We are dealing with this subject of the unity of the covenant of grace, and we were dealing with Dispensationalism. I mentioned a few things yesterday as to what is not the issue with Dispensationalism. I want to make one further point. The point at issue is not whether modern Dispensationalism is that during the dispensation of the law any were saved by works of the law. They don’t maintain any such thing – that any during that people were actually saved by works of the law. They acknowledge that all men were saved by the blood of Christ through the grace of God. The real question here is whether the construction offered of the Mosaic economy is correct. Whether the concession made that during that period man had been saved by grace is consistent with the construction of the Mosaic dispensation.

The thesis I am going to propound is this: that the Mosaic dispensation or covenant was like the Abrahamic covenant – one of grace. And that its governing and undergirding principle was one that provided for salvation by grace through faith. So that the saints in that period were not only saved by grace, but that the very salvation they enjoyed was one in terms of the very provisions enunciated in this Mosaic covenant. You see the difference: dispensationalists say, yes, the saints were always saved by salvation through grace on the basis of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. But nevertheless the principle that undergirded the Mosaic dispensation and covenant, from Calvary to Sinai, was the very antithesis of grace. Since you cannot have two exclusive operating at the same time, they enjoyed that salvation in spite of the governing principle of which the governing principle of the dispensation in which they lived. We say on the contrary, they enjoyed salvation by grace through faith in the dispensation in which they lived provided for that – the very same salvation.

Read the rest at: The Unity of the Covenant of Grace (The Mosaic Covenant).