What do you think?
Rate this book
Current Issues in Theology
Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch
John Webster argues that, whereas any understanding of scripture must be subject to appropriate textual and historical interrogation, it is also necessary to acknowledge the special character of scriptural writing. His book strongly reaffirms that the triune God is at the core of a scripture-based Christianity. Written with intellectual enthusiasm by a theologian who understands the currents of modern secular thought, the volume develops a constructive position on biblical authority.
150 pages, Paperback
First published October 22, 1999
30 people are currently reading
232 people want to read
About the author
John B. Webster
47 books39 followersProfessor John B. Webster, MA, PhD, DD, FRSE was a notable contemporary British theologian of the Anglican communion writing in the area of systematic, historical and moral theology. He was educated at the independent co-educational Bradford Grammar School and at the University of Cambridge.
See also: John Webster
Image: Drawn by Rachel Nigh
See also: John Webster
Image: Drawn by Rachel Nigh
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
June 19, 2024
A great book by a theologian of the highest caliber. Some thoughts:
- How Webster fills out his idea that Scripture is sanctified (set apart by God to serve the reconciliation of creatures) seems helpful. However, questions do remain about how the actual findings of redaction and higher criticism may find a place under that notion.
- Webster (probably since it’s only 2003 when he gave these lectures) is generally suspicious of the Reformed Scholastics, and sees them as moving away from the more Scriptural based theologies of Calvin and Ursinus. A dubious and debatable claim which probably stems from his Barthian background. That being said, sometimes his slips into very perceptive historical analysis (especially on the doctrine of revelation at the beginning of the book)
- Webster’s placement of Holy Scripture in the economy of God’s works ad extra is illuminating, as well as is his conception of the relationship between theology and piety.
The best thing the book did for me was create a strong desire the study Holy Scripture itself more deeply, a desire that is quite unique amongst most theological books.
- How Webster fills out his idea that Scripture is sanctified (set apart by God to serve the reconciliation of creatures) seems helpful. However, questions do remain about how the actual findings of redaction and higher criticism may find a place under that notion.
- Webster (probably since it’s only 2003 when he gave these lectures) is generally suspicious of the Reformed Scholastics, and sees them as moving away from the more Scriptural based theologies of Calvin and Ursinus. A dubious and debatable claim which probably stems from his Barthian background. That being said, sometimes his slips into very perceptive historical analysis (especially on the doctrine of revelation at the beginning of the book)
- Webster’s placement of Holy Scripture in the economy of God’s works ad extra is illuminating, as well as is his conception of the relationship between theology and piety.
The best thing the book did for me was create a strong desire the study Holy Scripture itself more deeply, a desire that is quite unique amongst most theological books.
July 14, 2024
I thoroughly enjoyed the 10-15% of this that I understood.
February 10, 2025
Simply a phenomenal book in every way. Third time reading and maybe I understand it.
100%
100%
September 4, 2020
Webster is giving an account of “the nature of Holy Scripture” (1). He is not interested so much in discussing contemporary theories of hermeneutics or “textuality,” speech-act theory or deconstruction, but rather a dogmatic account. Thus he sets out to give “an account of what Holy Scripture is in the saving economy of God’s loving and regenerative self-communication” (2). His first chapter does the most in unpacking this account, so I will focus my attention here.
He starts by defining “Holy Scripture” as “a shorthand term for the nature and function of the biblical writings in a set of communicative acts which stretch from God’s merciful self-manifestation to the obedient hearing of the community of faith” (5). Crucially, for Webster, Scripture must be tied closely to our account of revelation which must itself be “an extension of what is said about the triune God” (9). This is over against accounts of scripture that connect it mainly to the church, which display a disordered dogmatic structure.
He uses three main concepts to unpack this account: revelation, sanctification, and inspiration. Along the way, he is keen to talk about God and creatures “without sliding into dualism” (10), and the doctrines of providence and mediation will be important (10).
Webster defines revelation as “the self-presentation of the triune God, the free work of sovereign mercy in which God wills, establishes, and perfects saving fellowship with himself in which humankind comes to know, love and fear him above all things” (13). A couple things are important to note here. First, Webster is concerned with the Christian God, not a generalized “theistic” account. Second, revelation has a purpose, which is the salvation of alienated creatures. There is no contrast between God as “revealer” and God as “reconciler” — the revelation serves the reconciling.
Webster defines “sanctification” as “the act of God the Holy Spirit in hallowing creaturely processes, employing them in the service of the taking form of revelation within the history of the creation” (17). This is Websters main way of overcoming the dualism between divine and human agency, the Docetic “divinization” of scripture, and the naturalistic historicization. The Holy Spirit “sanctifies” fully human processes and uses them in God’s work of revealing himself. He seems most favorable to Bavinck’s account of the “servant-form” of Scripture (25).
Finally, he turns to inspiration. For Webster it is important that inspiration be subordinate to revelation, and that it not be made into a foundational doctrine, a reason to believe Scripture. Further, he wishes to avoid both the “objectification” and the “spiritualization” of Scripture. In positing his own account, he emphasizes that “inspiration is not primarily a textual property but a divine movement and therefore a divine moving” (36). He fears that accounts that make inspiration a textual property are “curiously deistic” and at first glance, it seems that he has a bit of a point! He sees no conflict between creaturely realities and the work of the Spirit: “The acts of the Spirit of the risen Christ entail no suspension of creatureliness… ‘their own activity was not suppressed by the moving of the Spirit but is lifted up, energized, and purged’” (38). We need to avoid the confusion “of God’s omni causality with God’s sole causality” (39).
