MITT ROMNEY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING TERMS

Time Magazine reported today on questions Mitt Romney received in Iowa about his Mormon beliefs.

Before I comment, let me say that I do not believe the effectiveness of a governmental authority is, strictly speaking, dependent on his religious beliefs. Will his religion affect how he governs? Yes, of course. Do the responsibilities associated with governing require a particular religious perspective in order to be fulfilled well? Basically no, although the issue can really be quite complex. The Bible speaks to this issue in Romans 13.

In the article after being asked what role his Mormon faith would play should he win the race Time reports:

"The Bible for me is the word of God," Romney said. "I also believe that Jesus Christ is my savior."

Okay, fair enough. Romney is a politician. As such he knows that "is" doesn't always have to mean "is," especially when subtle (or not-so-subtle) shifts in definition help you smoke-screen the truth. Obviously Romney has expected to be questioned about his religion and he has prepared some very carefully worded answers. On the face of it, his answers aren't untrue. But they are a bit misleading given the Christian context in which he was and will be speaking throughout his campaign.

For the largely theologically illiterate American Christian populace, which naturally tends to reduce all things down to the lowest common denominator, Romney's answer could easily be misunderstood. Why? Because he's using all the "right" words but, as a Mormon, cannot be using them according to Christian definitions.

His first statement: "The Bible for me is the word of God," should be happily affirmed by every Christian. But the question is what does he mean by "word of God?" What are its boundaries? What is its definition? The question is this: Is the Bible alone the word of God written?" Romney cannot affirm that and therefore should not be regarded as Christian.

His second statement: "I also believe that Jesus Christ is my savior," should also be happily affirmed by every Christian. But again the question is what does he mean by "Jesus Christ." Who is Jesus to Romney? What is his definition of the person of Christ? The question is this: Is Jesus Christ the second person of the trinity as defined by the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed? Is he fully God and fully man as affirmed by the Definition of Chalcedon? Romney cannot affirm those things and therefore should not be regarded as Christian.

We must always remember when evaluating anyone's words that defining terms is very very important.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From "Miscellanies" No. 279:

I am convinced that hell torments will be eternal from one great good the wisdom of God proposes by them, which is, by the sight of them to exalt the happiness, the love, and joyful thanksgivings of the angels and men that are saved; which it tends exceedingly to do. I am ready to think that the beholding the sight of the great miseries of those of their species that are damned will double the ardor of their love, and the fullness of the joy of the elect angels and men. It will do it many ways. The sight of the wonderful power, the great and dreadful majesty and authority, and the awful justice and holiness of God manifested in their punishment, will make them prize his favor and love exceedingly the more; and will excite a most exquisite love and thankfulness to him, that he chose them out from the rest to make them thus happy, that God did not make them such vessels of wrath, according to Rom. 9:22-23, “What if God, willing to show his wrath,” etc. “and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.” And then, only a lively sense of the opposite misery makes any happiness and pleasure double what it would be. Seeing therefore that this happiness of the blessed is to be eternal, the misery of the damned will be eternal also.

SAM STORM'S' NEW BOOK ON EDWARDS

Sam Storms' new book on Edwards' book Religious Affections entitled Signs of the Spirit is available for pre-order. I plan to order it first thing Monday morning when my book stipend at PCPC goes into effect. Here are some blurbs from the cover:

“Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections remains one of the most discerning works of spiritual psychology published in the last several centuries. Dr. Samuel Storms’ unpacking of this significant work reveals once again for a new generation why the old Puritan so much deserves the most careful study today.”

—Mark A. Noll, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History, University of Notre Dame

“Storms’ repackaging of this spiritual classic meets a serious need. His essay on Edwards’ personal spirituality, introducing the “Personal Narrative,” is almost worth the price of the book. Then his running commentary, interspersed with direct selections from the Narrative, are exceedingly helpful.”

—Gerald R. McDermott, Professor of Religion, Roanoke College

“After nearly 300 years, these gems of Edwards continue to sparkle. Sam Storms has done a superb job interpreting them for twenty-first century followers of Jesus. His vivid paraphrases are easy to read and always edifying.”

—Douglas A. Sweeney, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“These texts of Jonathan Edwards have nourished the church for nearly three centuries. In Sam Storms’ capable hands they’ll now speak clearly, plainly, and powerfully to the church today and for generations to come. If you've ever wanted to tackle Edwards but have shied away, you no longer have an excuse.”

