age of Grace is not without Law and the Covenant of works, (which still stands), is not by any means devoid of Grace. 'Dispensationalism' is too simplistic by far in its interpretation of scripture, as a means of categorising God's Gracious interaction with the human race in adequately providing for its salvation but I'm perplexed by how this is connected to Reformed Theology. I was given to understand that the Anglican Church is Catholic but Reformed. Might I be wrong in that belief? .
This might be helpful as a definition of 'Dispensationalism': Dispensationalism is a movement which achieved considerable influence in twentieth-century evangelicalism, particularly during the period 1920-70. The term takes its name from its understanding of a series of "dispensations" (from the Greek term oikonomia) in the history of salvation. The origins of the movement lie in England with John Nelson Darby (1800-82). However, the movement became of particular significance in the United States under the influence of C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), whose Scofield Reference Bible (1909) became a milestone in dispensationalist thought. The most distinctive feature of dispensationalism is its periodization of history. Scofield divided the history of salvation into seven periods or "dispensations," each of which represents a distinct covenant between God and his people. These are: (1) innocence, between creation and th« Fall; (2) conscience, between the Fall and Noah's flood; (3) human government, from the flood to the call of Abraham; (4) promise, from Abraham to Moses; (5) law, from Moses to the death of Christ; (6) the church, from the resurrection to the present; (7) the millennium. Whitt' other schemes of dispensations have been put forward within dispensationalism, Scofield's has had particular influence. One of classic dispensationalism's most significant features is its interpretation of the term "Israel." For dispensationalists such as Scofield and Charles C. Ryrie (b. 1925), the term "Israel" always designates the earthly Jewish people, and never represents the Christian church. Israel and the church are two totally distinct entities, each with its own history and destiny. "Israel" refers to an earthly people whose hope focuses on on earthly kingdom; "the church" refers to a heavenly people whose destiny lies beyond this world. Dispensationalists have thus had a particular interest in the modern history of the nation of Israel (founded in 1948), seeing in this development the fulfilment of dispensationalist understandings of the Old Testament. It should be noted that more recent dispensationalist writers have tended to soften this distinction between Israel and the church. Two central and characteristic notions within dispensationalism are those of "the rapture" and "the tribulation." The former concerns the believer's expectation of being "caught up in the clouds" to meet Christ at the time of his return (1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17). The latter is grounded in the prophetic visions of the book of Daniel (Daniel 9: 24-7) and is understood as a seven-year period of divine judgment upon the world. Dispensationalist writers remain divided as to whether the rapture is to be understood as pre-tribulational (in which believers are enabled to escape the pain of the tribulation) or post-tribulational (in which believers must endure the tribulation, in the assurance that they will subsequently be united with Christ. Christian Theology, An Introduction. Alister E. McGrath. (One of my CofE LLM training study books). I can see from this how the definition of 'The Church' would cut across Anglican understandings of the continuity between God's dealings with the Children of Abraham before and after the Birth / death / Resurrection of Christ and the Pentecost outpouring of The Holy Spirit, particularly with regard to Infant Baptism, (mostly rejected as inappropriate by Dispensationalists as being groundless on account of infants being unable to have 'faith' on their own behalf and their rejection of the possibility that the infants of believers come already under a 'Covenant' of some kind with God, through Christ by their parent's faith). .
Former Anglican priest John Nelson Darby (1800-82), became leader of a movement which began in Dublin and at first consisted of prayer meetings and Bible studies attended by members of various churches. This developed into the Brethren, a group committed to a simple New Testament Christianity. Sometimes known as the Plymouth Brethren because they developed strongly in that city, they practice believers baptism and have no ordained ministry. Akin to another similar group known as the Churches of Christ AKA the Cambellites after their founder. They became more successful in the USA where they are known as the Disciples of Christ. .