What I love about Webster is his concern to do positive dogmatic work without being tossed to and fro by the questions and demands of current thought. He has a sharp eye to spot where that’s been done, both by liberals and conservatives, and does his best to tie all dogmatic work back to the main thing: the Triune God, and his saving work toward creatures.
A couple points to quibble: One, he critiques a “strident supernaturalism” and one reads between the lines that he might be referring to Warfield and the Princetonians (20). But he gives no citation, and I wish I had some specifics to wrestle with. He fears that they have given us “a text without any kind of home in natural history” but I want to know “who has done this?” so that I can see for myself. D.A. Carson shares this critique “One sometimes wonders who Webster’s theological sparring partners are” (“Three More Books on the Bible: A Critical Review,” 254). He goes on “It is hard to know exactly who there are, because Webster never names them or interacts with them. Who are they? … Sometimes, I fear, he is shooting at a caricature” (Carson, 255).
He claims at one point that “no divine nature or properties can be predicated of Scripture” (23), yet I wonder if Scripture itself shares the same dogmatic caution? Psalm 138:2 says,
I bow down toward your holy temple
and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness,
for you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.
Overall, though, there is much to be gleaned from Webster’s work. Specifically, a church that got the main things right from Webster would be unapologetic and unembarrassed by Scripture, but humbly confident and hopeful. Further, both as a church, and as individuals, we would read our Bibles expecting to hear from the living God, not merely to glean more information from an inerrant book (though it is). Our relation to God and his work would be much more humble, servant-like, and obedient, rather than using the Bible mainly as a tool—a tool for teaching, or arguing, or knowing.
He starts by defining “Holy Scripture” as “a shorthand term for the nature and function of the biblical writings in a set of communicative acts which stretch from God’s merciful self-manifestation to the obedient hearing of the community of faith” (5). Crucially, for Webster, Scripture must be tied closely to our account of revelation which must itself be “an extension of what is said about the triune God” (9). This is over against accounts of scripture that connect it mainly to the church, which display a disordered dogmatic structure.
He uses three main concepts to unpack this account: revelation, sanctification, and inspiration. Along the way, he is keen to talk about God and creatures “without sliding into dualism” (10), and the doctrines of providence and mediation will be important (10).
Webster defines revelation as “the self-presentation of the triune God, the free work of sovereign mercy in which God wills, establishes, and perfects saving fellowship with himself in which humankind comes to know, love and fear him above all things” (13). A couple things are important to note here. First, Webster is concerned with the Christian God, not a generalized “theistic” account. Second, revelation has a purpose, which is the salvation of alienated creatures. There is no contrast between God as “revealer” and God as “reconciler” — the revelation serves the reconciling.
Webster defines “sanctification” as “the act of God the Holy Spirit in hallowing creaturely processes, employing them in the service of the taking form of revelation within the history of the creation” (17). This is Websters main way of overcoming the dualism between divine and human agency, the Docetic “divinization” of scripture, and the naturalistic historicization. The Holy Spirit “sanctifies” fully human processes and uses them in God’s work of revealing himself. He seems most favorable to Bavinck’s account of the “servant-form” of Scripture (25).
Finally, he turns to inspiration. For Webster it is important that inspiration be subordinate to revelation, and that it not be made into a foundational doctrine, a reason to believe Scripture. Further, he wishes to avoid both the “objectification” and the “spiritualization” of Scripture. In positing his own account, he emphasizes that “inspiration is not primarily a textual property but a divine movement and therefore a divine moving” (36). He fears that accounts that make inspiration a textual property are “curiously deistic” and at first glance, it seems that he has a bit of a point! He sees no conflict between creaturely realities and the work of the Spirit: “The acts of the Spirit of the risen Christ entail no suspension of creatureliness… ‘their own activity was not suppressed by the moving of the Spirit but is lifted up, energized, and purged’” (38). We need to avoid the confusion “of God’s omni causality with God’s sole causality” (39).
What I love about Webster is his concern to do positive dogmatic work without being tossed to and fro by the questions and demands of current thought. He has a sharp eye to spot where that’s been done, both by liberals and conservatives, and does his best to tie all dogmatic work back to the main thing: the Triune God, and his saving work toward creatures.
A couple points to quibble: One, he critiques a “strident supernaturalism” and one reads between the lines that he might be referring to Warfield and the Princetonians (20). But he gives no citation, and I wish I had some specifics to wrestle with. He fears that they have given us “a text without any kind of home in natural history” but I want to know “who has done this?” so that I can see for myself. D.A. Carson shares this critique “One sometimes wonders who Webster’s theological sparring partners are” (“Three More Books on the Bible: A Critical Review,” 254). He goes on “It is hard to know exactly who there are, because Webster never names them or interacts with them. Who are they? … Sometimes, I fear, he is shooting at a caricature” (Carson, 255).
He claims at one point that “no divine nature or properties can be predicated of Scripture” (23), yet I wonder if Scripture itself shares the same dogmatic caution? Psalm 138:2 says,
I bow down toward your holy temple
and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness,
for you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.
