You're right, Jared. The connections between the OT and NT are glaring when you study the two simultaneously. You don't even have to look for them.

I have a suspicion that systematic neglect of the OT is a major cause of much that is wrong with modern Christianity. Without grounding NT prophecies in the OT imagery, you get Left Behind. Without grounding redemption in the history of Israel, you get the kind of calcified Calvinism that drove Wesley nuts. Without the OT commandments on enjoying earthly things, the NT warnings about idolizing earthly pleasures turns into gnosticism.

To answer your first question...the OT is actually 77.2 percent of the Scriptures.

That's great, Shrode. I definitely appreciate your commitment to preaching all of God's word.

I know there are pastors out there who do it. I sometimes wonder if, at the churches I've been to, I just happen to catch them in a NT era, since the pastors at my churches tend to go painstakingly verse by verse through a book. I've been at I think two or three churches where, during my time as a member, the pastor was going through 1 Corinthians verse by verse, taking over a year to get through the book. It's great, but tough to get really good balance that way. I like the fact that you make OT, NT, and topical sermons a part of your weekly offerings so that the people who come to everything get it all.

As far as I'm concerned, attempting to read Paul without a strong grasp of the Old Testament is downright dangerous, so the Reformed churches shouldn't shy away from it.

Personally, I find that the Old Testament has some of the most difficult, interesting, and engaging sections of text for a person who wants to grow in their faith.

But, as previously disclosed and disclaimed, I'm a big fan of Kierkegaard, so...

Danny, I didn't read nhe as you did. I'm not sure that's what he meant. I think he was showing how you can preach christ centered sermons out of the OT and was affirming it's value.

While you affirm it's value also, there's one statement that I think I disagree with:
But reading Micah just won't show me how to live as Jesus would live in today's day. There will be choice morsels, golden nuggets, and snippets of life applicable passages, to be sure. But to learn to live as Christ did"I need to go to the NT.

How do you think Jesus learned to live as he did? It was from the OT! Why not study the source material, through the lense of Jesus, of course? I do think that Micah will show you how to live as Jesus would in today's day. Because he learned it from there. (Don't you think Jesus studied his bible, and actually learned?)

Shrode is right, though I appreciate Danny's sentiment.

As an example:

Malachi actually, taken with 2Cor. 9 gives us a very rich perspective on the tithe and Christian stewardship - in fact any sermon on the topic should incorporate both passages IMO.

The sermons I personally enjoy the most are the ones from OT passages that end with how they point to the gospel - this manner of preaching from the scriptures gives the hearer "mercies that are new every morning".

The gospel is wonderfully nuanced, and preaching from the OT brings (especially today) the gospel alive in very new and creative ways that enrich. Ultimately though, for me, I'll embrace and enjoy a sermon from any passage - provided that the speaker can bring me back to the gospel.

I agree with most of what you guys are saying. I definitely agree with the spirit of what you are saying. I have only been going to church for just under two years and I already see a pattern emerging. We basically live in Paul's epistles. But, for me, the biggest problem is the lack of depth. Of course, this problem may stem from that which Alan pointed out concerning studying the NT in the context of the OT. Shallow knowledge of the OT limits the understanding of the NT.

That said, I don't think we should allocate proportionally equivalent time based on the length of each section. The OT is roughly 80% of the Bible, but I don't think we should spend 80% of our time there. Nor should we settle on the fleeting 5-10% that it receives now.

I'm also blown away by the stigma associated with the term "theology". Many people seem to think the minute theology is brought up the conversation/session/sermon takes a turn away from true Christianity and into "head knowledge" or intellectualism. Why can't we understand that we all have a theology whether we care to admit it or not? Our theology has a symbiotic relationship with our interpretation of the Bible. Our theology is founded on our interpretation of the Bible, but it provides the grid that every interpretated passage must be run through.

I love the OT. Really! It's true! Yes we can learn basic Christ-like principles from the OT. Each book of the OT is there for a reason, and that reason is to show us a bit more of Christ and the plan for his coming. I understand that.

Many of my favorite passages on leadership, walking with God, perseverance...etc are from the OT. The one referenced by Alan being one of them.

It's just that I believe the OT was just a shadow of what was to come. And with the NT, we can learn more fully God's plan for our salvation and lives.

As I stated, I need to know the OT in order to fully understand the NT.

Ok...lay it on me. What is a dispensationalist? I have heard the term and never felt the urge to find out what it means.
But I guess my curiosity has been raised enough.

Jared/Shrode/Kenny,

I like your style. I also alternate between the two. I will be taking my church through an exposition of Psalm 119, God-willing, this Spring. I especially do this in my personal and family reading.

nhe - Those who are dispensational in a linear way. The still say the OT and NT influence each other and can be used to interpret each other, but really only objectively.

The opposite of dispensational would be covenantal - seeing scripture in light of the old and new covenants, rather than linearly.

This seems to bely the idea of progressive revelation, which I thought CT holds to. Can you explain this a little more?

Happy to say that my (very Reformed) church has recently done 1&2 Kings and Jonah on Sundays, and Exodus, Psalms, and Genesis at the Wednesday night college study (the campus pastor makes it a point to preach through an OT book every fall). Oh, and we're doing an OT survey class on Wednesday nights, too. We likes us some Old Testament!

Why do we spend so much time there? Because Jesus Himself says in Luke 24 and John 5 that all of Scripture points to Him--and at the time when He said that, the NT hadn't been written yet. :) The OT is a foreshadowing of stuff that would be consummated in Jesus. So there ya go, kids.

This is a great topic for discussion!