I agree that this interpretation is erroneous, but I question whether the views of "such as Scofield and Ryrie" are representative of that group in this particular detail. Perhaps most dispensationalists are not so rigid, but think that the meaning of "Israel" depends upon the context of each individual statement concerning it. Since the believing Gentiles are 'grafted in' to the tree, they have become a part of spiritual Israel. Nonetheless there are some prophecies in the O.T. which seem not to deal with spiritual but with natural, national Israel. Must "Israel" always refer to spiritual Israel? Isn't it possible that "Israel" in prophecies may sometimes refer to natural Israel? Amillenialism seems to rigidly reject this proposition. Jesus' disciples certainly believed that God would bring about a restoration of national Israel. Act 1:6-7 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Jesus did not correct them. He didn't say He was not coming back to restore the nation. He only said, you don't get to know when it will be. Can anyone explain how the following could pertain only to spiritual Israel and not to the genetic descendants of Jacob and the physical habitation which God gave to them so long ago (which they have never completely possessed)? Ezekiel 47 & 48 describe in detail the future physical borders of national Israel, including the fact that its western border will begin at the Mediterranean Sea. (Note: the "new earth" described in Rev. 21 will have no seas, so the time prophesied in Ezekiel points to a time prior to the "new heavens and new earth"). A spring of water will issue from Jerusalem and run eastward. In this time the priests and levites will be restored to their positions. Chapters 40 through 48 contain intricate physical details of a new temple to be built in Jerusalem, and to this day so large a temple has not yet been built. Holy oblations will be conducted in this temple. In Ezek. 43:7 God calls this ...the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever... Jeremiah 30, 31 & 33 foretell that God will have Jerusalem rebuilt upon her site, and the scattered people of Israel will be brought back from the far places. Jer 30:18-23 Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwellingplaces; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof. And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small. Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress them. And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the LORD. And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked. Jer 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. Jer 33:12-18 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Again in this place, which is desolate without man and without beast, and in all the cities thereof, shall be an habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down. In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. Zechariah 2 foretells of a time when God comes to restore Zion (that is, Jerusalem), to live with His people, and to restore Judah to its territory: Zec 2:9-12 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee. And the LORD shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. And what of the Lord's prophetic word of the end times in Zechariah 14? It aligns closely with the prophecies of Revelation, especially Rev. 20. Verses 14 & 15 seem to foretell the same thing as Rev. 20:7-9, a great final battle after which the Lord will remake the heavens and earth. Zec 14: Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour. And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance. And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Isaiah contains another pertinent prophecy: Isa 24:22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. Isa 24:23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously. Compare Isaiah to Revelation: Rev 20:1-3 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. Rev_21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
I agree, and spiritually as well as geographically and physically. And so did St. Paul, (spiritually at least, from what we see in scripture). I agree. Context is absolutely essential in discerning correct interpretation. 2 Tim.2:15. With distant future prophesy that is often extremely difficult. (Sometimes it is not for us to know times, seasons and God's secrets). With Paul's letters it is often self evident though. Paul clearly saw a continuity between spiritual Israel and The Christian Church. We are grafted into the rootstock of the Children of Israel. We, 'grafted in' Christian believers, are now in receipt of the same promises as those who faithfully kept the covenant God made with Abraham. Jesus of Nazareth was a member of God's ecclesia from birth, circumcised at 8 days old. The Head of the Christian church was a Jew and was never a Christian, because Christians follow Christ but Christ is the Jewish LEADER Messiah and Covenant Head of HIS people. (Those who have come from darkness into His glorious light). The first 'Christian believers' were all Jews who obeyed Christ's predictions and command. Matt.24:14, Mk.13:10, Matt.28:19. Christ's Church has always been One Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church. .