Overall, though, there is much to be gleaned from Webster’s work. Specifically, a church that got the main things right from Webster would be unapologetic and unembarrassed by Scripture, but humbly confident and hopeful. Further, both as a church, and as individuals, we would read our Bibles expecting to hear from the living God, not merely to glean more information from an inerrant book (though it is). Our relation to God and his work would be much more humble, servant-like, and obedient, rather than using the Bible mainly as a tool—a tool for teaching, or arguing, or knowing.
July 13, 2022
Excellent book on dogmatics and Scripture, only gets 4 stars for being a little dry.
July 17, 2015
The most impactful book under 150 pages I have read all year. Simply brilliant: while Webster does not claim to offer a comprehensive treatment, his Dogmatic Sketch of Holy Scripture is masterfully construed together, offering provokative critique on core issues in theology today.
Webster's biggest move is in the first section where he urges us to place the ontology of Holy Scripture back in the Doctrine of God. This has manifold positive consequences. Rather than Scripture's trustworthiness (revelation) being contingent upon inspiration (verbal inspiration, i.e. verbal inerrancy, etc.), forces the very heart of revelation back in Theology Proper. Not as God revealing epistemic propositional truths, but in God's free creative historical salvific-manifestation of Himself towards a people. This means that the locus of revelation becomes once again soteriological and not noetic/epistemological. Because of this reorientation, Webster is then able to subsume sanctification under revelation: sanctification of a people and an apostolic witnesses of God's salvific power. This, therefore, becomes the platform to place inspiration of Holy Scripture as a human work using human means and purposes. Scripture is not inspired because of divine dictation, or some other theory where human and divine causality work in an antithetical, dualistic manner somehow preserving remnants of both (Webster charges the Reformed scholastics of confusion omni-causality with sole causality), but rather it is inspired because it has been set apart and sanctified along with the Church to testify of God's salvific revelation in the economy of grace.
The economy of grace, therefore, is how we must read the Word, and it is within this context that the Church exists. Not autonomously, but as a servant to the Word, submitting to it's authority. Webster's laments that theologians divorced from this setting, equipped with Kant and Hegel's distinction and the rise of rational theology led to the divorce of theology's primary purpose which is to aid and serve the Church in the knowledge of God and salvation as an eschatological witness.
Ultimately the Word cannot be discredited, disected, or criticised through Bultmannean scholarship because these very hermeneutical presuppositions preclude submission to the Word as a sanctifying authority in the economy of grace.
Webster is charitable, knowledgeable, and cogent. His interaction with Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Barth and others makes this Dogmatic Sketch as a contemporary and viable model a must read for all students of theology.
Webster's biggest move is in the first section where he urges us to place the ontology of Holy Scripture back in the Doctrine of God. This has manifold positive consequences. Rather than Scripture's trustworthiness (revelation) being contingent upon inspiration (verbal inspiration, i.e. verbal inerrancy, etc.), forces the very heart of revelation back in Theology Proper. Not as God revealing epistemic propositional truths, but in God's free creative historical salvific-manifestation of Himself towards a people. This means that the locus of revelation becomes once again soteriological and not noetic/epistemological. Because of this reorientation, Webster is then able to subsume sanctification under revelation: sanctification of a people and an apostolic witnesses of God's salvific power. This, therefore, becomes the platform to place inspiration of Holy Scripture as a human work using human means and purposes. Scripture is not inspired because of divine dictation, or some other theory where human and divine causality work in an antithetical, dualistic manner somehow preserving remnants of both (Webster charges the Reformed scholastics of confusion omni-causality with sole causality), but rather it is inspired because it has been set apart and sanctified along with the Church to testify of God's salvific revelation in the economy of grace.
The economy of grace, therefore, is how we must read the Word, and it is within this context that the Church exists. Not autonomously, but as a servant to the Word, submitting to it's authority. Webster's laments that theologians divorced from this setting, equipped with Kant and Hegel's distinction and the rise of rational theology led to the divorce of theology's primary purpose which is to aid and serve the Church in the knowledge of God and salvation as an eschatological witness.
Ultimately the Word cannot be discredited, disected, or criticised through Bultmannean scholarship because these very hermeneutical presuppositions preclude submission to the Word as a sanctifying authority in the economy of grace.
Webster is charitable, knowledgeable, and cogent. His interaction with Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Barth and others makes this Dogmatic Sketch as a contemporary and viable model a must read for all students of theology.
February 10, 2024
Wonderful.
“Readerly virtues are not a sphere of unaided human competence. The virtues of the godly reader through which right use is made of Scripture cannot be crafted, whether through a private process of spiritual self-cultivation or through appropriation of the habits and patterns of living which are acted out in the public life of the Christian community. Reading Scripture is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming; and overcoming sin is the sole work of Christ and the Spirit. The once-for-all abolition and the constant checking of our perverse desire to hold the text in thrall and to employ it as an extension of our will can only be achieved through an act which is not our own. The reader's will needs not simply to be called to redirect itself to appropriate ends, but to be reborn.
Reading Scripture is inescapably bound to regeneration; only after a drastic reworking of spiritual psychology can the language of virtue have its place. What is therefore fundamental in giving an account of hermeneutical conversion is not a theory of moral virtue or the reader's 'character', but a soteriology and a pneumatology. Through the incarnate Word, crucified and risen, we are made capable of hearing the gospel, but only as we are at one and the same time put to death and raised to new life. Through the Spirit of the crucified and risen Christ we are given the capacity to set mind and will on the truth of the gospel and so read as those who have been reconciled to God.” (88-89)
“Readerly virtues are not a sphere of unaided human competence. The virtues of the godly reader through which right use is made of Scripture cannot be crafted, whether through a private process of spiritual self-cultivation or through appropriation of the habits and patterns of living which are acted out in the public life of the Christian community. Reading Scripture is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming; and overcoming sin is the sole work of Christ and the Spirit. The once-for-all abolition and the constant checking of our perverse desire to hold the text in thrall and to employ it as an extension of our will can only be achieved through an act which is not our own. The reader's will needs not simply to be called to redirect itself to appropriate ends, but to be reborn.