—Stephen J. Nichols, author of Heaven on Earth: Capturing Jonathan Edwards’s Vision of Living in Between

“In reading through this book, I feel like I am looking over Sam Storms’ shoulder, reading Edwards together with him. At times, he pauses to interpret Edwards for me, at other times, he places Edwards’ comments in their historical context. At all times, Sam’s love and respect for Edwards shines through clearly.”

—Glenn Kreider, Professor of Theological Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

(HT: JT)

THE GOSPEL COALITION

The Gospel Coalition (GC) website is up and running. I just finished perusing it. Of particular interest was the confessional statement. As I was reading through it I came across the beginning article 10 "The Kingdom of God" and was somewhat perplexed. It reads:

We believe that those who have been saved by the grace of God through union with Christ by faith and through regeneration by the Holy Spirit enter the kingdom of God and delight in the blessings of the new covenant

My perplexity came due to the fact that the GC includes both Baptists and Presbyterians. I don't understand how a Westminsterian-Covenantalist could affirm the GC's statement at this point. To affirm that only the regenerate "enter the kingdom of God," which sounds like covenant membership language, is contra Westminster. WCF Chapter XXV.2 reads:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

The two statements seem to be in clear contradiction to one another. The GC says that those who enter the kingdom are the regenerate. The WCF says that the kingdom includes the children of "all those throughout the world that profess the true religion."

There seem to be two ways out of the contradiction:

(1) Give the concept of the kingdom a different sense in each statement (This could also be achieved by giving the terms "saved by the grace of God," "union with Christ," "faith," and "regeneration" different senses than have been traditionally understood by Reformed theologians, but I think that may be a bit out of bounds as the FV guys have proven quite well). Perhaps one could say that the sense in which the kingdom is understood by the GC is with respect to the invisible church while the sense of it in the WCF is explicitly noted as being with reference to the visible church. That could work since the GC doesn't specify either way.

(2) Recognize the contradiction and move the word "delight in" in the GC statement so that it comes just before "the kingdom" and replaces the word "enter." Then it would read:

We believe that those who have been saved by the grace of God through union with Christ by faith and through regeneration by the Holy Spirit delight in the kingdom of God and the blessings of the new covenant.

Covenantalists are at odds with Baptists over the issue of kingdom (i.e. visible church) membership, which the word "enter" implies. However, both are in agreement on the fact that only the regenerate truly delight in their membership and enjoy the blessings thereof.

I am surprised that the Covenantalists in the GC did not see this as a major problem. I can only suspect that they opted for (1) above. But if so, why not add the specification that "the kingdom" is being used in the sense of the invisible church. Baptists should have no problem affirming that and it would clear up the apparent contradiction.

I've sent this article via email to the GC. I look forward to their response.

(HT: JT)

DYNAMIC TIMELINE OF RELIGIOUS WORLD HISTORY

I ran into this dynamic map and timeline over at Dead Theologians. Check it out.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From his sermon "Safety, Fulness, and Sweet Refreshment in Christ," reprinted in Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ (Banner of Truth), 161-62:

If we are in Christ Jesus, justice and the law have their course with respect to our sins, without our hurt. The foundation of the sinner's fear and distress is the justice and the law of God; they are against him, and they are unalterable, they must have their course. Every jot and tittle of the law must be fulfilled, heaven and earth shall be destroyed rather than justice should not take place; there is no possibility of sin's escaping justice.

But yet if the distressed trembling soul who is afraid of justice, would fly to Christ, he would be a safe hiding-place. Justice and the threatening of the law will have their course as fully, while he is safe and untouched, as if he were to be eternally destroyed. Christ bears the stroke of justice, and the curse of the law falls fully upon him; Christ bears all that vengeance that belongs to the sin that has been committed by him, and there is no need of its being born twice over. His temporal sufferings, by reason of the inifinite dignity of his person, are fully equivalent to the eternal sufferings of a mere creature.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From"Images of Divine Things," from The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 11 Typological Writings (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 88:

The beams of the sun can't be scattered, nor the constant stream of their light in the least interrupted or disturbed, by the most violent winds here below; which is a lively image of what is true concerning heavenly light, communicated from Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, to the soul. 'Tis not in the power of the storms and changes of the world to destroy that light and comfort; yea, death itself can have no hold of it. The reasons why the sun's light is not disturbed by wind is two-fold: first, the light is of so pure and subtle a nature that that which is so gross as the wind can have no hold of it; and second, the sun, the luminary, is far above, out of the reach of winds. These things are lively images of what is spiritual.

