I thought this was a nice quote from Kevin Vanhoozer on his the Gospel Script or Sola Scriptura as practice (vs. the usual idea of it as principle). What is of import, from my perspective, is the point that Vanhoozer drives at here; the point is one that Karl Barth and others have pressed extensively, and that is that the Scripture’s primary point is not to present a religious encyclopedia full of facts about God and His Son. Instead, the Bible’s goal is 
to point us to Jesus Christ and the relationship that that entails! Further, that the Scriptures have various Types, Forms, & Genres and we shouldn’t flatten these out in order to fabricate or construct our doctrinal statements which only lead to and from static notions of who God is and thus what the Bible is about. Let’s here from Vanhoozer:
Canonical Script
At the heart of the canonical-linguistic approach is the proposal that we come to know God by attending to the uses to which language of God is put in Scripture itself. Scripture’s own use of Scripture is of particular interest, for the cradle of Christian theology is perhaps best located in the interpretative practice of Jesus and the apostles. It was this interpretative practice that enabled them to read the Scriptures of Israel as identifying Jesus as the “Christ.” Canonical-linguistic theology therefore takes its primary bearings from the Scriptures themselves, making what we shall call canonical practices the norm for the church’s speech and thought of God. Sola scriptura returns, then, not by positing the Bible as a text book filled with propositional information but by viewing the Bible as a script that calls for faithful yet creative performance. Scripture is the norm for the Christian way, truth, and life, but only when Scripture is conceived as more than a handbook of propositional truths. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama Of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach To Christian Theology, 22)
I really like this proposal! The Bible should clearly be seen more as a place where we encounter the living God, and much less (if at all) as a place where we go to proof-text our pet dogmas. Vanhoozer, to be clear, is not arguing that “doctrine” is not important; but instead that doctrine should be given its proper and transformative frame. That is, that doctrine is really how “we” engage in signifying what in fact the Scriptures demand and impose upon us (spiritually and morally) as we meet the living Lord through the Spirit spirated witness that the Holy Writ actually is. So the implication is that Scripture and its interpretation has more to do with persuading and challenging God’s people, as God’s people, to be God’s people through response. The other supposition at work here, is that studying Scripture is really more of an emphasis of how Scripture studies us!
Vanhoozer is certainly a worthy scholar. His lecture on NT Wright is hilarious. Several questions, though:
How does the current proposal affect the discussion of the canon? In other words, going with the above, what is the criteria for which books should be in the canon? I figured given the name of Vanhoozer’s formula, that would be an appropriate question.
I have another question concerning interpreting Scripture by sccripture, but I am still trying to work on it.
@Jacob,
Well, Vanhoozer as a Protestant, Reformed to boot, theologian is simply going to refer to the “Prot Canon;” which I am very comfortable with as well.
I’m no expert on Vanhoozer, just reading this book right now; and have only also read his “Is There a Meaning in This Text?” I seem to resonate though with Vanhoozer’s general approach and points!
And yes, I liked how he got at NT Wright at Wheaton π .
I look forward to your other questions or points.
I read *The Drama of Doctrine* about 4 years ago, but I am a little fuzzy on the details. I generally appreciate anything he writes, and one Ortho blogger noted that one of his recent books/essays hinted towards an appreciation of the divine energies. Of course, I know not which book.
Bobby,
I think Vonhoozer has the ability to be even more as a theolog. I only hope he does not get trapped in Reformed places overly?
Btw, what do you think of Mark Seifrid’s book: Christ, our Righteousness, Paul’s theology of justification, have you read it?
@Jacob,
I figured you were familiar with Vanhoozer, given your broad and wide reading π .
@Fr Robert,
Yeah, I’m not exactly sure where Vanhoozer is in his Calvinism? And I’ve not read Seifreid’s book, maybe someday π .
I like this proposal as well. I am warming toward a canonical reading.
Hey Brian,
I think canonical has a lot to commend to it; I learned a lot about that from Ray Lubeck. But, I also think that it needs to be made more robust, theologically (which Childs, whom I have not read, might provide a fruitful way forward . . . I know he was a fan of Barth).
I really, simply, just like to read the Bible; I’ve been doing that through and through for years now, and it has been the most important mode for me to know God; and, indeed the contour and themes of His Word to His WORD to us.
Does this mean then that our dogmas should be held loosely, since that Trinitarian encounter is our aim? At one leve, I think so.
TCR,
Maybe certain dogmas, but of course Trinitarianism is a dogma as well. Sound Dogma should serve as the scaffolding or the skeleton of the Gospel; finding its “inner referent” in Christ Himself . .. if that makes sense. But yes, there are definitely essentials that need to maintained, albeit in constructive ways, and held onto.
|Sound Dogma should serve as the scaffolding or the skeleton of the Gospel|
I don’t know if I accept this. It seems like you’re saying that sound dogma must be in place place first for the Gospel to commend itself?
I’m just noting the reality, in re. to “order” that what is revealed in Gospel, per the Text, presupposes upon an “inner-logic” or certain theological suppositions (like the Trinity for example). I probably didn’t say this right the first time, sorry for the confusion.