Reading Scripture is inescapably bound to regeneration; only after a drastic reworking of spiritual psychology can the language of virtue have its place. What is therefore fundamental in giving an account of hermeneutical conversion is not a theory of moral virtue or the reader's 'character', but a soteriology and a pneumatology. Through the incarnate Word, crucified and risen, we are made capable of hearing the gospel, but only as we are at one and the same time put to death and raised to new life. Through the Spirit of the crucified and risen Christ we are given the capacity to set mind and will on the truth of the gospel and so read as those who have been reconciled to God.” (88-89)
January 19, 2012
Reasons to read this book:
-It provides an academic but dogmatic overview of the doctrine of Scripture.
-It provides interesting perspectives on this doctrine. Webster considers the doctrine from the triple perspective of revelation, sanctification, and inspiration. This type of "trinitarian" doctrinal perspective is all the rage these days, and Webster also considers the trio of Scripture, church, and canon in chapter 2, and Scripture, theology, and the theological school in chapter 4. Chapter 3 covers reading (the Scripture) in the economy of grace.
Reasons not to read this book:
-It is not comprehensive. It is a "sketch" focused on the doctrine of Scripture. In his own words, Webster does not, for example, "offer [a] theory of 'textuality', and say[s] almost nothing about such matters as the impact of deconstruction or of speech-act theory on thinking about the nature of Scripture" (1).
-It is very academic. Some of the authors that Webster draws from, you have probably never read.
-It is not strongly liberal, dialectic, or conservative. If you are a very, very strong inerrantist and literalist (in the literal senses of those words), if you are a very, very committed Barthian, or if you are a liberal, you will probably not enjoy Webster.
Sample quotation:
"However genuine they may be, exegetical difficulties are, in the end, not the heart of the difficulty in reading Scripture. The real problems lie elsewhere, in our defiance of grace" (106).
-It provides an academic but dogmatic overview of the doctrine of Scripture.
-It provides interesting perspectives on this doctrine. Webster considers the doctrine from the triple perspective of revelation, sanctification, and inspiration. This type of "trinitarian" doctrinal perspective is all the rage these days, and Webster also considers the trio of Scripture, church, and canon in chapter 2, and Scripture, theology, and the theological school in chapter 4. Chapter 3 covers reading (the Scripture) in the economy of grace.
Reasons not to read this book:
-It is not comprehensive. It is a "sketch" focused on the doctrine of Scripture. In his own words, Webster does not, for example, "offer [a] theory of 'textuality', and say[s] almost nothing about such matters as the impact of deconstruction or of speech-act theory on thinking about the nature of Scripture" (1).
-It is very academic. Some of the authors that Webster draws from, you have probably never read.
-It is not strongly liberal, dialectic, or conservative. If you are a very, very strong inerrantist and literalist (in the literal senses of those words), if you are a very, very committed Barthian, or if you are a liberal, you will probably not enjoy Webster.
Sample quotation:
"However genuine they may be, exegetical difficulties are, in the end, not the heart of the difficulty in reading Scripture. The real problems lie elsewhere, in our defiance of grace" (106).
April 18, 2012
I would have given this book four stars if I had (could?) understood it better. It was a difficult book written by a man who teaches in Scotland. Not only was his English slightly different, his interaction with and in Latin and German stumped me sometimes. I liked his somewhat "non-academic" approach to real Bible study. His emphasis on the doctrine of scripture being under and alongside of the doctrines of Christology and pneumatology were extremely helpful and really caused me to pause and think. Often, I was utterly lost, but I think I mostly agree with him!
August 4, 2010
Anyone paying any attention to the key works on hermeneutics of Christian Scripture over the past decade will recognize the deep and broad ranging impact this dense and beautiful little book has had. Pound for pound without peer in that arena.
August 4, 2015
"May the Lord grant that we may study the heavenly mysteries of his wisdom, making true progress in religion to his glory and our up-building" John Calvin
March 25, 2018
If you want to read a book and have no idea what you read, this is the book for you. I would not wast your time though.
May 5, 2025
Fantastic little book that I read with a group of wonderful people over the last few months. The book's density made it well suited to this kind of group close reading, which I benefited from greatly.
There are two main problems Webster perceives in how people talk about the bible. Firstly, he takes issue with how some primarily view the bible as a horizontal text, a social artefact which sheds light on a group of people, either writers or readers, but says little about God. His second gripe is with those who see a doctrine of scripture as something that needs to be established from first principles before they can go on to say anything else about God. This, he thinks, forces the Christian to define the bible in the categories of the church's sceptics, which distorts their view of the scriptures. This second phenomenon is far more common in the Christian circles I swim in, where in some cases, apologetics is treated as a necessary precursor to speak the gospel with any authority; consider the Easter Sunday sermon where the pastor spends the first half defending the historicity of the resurrection before feeling able to simply proclaim the gospel!