I came across a book by Charles F. Baker, whom some have classified as an "ultradispensationalist." Checking his background (taught by Chafee), he doubtless was an authority on the subject. In his book, A Dispensational Theology, Baker maintains adamantly that dispensationalism does not promote, nor does the Bible support, two ways of salvation. He quotes from Ryrie and Pettingill, and he distances both himself and the theology from Bullinger "whom many consider to be extreme in his dispensational views." Then Baker observes: Actually it is the covenant theologian who teaches that there have been two ways of salvation. It is taught that God made a Covenant of Works with Adam before he fell, whereby Adam could earn eternal life by his own works. After Adam fell it became impossible for him to gain eternal life by works, and so God then made a Covenant of Grace with Adam and we are told that every one from that day to this has been saved by believing the same gospel message. This so-called Covenant of Works, which is a basic concept in Covenant Theology, is not to be found in Scripture.... [D]ispensational truth has more to do with the religious or spiritual program for God's people than it does with basic salvation. Many practical questions could be asked concerning God's program for the Church today in the light of all that God has commanded throughout the ages. For example, should it build a tabernacle or temple? Should it have candlesticks and burn incense? Should it have holy days and celebrate feasts at the new moon? Should it heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and raise the dead? Should its preachers go out two by two, and provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in their purses, nor scrip for their journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves? Should its members speak with tongues? Should it baptize for the remission of sins? Should its members eat only fruits and vegetables? Should they obey the dietary regulations of Leviticus 11, or may they eat pork and rabbit and catfish? Should they assemble on the sabbath or on Sunday? Should they sell all of their possessions and have everything in common? All of these things were at one time or other a part of God's program for His people. Upon what principle is it to be decided which, if any, of the above things should be included in the program of the Church, if not upon a dispensational one? Whatever other failings may be found in dispensationalism, in its mainstream it only allows for one way for man to be reconciled with God: by grace through faith. Therefore, it seems appropriate for us to view it, less as toxic heresy, and more as a methodology used (for good or for ill) by some people to interpret the Bible. (Baker terms it a 'theology,' but he defines theology "...in the broad sense of the word [a]s the study, not only of God, but also of all of His works.") One of the mainstays of this interpretive method is the concept that words, phrases, and sentences in the Bible should be allowed their most natural, unforced meaning whenever possible (recognizing that this is not always possible) on the grounds that the writer is usually trying to convey truths or ideas in a clear manner rather than to intentionally obfuscate. I think this is a sensible concept.
No need for that. The literary evidence is very widely available. Using this as the shorthand, https://www.reformation21.org/blog/what-is-a-covenant-of-works 1. The puritan William Strong: a covenant of works is “that which teaches us justification and life by doing” (Strong, Discourse, 90) 2. the puritan John Ball: in the covenant of works “God covenanteth with man to give him eternal life upon condition of perfect obedience” (Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 8) 3. The Westminster Confession: “the first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (WCF, 7, 2). 4. The puritan Thomas Watson: “When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him upon condition of perfect obedience” (A Body of Divinity, BoT, 128). 5. “The doctrine of “the covenant of works” arose to prominence in the late sixteenth century and quickly became a regular feature in Reformed thought. Theologians believed that when God first created man he made a covenant with him: all Adam had to do was obey God’s command to not eat from the tree of knowledge and obey God’s command to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. The reward for Adam’s obedience was profound: eternal life for him and his offspring. The consequences of his disobedience were dire: God would visit death upon Adam and his descendants.” https://rts.edu/resources/the-covenant-of-works/ Now that’s just for Covenant Theology, which wasn’t as radical as Dispensationalism that came later.
Oh, well, Covenant Theology. Yep. Problem is, that's not evidence about Dispensationalism; you've only sewn them together with a flimsy thread called 'guilt by association.' Please see my post # 54 right above yours, in which an authority on Dispensationalism verifies what you say about Covenant Theology but tells that this heresy is not a mark of Dispensationalism.
