"Is there a problem with approaching the Bible so systematically? When you answer my questions, you always seem to be consistent, and every answer fits in neatly with every other answer you give. It seems to me to be a tidy system. Is that correct?"

"Well, yes and no."

"Okay, explain."

Martin leaned back in his chair. "Why don't we start with you explaining what you mean by 'systematically.' Are you referring to systematic theology? In particular, my systematic theology?"

"Yes. Isn’t systematic theology simply a Procrustean bed for the Bible? If a verse doesn't fit in with the system, then off with its head?"

"It can be, and frequently is. There are two major temptations when it comes to the study of systematics. The first is when the system is simply wrong and unbiblical, misleading the student of it as to the teaching of the Bible."

"Well, that is an obvious problem. What is the other?"

"The other can be a problem even when the system is correct. No, let me say it more strongly than that. Especially when the system is correct."

"What do you mean?"

"There is no way to talk about the Bible and what it contains without the speech being a summary of truth."

"All right. What does that mean?"

"Unless I read the whole Bible cover to cover every time I preach, or every time I share the gospel, or every time I answer a question, my speech necessarily has to be a summary of the contents of the Bible. It must be a systematic abstraction."

"Go on."

"Now I may either summarize poorly or well. But I cannot talk about the Word without summarizing. That is inescapable."

"Could you illustrate?"

"When Jesus says that loving God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul is a summary of the Law and Prophets, He did so accurately. But suppose someone else said that the heart of the Law and Prophets was the verse about Og, King of Bashan having an iron bedstead. He would be inaccurate, to put it mildly."

"I see. Both statements are much shorter than the Bible, but one is an accurate condensation, and the other is not."

"Correct. "

"So what is the problem with an accurate systematic?"

"The problem is the temptation to arrive at truth via a shortcut."

"Come again?"

"Systematic theology is like Cliffs Notes. If one has carefully read a book several times, say, Pride and Prejudice, the information in the notes can be a great help. But. . . ."

". . . there is a temptation to bypass reading the book, and content yourself with truth about the book."

"Exactly. And the more truth someone learns, the harder it is for him to see what he has done. But there are some who have seen this truth who have reacted into the opposite error."

"And what is that?"

"It is the error of thinking that systematic thinking and speaking about the Bible can be avoided. It cannot be. We have to choose between doing it poorly and doing it well. A refusal to think systematically about the Bible is, in the last analysis, a refusal to understand and apply. And that is basically a refusal to obey."

"I see. How would you relate this to our discussions on the sovereignty of God?"

"There are many Christians who agree with the things I have been telling you. Unfortunately, many of them have only read the Cliffs Notes. They subscribe to the Westminster Confession, for example, and they have never read their Bibles once."

"Okay."

"And then another group of Christians, who haven't read their Bibles either, rejects the teaching contained in Cliffs Notes. But the first group has made it easy for them. It is easy to reject the teaching of a work that is obviously the work of mere men."

"I get it. They can then throw it out in good conscience because it is merely the work of Calvin, or the Westminster divines."

"Right. But it is harder to throw out what Paul teaches in Romans, or John in his Gospel. If Christians would read their Bibles more, there would be a lot less controversy on the issue of God's exhaustive sovereignty. The Bible teaches it plainly."

"You are saying that if Christians read their Bibles more, they would become Reformed?"

"No. They would become informed," Martin grinned.

"I am still concerned that someone who is the adherent of a system will contradict the Bible for the sake of maintaining his system."

"It is a legitimate concern. Many have fallen prey to the temptation. But it is not a temptation that is limited to formal theological systems. Those who teach from the Bible informally can contradict the Scriptures, and themselves, just as readily. It is simply harder to catch them in it because they don't write big fat books with all their topics neatly arranged."

"So you are saying that it is not a question of whether we hold a systematic theology or not. It is more a question of which systematic theology we will hold."

"Right. And all systematic theologies bring with them the temptation to set them over Scripture. The temptation is there always, whether the systematic is formal or informal, explicit or implicit, dry or slippery." Martin smiled.

"How should I proceed then?"

"Read your Bible. Again and again, over and over. As you read, listen to the teachers God has given to the Church. Some are alive, and speak to you as I do. Others are dead, but like Abel, still speak. Listen to them. Take what you hear back to Scripture again and again. As you do this, more and more truth will fall into place in your understanding."

"And how do I avoid the trap that goes with systematic study?"

"Never study theology apart from Bible reading. Read, read, and read some more. That will be ample protection."

I stood up. "Good night."

"Good night."

Click here to visit the Canon Press Web site.