Covenant theologian John Murray

To continue in Thomas McComiskey The Covenants of Promise pg. 180 states "It would not be, however, in the interest of theological conservation or theological progress for us to think that the covenant theology is in all respects definitive and that there is no further need for correction, modification, and expansion. Theology must always be undergoing reformation...."

I would like to point out that in the above quote covenant theologian Thomas McComiskey is quoting covenant theologian John Murray, taken from Murray's work The Covenant of Grace... (London: Tyndale 1953)

I ask this board but do not receive....... "...why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?"

 

Do you mind Iconoclast if I put your name in the group of those who find it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but are unwilling to extended the same courtesy to dispensationalists?

 

I don't want to make you (Iconoclast) or Grasshopper agree to something you don't want to agree to, but based on your collective responses (or lack of direct interaction with the question at hand) to this third thread asking if it is ok for the covenant theologian to allow for themselves what they will not allow those of whom they disagree with constituting a double standard, you both seem to be moving in the direction of yes, it is aceptable, a double standard appears to be fine.

Below you mention that your theology is unsettled. By this admission do you not make my primary point for me?

By the way, are those of whom claim dispensationalism as their belief system that are like myself born again, believing themselves to be of the elect, trusting in the shed blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins and life everlasting; are they not members of the same universal Church you might claim membership of?

If you answer yes, on what Biblical precept would covenant theologians allow what I describe as a double standard with regard to this question i raise regarding the acceptability of covenant theologians to have different views on some details but not allow the same for their dispensationalists brethern In Christ?



FYI, I have 3 of the 5 books you recommend.

 

To recap McComiskey on pg 180 continues and I quote the author: "Although covenant theology in its traditional expression stresses the covenant of grace, the subsequent discussion will show that no universal agreement as to the structure and nature of this concept exists."

Seems clear to me that according to McComiskey covenant theology has disagreement right at the core of it's system. In my personal experience reading threads on the PB discussion web-site that where the simple question is asked "where is it stated in the Holy Bible that Jehovah God cut an actual covenant of works, redemption and grace" that the answers contain a lot of fumbling and weaving and more of a reliance on the traditions of the Church and in particular the WCF than in a detailed analysis of the Scriptures from which Jehovah interacts with his people.

But I'm not asking for a re-hash of doctrinal disagreements. What I'm asking why is it acceptable for covenant theology to find fault with dispensationalism based on a claim that it's theology is not settled but yet according to McComisky, the same condition exists within the covenant camp with it's 100s of years head start on asking and debating questions of a fundamental Biblical nature?