In a previous thread titled "Reformed critics of Dispensationalism", I asked the question "...why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?" Moving on in Thomas McComiskey's book The Covenants of Promise on page 180 we read "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. A brief examination of the conclusions of a few theologians will illustrate the lack of uniformity in the designation covenant of grace in covenant theology." The author then proceeds to discuss the conflicting views of three covenant theologians; Hermannus Witsius, Charles Hodge and John Murray. In light of this i ask again, why is it standard procedure for reformed critics of dispensationalism to attempt to win the arguement by trying to make the case that dispensationalism has no real consensus? Seems like a simple question to answer. Has not covenant theology had had almost 500 years to figure this out? Why the disagreements on details, especally when a favorite hobby of reformed critic is to bash dispies for their differences of opinion within their (dispensational) camp? As an aside, I just finished re-reading The Late Great Planet Earth. It may come as a surprise to those who have never actually read the book but anyway repeat over and over again that Lindsey sets dates that he actually really doesn't.