CONCLUSION TO PIPER'S NEW BOOK ON SOLA FIDE

The folks over at the Desiring God Blog have posted a pre-release of Piper's concluding thoughts from his new book in response to N. T. Wright on justification. Check it out here.

DR. JOHN D. HANNAH: A TRIBUTE TO JONATHAN EDWARDS

Dr. John D. Hannah, Research Professor of Theological Studies and Distinguished Professor of Historical Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, delivered A Tribute to Jonathan Edwards in chapel September 30, 2003 just a few days prior to the 300th anniversary of Edwards's birth. It is rich and nourishing food for the soul!

I have a tendency to ride my hubris to the fringe of sanity from time to time. This message has helped me recover and recenter when I've needed it most. I've listened to it and watched it several times over the last few years. Enjoy!

DR. GLENN KREIDER ON EDWARDS'S SERMON "SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD"

In a chapel at Dallas Theological Seminary October 1, 2003, the month and year marking 300 years since the birth of Jonathan Edwards, Dr. Glenn Kreider Associate Professor of Systematic Theology gave a lecture entitled "Sinners in the Hands of a Gracious God." It is excellent! Check it out.

QUOTES FROM T4G'S PREACHING THE CROSS

I finished the book Preaching the Cross this weekend and thought I'd share a few outstanding quotes.

Mark Dever, "A Real Minister 1 Cor. 4"

Reliability, not originality, must be our concern as we recount the gospel of Christ crucified.

If you fear the Lord, you can deal with your fear of man. But remember that you cannot please God if you live to please men.

Prosperity isn't always wrong, but prosperity is always dangerous.

Authority is a wonderful, life-giving gift (see 2 Sam. 23:3-4), which can and must be used. But authority should only be used with sincere humility.

God's rulership or reign isn't just an idea--it happens in people's lives.

The wolves don't come with business cards that say wolf. Jesus taught that the wolves would dress like sheep. They learn sheep language and use sheep expressions. They even publish books with sheep publishers, all so that you will think they're sheep. But be wise. Look at their message--what are they saying?

J. Ligon Duncan, "Preaching Christ from the Old Testament."

It is important for us to grasp that so much of the New Testament is a hermeneutical manual to help Christians understand the Old Testament and to help Christian preachers understand how to preach and apply the Old Testament. This was not lost on the early Christian fathers.

You can preach grace even when you are expounding the Decalogue. I think we often begin a series on the Ten Commandments in the wrong place; rahter than beginning in Exodus 20, we probably ought to start in Exodus 19, because Exodus 19 provides the whole framework for everything that happens in the rest of the book.

There is really just one story going on from Eve to Abraham to the exodus--a story that carries on even to the story of David.

One of my professors used to say that everything in the Bible before Genesis 12:1-3 leads up to it, and everything in the Bible after Genesis 12:1-3 fulfills it. There is a real sense in which that is true.

We ought to be able to preach Christ naturally and exegetically from the Old Testament.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., "Preaching with the Culture in View."

We do not care about the culture for culture's sake. Our concern for the culture is simply because that is where the sinners are, with whom we will share the gospel, to whom we will preach the gospel, and with whom we live as neighbors.

We ought to love those who are in the city while not loving the city itself. (the word "city" here is used in the context of a discussion of Augustine's City of God)

The only reason we are here is to show the glory of God in the preaching of the gospel, in the formation of local churches that will display God's glory in a fallen world, and in preaching the gospel until he comes. There is no other purpose for the continuation of culture. There is no other purpose for the continuation of this earthly life but that God's glory would be seen in the preaching of the gospel, in the gathering of the nations, and in the display of his glory in faithful congregations living out the gospel before a fallen world.

In the last two centuries, and especially in recent years, there have been massive shifts in the Western cultural framework. Human society in the West has been transformed with the rise of modernity and industrialization. Indeed, Henry Adams was right when he said, writing in 1905, that a boy born in 1890 would have more in common with a boy in the time of Moses than he would with a boy born in just the first years of the twentieth century.

