Covenant theologian John Murray

[thomas15]

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?"

 

[Iconoclast]

Thomas,
Those who believe in any form of Covenant theology reject the dispensational scheme from the start because it breaks apart the unity of the scripture...and keeps Israel seperate from the church when the bible does not.
So they reject all dispensational thought and are not that interested in the nuances of those who are trying to repair the sinking ship.
Some take on the new improved dispy ideas.....but most spend their time trying to understand each and every detail of the covenants....

10All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies. 11For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.

12What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.

13His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.

14The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

 

[thomas15]

..... So they reject all dispensational thought and are not that interested in the nuances of those who are trying to repair the sinking ship. ....

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

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?

Thomas,
I am just trying to explain to you what i have read or seen. The older writers did not have to deal with this issue as it was not an issue, before the last 150 years.
Many of the current writers were taught dispensational thought first, but studied their way out of it.
Many who learn dispensational thought first,are unaware of what then covenant theologians of the past believed. Do you find that to be true?
How many people in a dispensational church are taught that this is the only truth, and we are living in the terminal generation, and MT 24 if a survival guide for us living right now?
I learned the dispy system first and was taught it alone was truth,and as a matter of fact they were telling me that the other views were heretical.
Then I met some godly christians who held other views..
I tried to "correct them"...but found that they loved the Lord and served Him even with these other views.
They challenged me saying....can you give an accurate explanation of what I believe...without constructing our friend...THE STRAWMAN....
I am currently between post-mill,and Amill in my understanding..still not certain. Historic premill would not bother me...and ironically the dispy premill I find least likely to be the truth.
Jesus is still the blessed Hope of all the saved...whatever endtime calendar you use, make sure you serve The Lord everyday , to the best of your ability.

There are several books I could recommend....
The Bible and the Future...by Hoekema
One momentous event...W .Grier
End times made simple ...S. Waldron
He shall have Dominion....Gentry
Post-Mill: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathiason

 

[thomas15]

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?

...... I am currently between post-mill,and Amill in my understanding..still not certain. There are several books I could recommend....

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.

 

[thomas15]

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?