The solution he sees to both these issues is to ground the doctrine of Holy Scripture within the economy of the triune God. God doesn't exist because of the bible, the bible exists because of God, and we'll misunderstand what it is unless we think about him first. This was my major takeaway from the book, and I'm thankful for it.
There were a few areas that felt underdeveloped, or like they needed further grounding, but Webster preempted this criticism even within the subtitle: this book is but a sketch. Perhaps I will subtitle all my essays with "a sketch towards x" and demand the same generosity from my markers!
There are two main problems Webster perceives in how people talk about the bible. Firstly, he takes issue with how some primarily view the bible as a horizontal text, a social artefact which sheds light on a group of people, either writers or readers, but says little about God. His second gripe is with those who see a doctrine of scripture as something that needs to be established from first principles before they can go on to say anything else about God. This, he thinks, forces the Christian to define the bible in the categories of the church's sceptics, which distorts their view of the scriptures. This second phenomenon is far more common in the Christian circles I swim in, where in some cases, apologetics is treated as a necessary precursor to speak the gospel with any authority; consider the Easter Sunday sermon where the pastor spends the first half defending the historicity of the resurrection before feeling able to simply proclaim the gospel!
The solution he sees to both these issues is to ground the doctrine of Holy Scripture within the economy of the triune God. God doesn't exist because of the bible, the bible exists because of God, and we'll misunderstand what it is unless we think about him first. This was my major takeaway from the book, and I'm thankful for it.
There were a few areas that felt underdeveloped, or like they needed further grounding, but Webster preempted this criticism even within the subtitle: this book is but a sketch. Perhaps I will subtitle all my essays with "a sketch towards x" and demand the same generosity from my markers!
May 16, 2019
Webster offers in the first chapter a theological account of the relationship between revelation, inspiration and the sanctifying work of the Spirit to produce *holy* scripture. Then he moves on to offering a theological account of how scripture was produced in a process of canonization in the church, but nevertheless, the church recognizes and submits to that authority. The third chapter goes on to look at Calvin and Bonhoeffer as examples of reading the text theologically. Finally, the last chapter offers an account of holistic theological education here theology and Bible are often fragmented in the current university curriculum.
The first two chapters offer I think the most constructive statements, but still are quite generalized since the book is quite brief. I think I have read a lot of more in depth books like Barth, Berkhouwer, Achtemeier, Goldingay, Pinnock, or Bloesch. The doctrine of Scritpure has been an ongoing fascination research interest and faith interest for me for over ten years now, so I suppose I was wrong to expect Webster's book for how brief it is to offer something I had not heard before.
The first two chapters offer I think the most constructive statements, but still are quite generalized since the book is quite brief. I think I have read a lot of more in depth books like Barth, Berkhouwer, Achtemeier, Goldingay, Pinnock, or Bloesch. The doctrine of Scritpure has been an ongoing fascination research interest and faith interest for me for over ten years now, so I suppose I was wrong to expect Webster's book for how brief it is to offer something I had not heard before.
September 12, 2019
Webster has some excellent points and excellent guidance in helping the church to find a more thoroughgoingly theologicial account of what the scriptures are and their place within the church.
I only have two real complaints:
1) By the end, while I agreed with what Webster had argued, I looked back and had to ask myself, is this it? Maybe I didn't fully understand everything he was saying, but it seemed like he spent a lot of time not covering a whole lot of ground.
2) Webster's writing style is insufferably academic. I could usually understand what he was saying, but I had to reread pages multiple times to do it.
Still on the whole, this was well worth my time and is a great contribution to this subject.
I only have two real complaints:
1) By the end, while I agreed with what Webster had argued, I looked back and had to ask myself, is this it? Maybe I didn't fully understand everything he was saying, but it seemed like he spent a lot of time not covering a whole lot of ground.
2) Webster's writing style is insufferably academic. I could usually understand what he was saying, but I had to reread pages multiple times to do it.
Still on the whole, this was well worth my time and is a great contribution to this subject.
July 29, 2020
A brief theology of the Bible turned quiet and tearful worship session.
I am deeply grateful for Webster's influence in my life and contributions not just to the academy but to the Church itself. He writes to build up the Church; He writes for the praise Christ. Webster's works are deeply committed to what is good, beautiful, and true - His writings are a treasure trove of profound proclamation and this text is no exception.
I am deeply grateful for Webster's influence in my life and contributions not just to the academy but to the Church itself. He writes to build up the Church; He writes for the praise Christ. Webster's works are deeply committed to what is good, beautiful, and true - His writings are a treasure trove of profound proclamation and this text is no exception.
April 1, 2022
Five stars aren't enough for anything written by John Webster, and this is no exception. Few, if ANY, writers in the last century or so combine both laser-like precision and immense depth of pious reverence as well and as consistently as Webster. In this little book he labors mightily to help the theologian recover a proper sense of reverence for the divine Word, and to argue for its relocation to the center of theological pursuits. Highest possible recommendation.
January 14, 2022
"Exegetical differences are, in the end, not the heart of the difficulty in reading scripture. The real problems lie elsewhere, in our defiance of grace".
Dense, and fairly academic at times. But the 3rd chapter on “reading Scripture in the Economy of Grace” is worth the price of admission.
Dense, and fairly academic at times. But the 3rd chapter on “reading Scripture in the Economy of Grace” is worth the price of admission.
April 23, 2018
Webster presents a clearly informed, if not dry take on revelation and Scripture. His perspective holds very much in line with Barth--so take that as you will.
