One of the clever and highly effective arguements reformed covenant believers often use to in their work to discredit the dispies is to attempt to make a case that dispensationalism is an ever-evolving theology while refomed covenant theology has it's roots firmly cemented in the teaching of the 15/16th century creeds and confessions and the writings of the reformers. If however covenant theology is as settled as those who hang on to it's every word claim, why would there be a need for the constant stream of new literature supporting the view appearing almost monthly on Amazon? Good question, thank you for asking Thomas! In his book The Covenants of Promise ... by Thomas E. McComiskey (Baker 1985) one of many books I have by covenant writers that I use to understand that of which I don't subscribe to (yes, I'm teachable) states it this way: Because it is of such great importance, the theological expression of the covenant of grace warrants continued examination and refinement, for it's theological expression must be in exact accord with the scriptual data if the terms of the promised inheritance are to be fully understood with precision and the sovereign grace that motivated it fully appreciated. (pg 179). McComiskey goes on on pg 180 to quote John Murray who goes on to make the case in essence that the reformers and those who followed them are good but we (covenant theologians) need to keep a "recasting" to keep up with (I assume) new developments in Biblical understanding. Of course we all know that there is disagreement within the reformed covenant camp. But the question begs to be asked, why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists? When we talk about the differences within dispensationalists on this forum, the discussion is an inch deep, a mile wide. No honest thinking person could accept the simple response that the dispies bring this all on themselves because they insist on a literal reading of the Biblical text. Riddlebarger, no friend of dispensationalist insists that covenant Amills also hold to a literal rendering of the Word of God. So, is McComiskey all wet or the dispies simply just blind guides and hypocrites?