My family is attending an Episcopal church the follows the Lectionary from the Book of Common Prayer. The lectionary is a three year cycle of scriptures. So each Sunday we here scriptures that follow a particular theme. We have an OT reading, a Psalm, an NT reading, and finally the Gospel reading. This occurs in each service. In the Book of Common Prayer there is also a two year cycle of readings called the Daily Office. Again it is four readings from the different parts of scripture.

I'm currently following the Murray M'Cheyne Bible reading plan which is generally speaking two OT chapters and two NT chapter per day. In these readings I've experienced a growing fondness for the OT as it displays the grace, mercy and love of God in ways the NT just doesn't. I also find that both Testaments display heavenly, righteous judgment as well.

Shrode, I really like the system you have in place at your church. If I ever, and this should go without saying, find myself in your neck of the woods, it will be your church I go to first.

I really like what Jared has to say and I have great appreciation for the way he is bringing up his beautiful girls.

The thing to remember about the scriptures is that we should not be applying them to our lives. We must apply our lives to the scriptures. On this Jared and are of one mind.

Hi Brian,

I left out the word "think" in there, before "linear"....don't know if that helps.

You're right about CT, I was just trying to over simplify by making the point that neither dispensationalism nor CT devalues the OT, they just look at it differently.

Yes revelation in CT is progressive, but as I understand it, it is progressive w/ relationship to what is revealed before and after the old and new covenant relationships that God entered into with His people - so progressive, but the linch pins are the covenants.

I'm not a theologian, just a sales guy.

I like systematic theology tag. Can I play? I'll try to be fair.

We are all dispensational in some way, even if we see only two. But the real distinguishing difference in "Big D" Dispensationalism (the system of theology) is the view that God's promises to Israel in the OT are separate from the promises to the church. IOW, to properly understand and teach the OT, you have to separate the promises to Israel from those for the church. DT is criticized for interpreting Scripture using a wooden and unbalanced hyperliteralism that turns biblical types and symbols into real things.

Covenant theology is based on the view that there are two overarching covenants, the covenant of works (unattainable by fallen mankind) and the covenant of grace (established immediately at the Fall). The covenant of grace is prefigured in Gen. 3:15 (the "protoevangel"), and affects all of OT history until Jesus. CT, then, is characterized by looking back to find the redemptive and grace aspects in the OT covenants and promises, and seeing types and figures of Christ. CT is criticized for overspiritualizing the OT and trying too hard to find Christ in too many places.

Another systematic theology many have found attractive is George Eldon Ladd's Kingdom Theology. This view sees all of biblical history as a progressive outworking and extension of God's Kingdom reign and rule over His creation: from a couple (Eden); to families (Patriarchs); to governments (post-Babel); to a nation (Israel); to a spiritual nation (the church); to a millennial kingdom (over all the earth); to a universal Kingdom (new heavens and new earth). KT views the OT through the lens of God's Kingdom.

FTR, I was raised as a Dispensational Fundamentalist Independent Presbyterian (really...Scoffield KJV and the Westminister Confession). Now, I am no longer Dispensational, nor Fundamentalist, nor Reformed. I emerged from Seminary (I'm a teacher, not a theologian) with great suspicion of all systematic theologies, which tend to try to demystify the mysteries of theology by forcing every piece of the puzzle into the frame no matter how badly it fits. Proponents of systematic theologies have to say that you cannot really understand the Scripture until you understand their system of interpretation. You have to have the right lenses in your theological glasses, or you just won't "get it."

I approach Scripture, as much as I can anyway, as a "biblical theologian," and as an "evangelical," which to me means I try to read/teach each book and passage in its context, and interpret it in light of what is being said to the original reader, and then by historical context, and then by biblical context, and then by the light of theological thinking that has progressively unveiled the mysteries and meanings of the Scripture. I learn from all, and hold loosely my own attempts at understanding the "big pictures" of theology.

I got carried away. But maybe something in there will be helpful. I am not a theologian, so if I got something wrong, feel free to correct me.

Danny.....err......what Clay said!

CT makes the most sense to me, but I'm with Clay.

People I know (Christian or non) who are iron-clad in their theology (whatever it is) are the most miserable people to be around......The common denominator with the iron-clads is that their faith is about their theology, not about Christ.......5-pointers who lean toward theonomy tend to be the worst of that group - an insufferable lot. I can say that I guess since I've got all the petals on my tulip.

I think Clay is right about all of us being dispensational in some way. Similiarly, I think we all have our own systematic theologies whether we care to admit it or not. But, different people have varying degrees of rigidity. Some, like those that Clay and nhe have pointed out, attempt to force "every piece of the puzzle into the frame no matter how badly it fits". In reality, every piece should fit. But, when we run into a piece that doesn't fit, we need to adjust the frame. In other words, if our normal interpretation of Scripture violates or contradicts our theology, we need to change our theology. Or, in some cases we may change our interpretation (in light of other clearer, relevant Scripture). But, others have such a loose theology that contradictions are never resolved.

But, I'm with you guys. I don't like labels either. "-ism" gives me the willies.

Clay: You're absolutely right. There are areas where we have got to just let go. In our limited minds and four comprehensible dimensions, ideas like the Trinity and divine vs human nature of Christ (the theological term escapes me) result in paradox. So, we must stop short of trying to figure out the mechanics and trust what has been revealed to us in Scripture. However, when we run across the Jehovah's Witness who denies the deity of Christ or the modern day gnostic (I actually work with one) who denies His humanity, it is our theology that keeps us on the straight and narrow because we cannot turn to an isolated passage in order to defend those beliefs.

I had a conversation with Thor's brother this morning. He said basically the same thing that you are. And, I don't disagree at all. I think my definition of the term "systematic theology" is looser than most and breeds confusion. I think I might need to find a different term for that particular concept.