Therapeutic modalities and answering questions with a therapeutic response have become the reflex of our society. If you doubt this, just go into your local Christian bookstore; what you are likely to find are rows upon rows of books that demonstrate this very therapeutic worldview, with just a few Bible verses added to make it Christian.

It is normal to be told that the self is the center of the meaning system, and that the self is a project that they undertake throughout the entirety of their lives. As a result, most Americans believe that their major problem is something that has happened to them, and that their solution is to be found within. In other words, they believe that they have an alien problem that is to be resolved with an inner solution. What the gospel says, however, is that we have an inner problem that demands an alien solution-- a righteousness that is not our own.

R. C. Sproul, "The Center of Christian Preaching: Justification by Faith."

When I'm told that the Reformation is over, I can only guess that those who say this either don't understand Roman Catholic theology or Reformation theology.

Rome did teach and continues to teach that justification is fundamentally a sacerdotal matter. Roman Catholics hold to the tradition that that grace of justification is administered by and through the church--by the priesthood through the sacraments.

According to Trent, a person can have real faith but lack justification.

We Protestants often say: "We believe that justification is by faith; Rome believes it's by works. We believe justification comes by grace; Rome believes it's by merit. We believe justification is by Christ; Rome believes it's through human effort." That's slander because Rome has never taught those things. Rome teaches that in order to be justified, a person must have faith. . . . So where does the Roman Catholic view differ from the Protestant view? In the Roman Catholic view, faith is a necessary condition for justification but not a sufficient condition. . . . The difference here is not between faith and works but by faith and faith alone. Rome holds that "faith plus works equals justification," whereas Protestants believe that faith, if it is truly present, yields instant justification.

The idea that a justified person is simultaneously righteous and a sinner gave the Catholic Church apoplexy.

Imputation is more than central; it's essential to the New Testament gospel. Friends, I beg you never to negotiate the concept of the imputed righteousness of Christ. That's the article upon which we stand or fall, because without his righteousness all we have to offer God is filthy rags.

John Piper, "Preaching as Expository Exultation for the Glory of God."

Preaching is not simply teaching. Preaching is the heralding of a message permeated by the sense of God's greatness and majesty and holiness.

God did not ordain the cross of Christ or create the lake of fire in order to communicate the insignificance of belittling his glory.

What gives preaching its seriousness is that the mantle of the preacher is soaked with the blood of Jesus and singed with the fire of hell. That's the mantle that turns mere talkers into preachers.

Incomprehensibly, in this Christ-diminishing, soul-destroying age, books and seminars and divinity schools and church growth specialists are bent on saying to young pastors, "lighten up," "get funny," and "do something amusing." To this I ask, Where is the spirit of Jesus? . . . Would the church growth counsel to Jesus be, "Lighten up, Jesus. Do something amusing," and to the young pastor, "Whatever you do, young pastor, don't be like the Jesus of the Gospels. Lighten up?" From my perspective, which feels very close to eternity these days, that message to pastors sounds increasingly insane.

Nothing affects preaching more deeply than to be struck almost speechless--almost--by the passion of God for the glory of God.

The word that reveals the glory of God most clearly and centrally is the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4).

What sets the herald apart from the philosopher, and scribe, and teacher is that he is the herald of news--and in our case, infinitely good news, infinitely valuable news, the greatest news in all the world.

Oh, brothers, do not lie about the value of the gospel by the dullness of your demeanor. Exposition of the most glorious reality is a glorious reality. If it is not expositroy exultation--authentic, from the heart--something false is being said about the value of the gospel. Don't say by your face, or by your voice, or by your life that the gospel is not the gosple of the all-satisfying glory of Christ. It is.

C. J. Mahaney, "The Pastor's Priorities: Watch your Life and Doctrine."

Don't you find it far more appealing and enjoyable to study doctrine than to study your heart? Isn't it much more pleasant to examine your books than to examine your motives? Aren't we far quicker to apply ourselves to a specific text in preparation for a sermon than to apply that same text to our heart and life? Puritan Richard Baxter wrotes: "It is a palpable error of some ministers . . . who study hard to preach exactly, yet study little or not at all to live exactly."

Sound doctrine is not enough, because, according to Scripture, the fundamental qualification for pastoral ministry is godly character. Neither skill, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, nor reputation, nor personality, nor apparent fruitfulness of public ministry will suffice. Scan 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and you will encounter a profile of personal piety.