November 20, 2018
Very good. Summary: let’s relocate the doctrine of Scripture within the doctrine of God.
I’ll be reading this one again. Webster was brilliant—and dense.
I’ll be reading this one again. Webster was brilliant—and dense.
November 26, 2018
This book was a bit tough to read, but once discussed in class, it became more helpful. I think there are easier books to read on the topic, but was challenged by his ideas.
August 10, 2020
A case study in confusion. I respect Webster for his historical work, but he had the poor habit of saying much without saying much of anything.
October 31, 2020
Just a masterpiece. I have a feeling I’ll be thinking about the implications of the doctrine of revelation as under the heading of soteriology for a long time to come.
March 16, 2021
Rem acu tetigisti.
October 13, 2021
Even better than I remembered it.
February 12, 2015
As the title suggests, this book is merely a sketch. It has its problems, but it also has a number of profound suggestions.
Scripture has its place as an act of the God who speaks to and sanctifies his people (8). Webster makes an unusual move: he speaks of the sanctification of Scripture. It is the holiness of Scripture which is an aspect of God’s using creaturely reality to attest to his revelation (this is what we normally call the self-attestation of Scripture). The sanctification of Scripture always refers back to God’s activity.
Revelation
Webster notes a problem when revelation is collapsed into prolegomenal foundations: it isolates revelation “from material dogmatic discussions” (12). Webster proposes an alternative, identifying revelation as “the self-disclosure of the Triune God” (13) in which God establishes mercy and fellowship with human beings.
The content of revelation is God’s own proper reality (14). It is divine “self-presentation” and not merely facts about God. But not only is God not merely the content of revelation, he is the subject. Further, revelation is not merely God’s self-displaying, but it is the establishing of fellowship and overcoming human opposition. In fact, Webster concludes: “revelation is reconciliation” (17). I disagree, but more on that later.
Sanctification
Webster’s emphasis on the sanctification aspects of Holy Scripture is much appreciated. Whatever else the Bible may mean in relation to political theology or historical criticism, if it is not first anchored in the sanctifying acts of God towards his people, then we have divorced Scripture from life.
SCRIPTURE, CHURCH, AND CANON
The Church does not create Scripture, but is called into being by God the Word. If it is called into being, it stands in the relation of hearing. Webster notes, “The church’s being is ectopic” (47); it’s place is in the being and creative act of God the Word.
Invisibility of the Church: it is in-visible in that it is not identified/seen in the world’s social institutions.
Apostolicity and Tradition: tradition is just as much an act of hearing than a fresh act of speaking (49). Further, the church’s “acknowledgment of Scripture’s authority is not so much an act of self-government, but an exposure to judgment” (57).
Canonisation
The canon is an extension of Christ’s communicative presence in his church (58). The Church’s speech is generated and controlled by Christ’s own self-utterance (60).
We do not deny the canon is the church’s act; we are simply clarifying what kind of act it is (62). It is an act of assent rather than self-derived judgment.
It is an act of confession of that which precedes and imposes itself upon the church.
It is an act of submission before it is an act of authority.
The act of canonization has a backwards reference. The church and all of its acts are ostensive--pointing above and beyond itself.
Reading in the Economy of Grace
“Grace establishes fellowship” (71). Reading erodes spontenaity and subjects the reader to different modes of learning.
Bonhoeffer: we must be wary of positing an archimedean point of judgment outside of Scripture. We should inculcate a habit of “listening” that draws us into the story extra nos (83).
self-interpreting: only so by virtue of its relation to God.
Helpful Points
Webster avoids predicating divine attributes to Scripture; it’s relation to God is instrumental (23). This might appear a sop to liberalism, but a moment’s reflection will prove its obvious point: No one believes the pages of the bible as such are divine, for they wear away (which an attribute like eternity cannot). Therefore, the bible I have is a copy of something. A copy of what, precisely? This isn’t Barthianism. It’s common-sense. Let’s go back to the Augustinian use of res/signs. What’s so bad about looking at my individual copy of the Bible as a sign to God’s res? I really don’t see how one can avoid this conclusion. We don’t have the autographa, but if we want to maintain a strong doctrine of inspiration (or better, ex-piration), then we have to use some form of Augsutinian signs.
Webster suggests we should prioritize the model of “Scripture as prophetic testimony.” It fits in with speech-act concepts. It is “language that depicts a reality other than itself” (23). However, Webster suggest we best see Scripture as “a means of grace” (24). What do we mean by means? He warns us not to view “means” as something that makes the divine reality present where it wasn’t present before, giving a quasi-divine and magical connotation to the “means.”
Disagreements
Webster says revelation is reconciliation (16). Does he mean all acts of revelation are reconciliatory? Surely he can’t mean that, because Paul says the ‘wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men” (Romans 1:18). This aspect of revelation is not saving. It is judgmental and even damning.
Practical conclusions:
We should insist on Scripture in usu et actione (7)
Scripture has its place as an act of the God who speaks to and sanctifies his people (8). Webster makes an unusual move: he speaks of the sanctification of Scripture. It is the holiness of Scripture which is an aspect of God’s using creaturely reality to attest to his revelation (this is what we normally call the self-attestation of Scripture). The sanctification of Scripture always refers back to God’s activity.
Revelation
Webster notes a problem when revelation is collapsed into prolegomenal foundations: it isolates revelation “from material dogmatic discussions” (12). Webster proposes an alternative, identifying revelation as “the self-disclosure of the Triune God” (13) in which God establishes mercy and fellowship with human beings.
