Further Questions for Dispensationalists - II

There seems to be an historic Protestant way in which we have referred to the theological concept of justification. And if anyone reading this article can correct or expand my understanding here, particularly with a written source specifically on this subject, please do.

The ground of justification is the Passion of Christ; His life for our righteousness imputed, and His death for our sins atoned. The instrument of justification is faith.. The means of justification is the proclamation of the gospel and the Holy Spirit applying it.

Covenant Theology affirms that the entire formula above applies to justification in all ages. I believe that all types of Dispensationalism, generally speaking, would affirm this formula for what they call the "Age of Grace", or the "Church Age", and they too would affirm that the ground and instrument are the same in every age. The disagreement I believe would arise when we talk about the means in every age. It is here that I believe we get the reason for the oft heard claim that Dispensationalism teaches two "ways" of salvation. Though it seems to be clear that Darby, Scofield, Chafer and Ryrie would all deny this claim but, even if they would say that the means of justification in the "Age of Law" was the proclamation of the gospel, would they agree that the content of the gospel was the same? I think the answer is no. This begs the question, what is the content of the gospel?

According to Covenant Theology, the content of the gospel is always at least this, that God will (or already did depending on the perspective) provide the ultimate sacrifice to satisfy the demands of His Holiness. It is in the distinct expression of this promise that we find a difference as revelation progresses, but the shifts in the knowledge of the content of this promise are most often gradual: from the proto-evangel in the garden, to the salvation of Nah's family in the ark, to the substitute ram provided in the place of Isaac on Mount Moria, to the Suffering Servant desribed by Isaiah, on up to the culmination of all of those shadows in the revelation of Jesus on the cross.

On the other hand, Dispensationalism says (at least according to Ryrie, and this is where I need more information about other forms of Dispensationalism) that the content of that promise prior to the Church Age was not that specific, and that Old Testament saints did not necessarily have to see a coming Messiah/Redeemer in the shadows of the Old Covenant sacrifices, or that Abraham really only believed that God would bless him with many decendants and a physical land. Granted, these promises to Abraham, in their limited historical expression were very great promises which challenged the faith of Abraham, but to limit the content of his faith to just those things ignores the revelation previously provided for us. Though Abraham did not have a written copy of the pentetuch as the Jews later did, he would have had the stories of the garden and Noah to consider, and those types of Christ that would expand the content of his faith past what I believe Dispensationalism generally allows.