In all our preaching, we must never lose sight of the hill called Calvary, where the Son of Man was killed in our place. Regardless of the text or the topic at hand, there must be some view of Calvary in every sermon. Your congregation should experience the amazing and comforting sight of the crucified Savior each and every time you preach. They should anticipate the sight of Calvary in every sermon and rejoice when it comes into view, and all the more when the cross is not immediately obvious in the text.

John MacArthur, "Why I Still Preach the Bible After Forty Years of Ministry."

Paul was not telling Timothy how to be successful; he was encouraging him to follow the divine standard.

Faithfully preaching and teaching the Word must be the very heart of our ministry philosophy. Any other approach replaces the voice of God with human wisdom.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From Freedom of the Will, vol. 1 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Yale University Press, 423:

It has often been objected against defenders of Calvinistic principles, that in their reasonings, they run into nice scholastic distinctions, and abstruse metaphysical subtleties, and set these in opposition to common sense. And 'tis possible, that after the former manner it may be alleged against the reasoning by which I have endeavored to confute the Arminian scheme of liberty and moral agency, that it is very abstracted and metaphysical. Concerning this, I would observe the following things.

First, as an aside, notice how the word "nice" is used here. During Edwards day the word had negative connotations. In the context above it means "simplistic." It is good to be reminded that language is an inherently liquid phenomenon. The English language is no exception.

The objection above is common to the discussion: Calvinists are too attached to philosophical arguments from reason that hinder the way to the truth with "abstruse metaphysical subtleties." Interestingly his answer is unlike the one that seems to be most popular today. Edwards lived in a time of great optimism concerning the abilities of human reason known historically as the Enlightenment. We live in a time of rising pessimism for human reason; a time in which much of Protestantism in America has either, ironically, given itself over to the doctrine of human autonomy and perfectibility in the guise of moral relativism or entrenched itself behind the fundamentalist ideal of intellectual isolationism. What is particularly interesting in what follows is that Edwards, I think rightly, understood that while the ideas of human autonomy and perfectibility are nonsense, that does not mean that the human mind is unable to help us construct reasonable arguments in understanding divine revelation. While, as Edwards acknowledged, it must always be carefully ordered according to the first principles found in Scripture, human reason is an invaluable asset for every theologian. It should never be trusted on its own authority, but neither should it be neglected.

With that historical context in mind we read part one of Edwards's answer to the objection:

If that be made an objection against the foregoing reasoning, that it is metaphysical, or may properly be reduced to the science of metaphysics, it is a very impertinent objection; whether it be so or no, is not worthy of any dispute or controversy. If the reasoning be good, 'tis frivolous to inquire what science it is properly reduced to, as what language it is delivered in: and for a man to go about to confute the arguments of his opponents, by telling him, his arguments could not be substantial, because they were written in French of Latin. The question is not, whether what is said be metaphysics, physics, logic, or mathematics Latin, French, English, or Mohawk? but, whether the reasoning be good, and the arguments truly conclusive?

Edwards goes on to give two more reasons why the use of philosophical reasoning does not discredit an argument. His second reason is that philosophical reasons are not automatically abstruse or unintelligible simply because they are philosophical. And thirdly Edwards reminds the objector that the Arminian scheme is also built up by philosophical arguments. Notice what Edwards doesn't do. He doesn't run away from the objection with assertions like "We are more biblical than you." That assertion may be true, but I think Edwards would have considered such a response a cop out given the objection at hand. He meets the objection head on and dismantles it in the process.

I think Edwards's defense of philosophical reason is a message todays Calvinistic theologians need to hear. John D. Hannah, R. C. Sproul, Paul Helm, and D. A. Carson strike me as three examples of contemporary Calvinistic theologians who are running along the same path as Edwards in this regard. The simple fact is that reason is an inescapable aspect of who we are as human beings. No doubt it is an aspect of humanness that is just as fallen as the rest. But we must remember that fallenness and brokenness do not equal uselessness. Rather than abandoning reason we should seek after its redemption unto the glory of the triune God according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

INTERVIEWING THE AUTHORS OF PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS

Here's a very interesting interview.

T4G: MARK DEVER ON JOHN PIPER

Yesterday I picked up a new book called Preaching the Cross. It includes messages delivered at last years Together for the Gospel conference.