Whether one believes that Adam is the name of an actual proto-man or is a fictional, symbolic metaphor, representing the whole human race, along with Eve, i.e. (mankind generally), the fact is that the genesis narrative relates God's 'conditional promise / warning' that 'life', (probably speaking of the soul rather than the body), is conditional for human beings, (like Adam), on being obedient to God. (Jesus of Nazareth the Christ of God being the one and only person who consistently did the will of God throughout his entire life Matt.7:21, John 5:30, Matt.6:10, Matt.26:42.). In the Genesis narrative Eve and Adam both disobeyed God and were beguiled by an attraction for forbidden knowledge, (they never actually ate of the tree of life, so never were endowed with eternal life of both body and soul, being cast out of Eden expressly to prevent the possibility of them 'eating' of it, for fear that might happen, and they be condemned to live forever in their disobedient, sinful state). Casting them out of Eden was an act of God's Grace. So the 'covenant' of 'works' is merely a logical assumption derived from a scriptural narrative, (which is perfectly permissable theologically but not scripturally 'set in stone', so to speak.) It is not heretical, just an assumption. An assumption I may say that the church has been making for thousands of years already. Linked to which is the assumption, (backed up by irrefutable evidence i.e. death), that human beings are incapable, without assistance from God, of ever fulfilling the conditions expected from them, for deserving eternal life, either spiritually, (the soul) or physically, (the body). I wonder, Stalwart therefore what your objection might be on theological grounds to the assumption that there is a 'covenant of works' in operation for every human being on earth, to this day, which they are however incapable of fulfilling because of a universal, endemic, predisposition to sin. .
Attached I have Pieters, “A Candid Examination of the Scofield Bible”. It seems like a pretty handy analysis of Dispensationalism as it was originally founded (rather than what’s said on some of today’s websites). Some choice quotes: “The Edenic [Garden of Eden] Covenant of Dr. Scofield bears a resemblance of the well-known concept of “the Covenant of Works” in systematic theology” (p. 13) (p.12) “The Scofield Bible teaches that there are seven dispensations, as follows: 1). The Dispensation of Innocency: in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. 2). The Dispensation of Conscience: before the Flood. 3). The Dispensation of Human Government: from the flood to various points of time, namely, for the human race as a unit 4). The Dispensation of Promise: from the calling of Abraham until Mt. Sinai. 5). The Dispensation of Law: from Mt. Sinai to the cross of Christ. 6). The Dispensation of Grace: from the cross of Christ to the Second Advent. 7). The Dispensation of the Kingdom: the millennial era.” “The “Dispensation of Conscience,” he says, means this: “Expelled from Eden...man was responsible to do all known good, and to abstain from all known evil, and to approach God through sacrifice...the dispensation ended in the judgment of the Flood.” “Ended”—what ended? The responsibility of every man to do all known good and to abstain from all known evil?—certainly not, that abides today. The responsibility to approach God through sacrifice?—that continued until the final sacrifice of Christ. The operation of conscience in the heart of man?—by no means; St. Paul refers to it as operative in his day, and there has been no change since. What, then, that was characteristic of “the Dispensation of Conscience,” ended at the Flood? The next is the “Dispensation of Human Government,” which has three points of termination; but the notion that there was no human government before that Flood has no warrant; and in the case of the Jews human government did not end with the captivities, as he alleges. It is true that they did not regain their complete national independence, except for a short time under the Maccabees; but the exercise of human government by the heads of the Jewish people continued until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Gen 49:10). The next is the “Dispensation of Promise,” and we are told that it ended with the giving of the Law upon Mt. Sinai. Again we ask: “In what sense did it end then?” and again we get no intelligent reply. Was the promise revoked?—it was not; St. Paul expressly tells us that the giving of the Law had no such effect. Had it already been fulfilled?—we know it was not. Was it then unimportant for an Israelite to believe the promise? Who can entertain such an idea? The entire “dispensational” scheme, therefore, when subjected to examination in the light of Holy Scripture, breaks down completely—yet it is accepted by multitudes today as the undoubted teaching of the Bible, because Dr. Scofield says so!”
“The Scofield Bible" teaches, Plymouth Brethren 'doctrine'. He was strongly influenced by them. Certainly not much Anglican about his theological teachings. .
There’s frankly not much Anglican about Dispensationalism. Anglicanism (along with the Catholic West in general and the Orthodox East), has historically been amillennial, and one cannot consistently be both amilliennial and a Dispensationalist.