Vincent Cheung

The standard redemptive-historical approach to Scripture usually permits the reader to believe less about Jesus Christ when he has finished the analysis, because no matter what the Bible says in a certain place, it is really not the point, since the point is only Jesus Christ. And the only Jesus permitted is the one we already believe before we read the text. It becomes a method to discard most of Scripture instead of a method to learn from Scripture and expand our knowledge and appreciation of God.

This is grotesque. We do not need to read the whole Bible just to know that there is such a thing as Jesus Christ. We begin knowing that it is a revelation of Jesus Christ, and by reading the history of redemption, we learn more and more about him. By reading the Bible, we are supposed to learn his big thoughts about himself and about us, instead of reducing all the things that he says into our small thoughts about him and ourselves — and then call that scholarship! This is a major difference between a theology of faith and a theology of unbelief.

Most of those who extol the redemptive-historical approach to Scripture do not know that the method is in fact a testimony against them. They claim to preach Christ from every page. Which Christ? What does this page say about Christ? But they teach their own Christ, and disregard what each page says about Christ. If a page of Scripture talks about the Christ who heals in answer to faith, somehow it does not really teach this Christ that will heal in answer to faith, but it teaches only the Christ they allow, a Christ that has nothing to do with healing in answer to faith.

From: “The Edge of Glory has special significance…”