I was just reading Mark Dever's introduction and ran across something that is so hysterical I have to share it. Dever is writing about the special guests who were invited to speak at T4G 2006: John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, and John Piper. He writes of Piper:

And then there is that current evangelical rock star, John Piper! What a gift John is to the church. While too many of us are saying a lot of things quickly and running on to the next, John stops and stands and stays and stares at God's Word. Sometimes he stares at something that seems so obvious, but he keeps staring until it begins to expand and fill the horizon of his sight. It becomes rich and detailed and luscious and intricate and full and demanding and hope-giving and life-affirming and sin-denying and sacrifice-requiring--and adjective-adding.

Anyone who has read Piper will recognize the subtle humor. Hilarious!

OSTEEN SAID WHAT?

FREE EDWARDS SERMON AUDIO DOWNLOADS

Christian Audio is offering free Edwards sermon downloads. The download normally costs $14.98. Here's what you get:

The Jonathan Edwards trilogy includes three of the most important sermons ever preached on American soil. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is maybe the most important and well-known sermon of his, but also included is A Divine and Supernatural Light describing and illuminating what Edwards describes as a supernatural light imparted by God. His farewell sermon was given in June of 1750 and is a commendation to those who are in the Lord's service, a plea to maintain unity, avoid dissension and false doctrine, and a call to devote themselves to prayer.

(HT: JT)

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From "Images of Divine Things," in vol. 11, Typological Writings of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 125"

200. That machines for the measuring of time are by wheels, and wheels within wheels, some lesser, some greater; some of quicker, others of slower revolution; some moving one way, others another; some wheels dependent on others and all connected together, all adjusted to one another and all conspiring to bring about the same effect, livelily represents the course of things in time from day to day, from year to year, and from age to age, as ordered and governed by divine providence.

PAUL HELM ON SYSTEMATIC AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

Today Paul Helm posted Analysis 3-Systematic and Biblical Theology as part of his ongoing series on the nuts and bolts of theological method. The analysis is a comparison of systematic and biblical theology with an evaluation of whether the two should or even can be integrated. It is excellent! Here's an excerpt where Helm quotes Vos on the distinction between biblical and systematic theology (the quote is from Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, Banner of Truth, 2004 reprint):

Vos himself was fully at ease with the distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology, and with the legitimacy of each, being somewhat Berkhofish in his own right. (He was the author of a multi-volume systematic theology in Dutch). His view of the relation between the two is worth noting.

There is no difference in that one would be more closely bound to the Scriptures than the other. In this they are wholly alike. Nor does the difference lie in this, that the one transforms the Biblical material, whereas the other would leave it unmodified. Both equally make the truth deposited in the Bible undergo a transformation: but the difference arises from the fact that the principles by which the transformation is effected differ. In Biblical Theology the principle is one of historical, in Systematic Theology it is one of logical construction. Biblical Theology draws a line of development. Systematic Theology draws a circle. (15-16)

The insoluble problem that those who favour some kind of integration between biblical and systematic theology face is that they overlook this fundamental point: that logical distinctions do not necessarily correspond with temporal sequences, and that temporal sequences may have non-temporal aspects, or presuppose what is non-temporal.

If I might mount a little soapbox here, at Dallas Seminary our "systematics" classes were not really systematics classes. The systematics profs made every effort to work from the perspective of biblical theology due to a perceived measure of objectivity afforded by it. Needless to say, I finished the systematics courses at DTS without ever being presented with a unified theological system. The closest anyone came was Dr. Burns in Eschatology. He revisited a chart daily that laid out a comprehensive view of history according to the progress of revelation. But even that was ultimately a biblical theological approach. While I am very appreciative of biblical theology and the education I received at DTS, I never bought into the idea that the biblical theological method was somehow superior to the systematic method. I think Vos's statement quoted above is correct. Neither is "more closely bound to the Scriptures than the other."

One of my biggest disappointments at DTS was the failure to be presented with a unified view of Scripture. But now as I reflect on it, I think the reason is because dispensationalism is inherently disunified. The disunity of Scripture is a fundamental presupposition of dispensationalism.

Thankfully however, through the independent study of Reformed Protestantism (especially the Puritans) and the sharpening of dear friends I have come to embrace a unified view of Scripture in what is called covenantalism. What a treasure the Lord has given his church throughout history, raising up teachers to help us understand his revelation! I thank him for all my teachers, both those I find myself in agreement with and those I disagree with. Both have been invaluable gifts of grace to me.