Interpreting the Bible systematically (according to some underlying principles or procedures) is inescapable. Even those who claim mystical insight into Scripture or into God's unwritten will employ a "system" of interpretation. Moreover, to deny the systematic nature of God's revelation would be to reject the unity of God Himself. Since God cannot lie, neither can He contradict Himself. Thus, we expect God's word, from start to finish, to be internally consistent and coherent. Any acceptable system of biblical interpretation must, therefore, take account of the unity of God and His revelation. 

Our system of interpretation provides the "yardstick" whereby we measure the meaning of Scripture. Two people arguing over the size of a room while using two different standards of measure will never resolve the conflict. Neither will doctrinal disputes be resolved until the basic hermeneutical questions are resolved. What fundamental interpretive principles (system) provide the standard by which an accurate and consistent understanding can be obtained? This foundational issue is often bypassed with disastrous results. 

While there are many hermeneutical principles necessary for the proper understanding of the teachings of the Bible, one of the most basic issues concerns the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. Should we be "New Testament" Christians or "Whole-Bible" Christians? In other words, is the Old Testament still valid and authoritative for instructing and directing Christians, or did the New Testament replace the Old? These two interpretive systems find their fullest expression in covenant and dispensational theology. Covenant theology teaches a basic unity between the Old and New Testaments, with the New flowing out of and being built upon the Old. Dispensational theology calls for a basic discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, an annulment of the Old due to the inauguration of the New. 

There are Christians who cling to the notion that any half-way between two "extremes" is where the truth is to be found. Being moderate sounds so "open-minded," so noble. Such a naive view, however, cannot be sustained. There is no half-way point, as to your operating assumptions, between the continuing validity of the Old Testament and its annulment. This pseudo-claim to "neutrality" and "reasonableness" is illusion. Such a position is but a third "extreme" position. The question is not "do you have a system?" but rather, "is your system consistent or arbitrary?" and is it established from the Bible itself? If one claims to reject the antithetical systems of covenant and dispensational theology, then by what third set of principles shall we interpret? 

The question of the continued validity of the Old Testament will be resolved for New Testament believers by appealing to the teachings of the New Testament of course. Those who acknowledge the New Testament as authoritative can rely on this portion of God's word to properly adjudicate the place of the Old Testament in the life of the Christian. What does the New Testament say about the use of the Old Testament? 

We find explicit admonition in the New Testament for believers to rely on the authority of the Old Testament. When Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matt.4:4), He was quoting from and referring to the Old Testament. Jesus was unequivocal about the fact that His ministry did not invalidate the authority of the Old Testament, asserting: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whosoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17-19). 

The Bereans "examined the Scriptures [Old Testament] daily, to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Even the apostle's teaching had to stand the scrutiny of the Old Testament. Paul refers to the Old Testament when he says in Romans 15:4, "For whatever was written in earlier times [Old Testament] was written for our instruction..." In 1 Corinthians 10:11 we are told, "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written [Old Testament] for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." And again we read approvingly of the New Covenant use of the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:15-17: "That from childhood you have known the sacred writings [Old Testament] which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture [Old Testament] is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 

Besides these passages, Christ and the writers of the New Testament, over and over again quote from and apply the Old Testament Scriptures to New Testament believers. The New Testament does not set aside the Old Testament. It relies on and emphasizes the continued validity of the Old Testament for God's people in the New Covenant. As Dr. Bahnsen has written, "everything God has said should be that by which man lives (Matt. 4:4), not simply those things which God has spoken twice (and in the right places). We must live by every Scripture unless God explains otherwise..." 

We see an example of how Rev. C. C. Jones applied this principle of biblical interpretation to the question of capital punishment. This same principle of continuity must be brought to bear on all other doctrinal questions. In a letter to his son in 1850, Rev. Jones advised his son: 

     The fallacy of your young friend on the capital punishment question, so far as the Scriptures are concerned, lies in setting the New Testament over and above the Old, whereas both are equally the Word of God, equally authoritative, and form one perfect revelation, one perfect rule of faith and practice.  They are not in any respect antagonistic, but consonant, and mutually support the one the other. Nothing is set aside in the Old Testament in and by the New save the types and shadows and ceremonial laws, all which find their fulfillment in our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ and expire, as the lawyers would say, by the statute of their own limitation. But all the laws of God that embody our duties to God and men, whether socially or civilly, remain ever in force. These laws are recognized in the New Testament, but not repeated in extenso, there being no necessity for it... The New Testament is built up out of and upon the Old, and is not contrary to it in any thing whatever. It ever recognizes and then supports the Old. Another fallacy of your young friend is that we are not bound to do anything but what we are distinctly commanded in so many words by the New Testament to do. You perceive at once that this principle cannot be admitted without involving us in many difficulties. This fallacy grows out of the first and falls with it. All that is necessary is for the New Testament to acknowledge the Old, and the two be united in one perfect revelation. Neither is complete without the other...  I need not proceed any further. You can manage the controversy now, I think, with this little help.

The dispensational practice of isolating the New Testament from the Old Testament, as though we may determine any doctrine in its proper relation to redemptive history with the New Testament alone, is an unwarranted, dangerous and misguided method of determining truth. The problem with this method is not so much the starting with the New Testament - since the New Testament immediately points us to the Old Testament - the real problem is that it not only wants to start with the New Testament, it also wants to stop with the New Testament and settle all issues with the New Testament alone. 

The Bible itself tells us otherwise. It says all Scripture (including the Old Testament) is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16). Starting and ending with the whole Bible is the only sure way to arrive at sound doctrinal positions.