Review of Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology (Chapter Two: A Redemptive-Historical Model by Daniel M. Doriani)

One way to go beyond Scripture, according to Daniel M. Doriani, is to go beyond biblical language as with words like Trinity and substitutionary atonement.

Another way to go beyond Scripture is to ask questions that the Bible never addresses such as stealing “intellectual and digital property.”[1] Doriani provides a summary of the RHM: “The Bible doesn’t have narratives; it is a narrative.”[2] This view has different meanings. “If narratives present paradigmatic individuals whom the faithful should emulate or avoid, then we have guidance for proper conduct in areas that direct teaching never covers. This is going beyond the Bible. For example, can a Christian work for the government? is not directly addressed in Scripture. But from the narratives of Scripture, we have the examples of Joseph, Nehemiah, and Daniel.[3] There are NT exhortations to practice this principle as in 1 Cor. 10:6-10.

           A third way to go beyond Scripture is to use the RHM for interpreting the Bible. Doriani gives the steps for the RHM and its way beyond the Bible, which includes four steps:

Step 1 is discovering authorial intent.

Step 2 is placing that intent in redemptive history part of which is the unifying theme of the Lord Jesus.

Step 3 is an application to daily life which includes the imitation of God and Christ.

Step 4 is adjusting a traditional view of the application.[4]

            An example of applying the redemptive history gird on Scripture is how weddings are interpreted “through creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. At creation, Adam and Eve rejoiced at their union…. Again, Jesus did not just attend a wedding, he supplied fine wine to promote the festivity…. The Lord even chose to describe the inauguration of eternity as the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9).”[5] Does this mean that every doctrine must fit into this grid or be interpreted by this grid? “This is not standard grammatical-historical interpretation, but it is plausible redemptive-historical exegesis that goes beyond the sacred page” (92). This could be the simple tracing of a theme that through progressive revelation has unfolded.

            Another example of the narrative or plot-line of Scripture or the RHM which uses the story of creation, fall, redemption, and the consummation as the grid through which to read Scripture is Doriani’s example in Dt 22:8 where God commands his people to build parapets around their roof for the safety of people. Doriani applies his RHT method: “The RHT gladly notices the law’s hints of God’s redeeming grace. The law’s concern to preserve life echoes the character of the life-giving, life-preserving Lord. Indeed, God’s concern for foolish, reckless, and self-damaging people motivates his word.”[6]

            A fourth way to go beyond the Bible is to go against it as when “self-identified evangelical, Bart Campolo contends that if what the Bible teaches about ‘God’s sovereignty, wrath, hell’---especially the idea that people ‘are going to hell because they failed to believe the right stuff about Jesus….then ‘the Bible is wrong.’”[7]

            A fifth way to go beyond the Bible is to make trajectories that go beyond Scripture. “If a particular passage such as 1 Timothy, found late in the Pauline corpus, seems to restrict women, then it is fraught with such difficulties as to be incomprehensible. Or it is directed at local, temporary problems. Such problems cannot obscure the Bible’s trajectory toward liberation.”[8]

            A sixth way that Doriani argues that believers can go beyond the Bible is “when we explore the coherence of biblical ideas that seem antithetical” as on the subject of hell.[9] He quotes authors like C. S. Lewis and Keller on hell and writes: “These authors go beyond the Bible in the best sense. They show that they submit to the authority of Scripture…. Then they move beyond exegesis by exploring the way that doctrine might make sense to a contemporary doubter or skeptic.”[10] This seems to be only applying the teaching of Scripture to current issues.

            A seventh way of going beyond the Bible is through casuistry as when seeking pastoral counseling on matters not directly addressed in the Bible such as should I “marry this man”[11] which Doriani says Biblical principles don’t fully answer as with the question, “Is it lawful to go shopping on Sunday?”[12]

            Lastly, Doriani, states that Christians go beyond Scripture by asking the right questions and applying these questions to such issues as gambling and women in the ministry. The right questions are “What is my duty? What are the marks of good character? What goals are worthy of my life energy? How can I gain a biblical worldview?”[13] What Doriani calls the RHM of interpreting Scripture I see being accomplished with progressive revelation without the redemptive history grid of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. He traces male leadership throughout the Bible and calls it the RHM. I see it as Biblical theology and progressive revelation on that particular doctrine.

A Response to Daniel M. Doriani by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

            Kaiser believes that Doriani’s method of applying Scripture, such as the five questions, is the same as his principlization of the Bible.

            A Response to Daniel M. Doriani by Kevin J. Vanhoozer

            Vanhoozer doesn’t think Doriani listens enough to tradition in forming his views. Vanhoozer writes: “While Scripture is the supreme authority for Christian life and faith, tradition exercises a ministerial authority to the extent that it enlarges our understanding precisely by showing how faithful interpreters have responded obediently in new situations to what the Bible says.”[14]

            A Response to Daniel M. Doriani by William J. Webb

            Webb disagrees that either the OT or the NT settles the slavery issue. He also disagrees with Doriani’s complimentary view. He does not believe the “trajectory view” or what he prefers “movement meaning” violates Revelation 22:18-19.

                  [1] Ibid., 93.

                  [2] Ibid.,87.

                  [3] Ibid., 88-89.

                  [4] Ibid., 86.

                  [5] Ibid., 91.

                  [6] Ibid., 106.

                  [7] Ibid., 95.

                  [8] Ibid., 96.

                  [9] Ibid., 98-99.

                  [10] Ibid., 98-99.

                  [11] Ibid., 99.

                  [12] Ibid., 101.

                  [13] Ibid., 103.

                  [14] Ibid., 129.