The content of revelation is God’s own proper reality (14). It is divine “self-presentation” and not merely facts about God. But not only is God not merely the content of revelation, he is the subject. Further, revelation is not merely God’s self-displaying, but it is the establishing of fellowship and overcoming human opposition. In fact, Webster concludes: “revelation is reconciliation” (17). I disagree, but more on that later.
Sanctification
Webster’s emphasis on the sanctification aspects of Holy Scripture is much appreciated. Whatever else the Bible may mean in relation to political theology or historical criticism, if it is not first anchored in the sanctifying acts of God towards his people, then we have divorced Scripture from life.
SCRIPTURE, CHURCH, AND CANON
The Church does not create Scripture, but is called into being by God the Word. If it is called into being, it stands in the relation of hearing. Webster notes, “The church’s being is ectopic” (47); it’s place is in the being and creative act of God the Word.
Invisibility of the Church: it is in-visible in that it is not identified/seen in the world’s social institutions.
Apostolicity and Tradition: tradition is just as much an act of hearing than a fresh act of speaking (49). Further, the church’s “acknowledgment of Scripture’s authority is not so much an act of self-government, but an exposure to judgment” (57).
Canonisation
The canon is an extension of Christ’s communicative presence in his church (58). The Church’s speech is generated and controlled by Christ’s own self-utterance (60).
We do not deny the canon is the church’s act; we are simply clarifying what kind of act it is (62). It is an act of assent rather than self-derived judgment.
It is an act of confession of that which precedes and imposes itself upon the church.
It is an act of submission before it is an act of authority.
The act of canonization has a backwards reference. The church and all of its acts are ostensive--pointing above and beyond itself.
Reading in the Economy of Grace
“Grace establishes fellowship” (71). Reading erodes spontenaity and subjects the reader to different modes of learning.
Bonhoeffer: we must be wary of positing an archimedean point of judgment outside of Scripture. We should inculcate a habit of “listening” that draws us into the story extra nos (83).
self-interpreting: only so by virtue of its relation to God.
Helpful Points
Webster avoids predicating divine attributes to Scripture; it’s relation to God is instrumental (23). This might appear a sop to liberalism, but a moment’s reflection will prove its obvious point: No one believes the pages of the bible as such are divine, for they wear away (which an attribute like eternity cannot). Therefore, the bible I have is a copy of something. A copy of what, precisely? This isn’t Barthianism. It’s common-sense. Let’s go back to the Augustinian use of res/signs. What’s so bad about looking at my individual copy of the Bible as a sign to God’s res? I really don’t see how one can avoid this conclusion. We don’t have the autographa, but if we want to maintain a strong doctrine of inspiration (or better, ex-piration), then we have to use some form of Augsutinian signs.
Webster suggests we should prioritize the model of “Scripture as prophetic testimony.” It fits in with speech-act concepts. It is “language that depicts a reality other than itself” (23). However, Webster suggest we best see Scripture as “a means of grace” (24). What do we mean by means? He warns us not to view “means” as something that makes the divine reality present where it wasn’t present before, giving a quasi-divine and magical connotation to the “means.”
Disagreements
Webster says revelation is reconciliation (16). Does he mean all acts of revelation are reconciliatory? Surely he can’t mean that, because Paul says the ‘wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men” (Romans 1:18). This aspect of revelation is not saving. It is judgmental and even damning.
Practical conclusions:
We should insist on Scripture in usu et actione (7)
January 8, 2017
Probably a fine book if you agree with Reform Theology
December 27, 2019
Dr. John Webster's compact work about Holy Scripture commanded my attention and has radically shaped how I will approach Scripture in the future. Webster's work stands out in sharp relief against the mass of literature in Academia these days which prioritize communal readings or philosophical investigations into hermeneutics. I myself have gravitated towards such theories as of late. Growing up in a small Christian school, I had never encountered the field of postmodern hermeneutics, and I was consequently enamored with it upon encountering it. "Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch" consciously takes aim at such accounts of Scripture and instead constructs an account founded in God's free action of revelation through the text. In true Protestant fashion, Dr. Webster weaves a beautiful tapestry for us by emphasizing the primacy of Scripture, God's free and sovereign self-revelation, and His reconciling work performed even in spite of our sinfulness. Webster begins by a recognition of the ontology of Scripture. Because Scripture must fundamentally be treated as a creaturely reality, we must resist any mythologized or overly neat narratives of its production, but we must also resist a reductionism that would have us understand it merely as a creaturely reality. The power of Scripture lies outside of itself in God's free act of self revelation whereby He gathers up this creaturely reality into His divine economy. God appropriates this creaturely reality as the means and location where He communicates Himself to the creature and confronts the creature in its sin and misery. The fundamental reality of Scripture is God's active use of the text for His purposes. This means that the text is not constituted by the communal act of reading, but the text, because it is the site of God's active self-revelation, breaks into the community in the continual cycle of death and re-creation which characterizes the Gospel. The text of Scripture slays us and reforms us into God's image. For Dr. Webster then, and I believe this insight is of profound importance, the Church is fundamentally the Hearing Church. The act of reading Scripture is not of bringing ourselves to the text in order to constitute it, but reading is actually attentive, humble, and disciplined listening to God's loving and reconciling self-giving in His Word, Holy Scripture. In short, read this book. Bask in it. Let it challenge you. Let it drive you back to Scripture. Dr. John Webster passed away less than a month ago. His death was the catalyst for me reading his work. I have grown so much from reading his work and I deeply mourn his loss. However, I take joy in the knowledge that He is enjoying the intimate presence of the Lord he had been listening attentively to his whole life.
