C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
I would have to say it was twofold for me. 1) I really had to come to the text of Scripture without any preconceived bias and start my study of Scripture "over again" so to speak. As I made mention in another thread, I saw "everlasting" as "everlasting only until Jesus came." So things like that really triggered a radical reintroduction to basic concepts I was taking for granted. Then I had to see where I ended up. That study took me to Covenant Theology. After studying Scripture from the standpoint of covenant theology, which it pressed me to do, I next wanted to see who in church history believed or didn't believe what I learned. So 2) it was a study of historical theology from the time of the early church through the Reformation and puritan theology, as well as the Princeton divines and a few others, like Edwards, that solidified my thinking after I had basic concepts in order.
I'll be honest and say I wish I had Harrison's work at the time. It would have saved me a lot of extra-biblical reading. All you really need in him is to read the chapter on covenant, and then his forst two arguments, and its about done at that point. After having covenant concepts down, (i.e. what is the Old Covenant, what is the New Covenant, what is a testament, what is the point of the book of Hebrews, how does Jeremiah 31-33 work in this scheme, etc.) I read Witsius a few times with the WCF, and thought the Sum of Saving Knowledge was very clear and helpful. Then I really studied Turretin. Turretin was a great help. Then I read John Owen, Thomas Blake and Samuel Rutherford a couple of times through on their positions. Then a number of other works were supportive (Brinsley, Hooker, Willard, Calamy, many of the Westminster puritans, and such.)
I think a third thing which may of been of help was all the discussion on the Puritanboard at the time. Lots of interaction and refining.
The spark that started my study overall what the role of the warning passages in Scripture and how they directly apply to Christians, not unbelievers. That might seem like a strange place, but it was all birth by being honest with my hermeneutics.
I'll be honest and say I wish I had Harrison's work at the time. It would have saved me a lot of extra-biblical reading. All you really need in him is to read the chapter on covenant, and then his forst two arguments, and its about done at that point. After having covenant concepts down, (i.e. what is the Old Covenant, what is the New Covenant, what is a testament, what is the point of the book of Hebrews, how does Jeremiah 31-33 work in this scheme, etc.) I read Witsius a few times with the WCF, and thought the Sum of Saving Knowledge was very clear and helpful. Then I really studied Turretin. Turretin was a great help. Then I read John Owen, Thomas Blake and Samuel Rutherford a couple of times through on their positions. Then a number of other works were supportive (Brinsley, Hooker, Willard, Calamy, many of the Westminster puritans, and such.)
I think a third thing which may of been of help was all the discussion on the Puritanboard at the time. Lots of interaction and refining.
The spark that started my study overall what the role of the warning passages in Scripture and how they directly apply to Christians, not unbelievers. That might seem like a strange place, but it was all birth by being honest with my hermeneutics.