Subscribe via RSS Feed

Review Essay, Keeping the Balance

No ultimate, absolute distinction He begins by reflecting on the primary purpose of the Bible. It was given “that we might be brought to that knowledge of God and of his Son Jesus Christ which is eternal life”. It shows us “how we might glorify God and live in a right way before him”. He arrives at the conclusions that “scripture is central in our faith and devotion”, that it is “sufficient for its purpose” (which is to provide the true knowledge of God) and that it is “clear in its main message”, which is only what we would expect if the Bible is given to reveal to us the way of salvation. He attaches certain caveats to each one of these assertions. The essential point, however, is that Scripture is “the vehicle of the divine revelation” for the purpose of bringing us to know God. “To approach the study of Scripture on any other terms is to come to God in the wrong attitude”. We must come to receive God’s self-disclosure in reverential faith. Consequently, “the principles of our Bible study must then be as consistent as the principles which govern our whole relationship with God”. This means that there can be no “absolute distinction” between “academic” and “devotional” study of the Bible, for both should be seeking to receive and revere its message, which entails an involvement of both heart and mind, “always seeking to uncover the true meaning of the text”.

An improper distinction between academic and devotional Bible study Cupples concedes, however, that “how we treat Scripture in class and in our private devotions” is different. “There are real differences in approach to Bible reading”. The question is, “how can we distinguish the two emphases yet insist that in practice they ought to be inseparable”. A common and, Cupples believes, an unhelpful distinction, is grounded in the method or principles of how we interpret the text. Academic study is said to use “the scientific method” and devotional reading is expected to adopt “a kind of ‘intuitive’ approach” (which, perhaps, is seen to hold the monopoly on “spiritual value”). Cupples objects to this distinction because “it places them in too sharp an opposition and makes them both dangerous”. Academic study becomes dead and devotional reading becomes fanciful.

Pin It
Page 32 of 49« First...1020...3031323334...40...Last »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Category: In Depth, Spring 2006

About the Author: W. Simpson, PhD (University of St. Andrews, Scotland), is a physicist and writer with an interest in theology, currently engaged in scientific research in the middle-east.

  • Connect with PneumaReview.com

    Subscribe via Twitter 1387 Followers   Subscribe via Facebook Fans
  • Recent Comments

  • Featured Authors

    Amos Yong is Professor of Theology & Mission and director of the Center for Missiological Research at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena. His graduate education includes degree...

    Jelle Creemers: Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

    Antipas L. Harris, D.Min. (Boston University), S.T.M. (Yale University Divinity School), M.Div. (Emory University), was appointed as the founding dean of the Urban Renewal Center

    Symposium on the Holy Spirit and Theological Education 2019

    Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. (Duke University), is F. M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is author of many books<...

    Gordon Fee: Jesus the Lord according to Paul the Apostle, reviewed by Craig S. Keener

    William L. De Arteaga, Ph.D., is known internationally as a Christian historian and expert on revivals and the rebirth and renewal of the Christian healing movement. His major w...

    Order of St. Luke International 2019: From an Anti-Cessationism past to a Fully Charismatic Future