January 1, 2016
This book by John B. Webster is a "dogmatic sketch" of the nature of biblical Scripture, covering aspects of the text including revelation, inspiration, church, canon, and theology. I found the book to be engaging, informative and thought-provoking, and because of the goldmine of "underlineable" quotes, the book sometimes felt like a theological Hallmark card (and I mean that in a positive way).
There are some points, however, where the author and I part ways.
First, the author is emphatic about Scripture being "clear," in and of itself. While that is true in some places, it is not true in others. As Jonathan Wilson says, Scripture was written FOR us, but it was not written TO us, and that requires us to put ourselves in the place of the original receivers if we are to more fully understand the significance the text has for us. A literal reading of Scripture without any context or "recontext" can have some amusing...or, in some cases, horrifying...results.
Second, on the topic of inspiration, the author advocates the idea of (a somewhat modified) verbal inspiration. An entire book could be written on the problems that arise from the belief in a model of verbal inspiration of Scripture.
Third, while the author seems to advocate exegesis of Scripture as a positive on some level, it seems he feels that biblical criticism (in general) and interpretive practices (in general) present an assault on the sovereignty of God (particularly since he believes the Bible is clear enough on its own and doesn't need any mediating). I would suggest that some forms of biblical criticism and interpretive practices are actually a responsible and faithful way of approaching Scripture in order to understand the text as fully as possible, in as many layers as possible. Perhaps if the author had specified which forms of biblical criticism troubled him, or what particular interpretive practices he is thinking of that seem to adulterate the purity of the text, we might be closer in agreement.
All in all, I enjoyed the book and will continue to think about many of the compelling ideas the author presented.
There are some points, however, where the author and I part ways.
First, the author is emphatic about Scripture being "clear," in and of itself. While that is true in some places, it is not true in others. As Jonathan Wilson says, Scripture was written FOR us, but it was not written TO us, and that requires us to put ourselves in the place of the original receivers if we are to more fully understand the significance the text has for us. A literal reading of Scripture without any context or "recontext" can have some amusing...or, in some cases, horrifying...results.
Second, on the topic of inspiration, the author advocates the idea of (a somewhat modified) verbal inspiration. An entire book could be written on the problems that arise from the belief in a model of verbal inspiration of Scripture.
Third, while the author seems to advocate exegesis of Scripture as a positive on some level, it seems he feels that biblical criticism (in general) and interpretive practices (in general) present an assault on the sovereignty of God (particularly since he believes the Bible is clear enough on its own and doesn't need any mediating). I would suggest that some forms of biblical criticism and interpretive practices are actually a responsible and faithful way of approaching Scripture in order to understand the text as fully as possible, in as many layers as possible. Perhaps if the author had specified which forms of biblical criticism troubled him, or what particular interpretive practices he is thinking of that seem to adulterate the purity of the text, we might be closer in agreement.
All in all, I enjoyed the book and will continue to think about many of the compelling ideas the author presented.
May 27, 2015
Webster is a smart (not clever, see below) theologian. I haven't read much of him--just two brief books to this point--but I like what I see. A modern theologian who is concerned about Scripture's authority and the magnificence of grace in the gospel of Christ. He writes,
"In an important sense, theology is not an academic discipline generated by the pressure of the inquiring intellect; rather, it follows the same rule as all other thought, speech and action in the church, namely that it is brought about by the startling reality of the gospel of reconciliation. That gospel is not just the ‘theme’ or matter’ of theology, as if the gospel were simply one more topic to which the inquiring human mind might choose to direct itself; rather, the gospel is that which brings theology into existence and holds it in being." (p. 118).
Sure, I got some quibbles 'n questions, and I got many spots in this book that I need to re-read to understand (which is probably why DA Carson warns readers that you can't skim J-Web), but Webster provokes me to know God and what God has spoken more. That's what I want from a theologian, and that's what the church needs from those engaged in the discipline--less cleverness and more scandalous alertness to the God who has revealed himself. Webster writes, "Ultimately, what is scandalous about Christian theology is that it is a work of reason which can only fulfil its office if it bears the marks of God’s destruction of the wisdom of the wise and the cleverness of the clever." (p. 129).
Bring on the scandal, John.
"In an important sense, theology is not an academic discipline generated by the pressure of the inquiring intellect; rather, it follows the same rule as all other thought, speech and action in the church, namely that it is brought about by the startling reality of the gospel of reconciliation. That gospel is not just the ‘theme’ or matter’ of theology, as if the gospel were simply one more topic to which the inquiring human mind might choose to direct itself; rather, the gospel is that which brings theology into existence and holds it in being." (p. 118).
Sure, I got some quibbles 'n questions, and I got many spots in this book that I need to re-read to understand (which is probably why DA Carson warns readers that you can't skim J-Web), but Webster provokes me to know God and what God has spoken more. That's what I want from a theologian, and that's what the church needs from those engaged in the discipline--less cleverness and more scandalous alertness to the God who has revealed himself. Webster writes, "Ultimately, what is scandalous about Christian theology is that it is a work of reason which can only fulfil its office if it bears the marks of God’s destruction of the wisdom of the wise and the cleverness of the clever." (p. 129).
Bring on the scandal, John.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews