Yesterday I posted a killer Gospel quote by Calvin that basically sums up the glory of Christ in the Gospel and simultaneously explains why I read him so much. I ran across a passage in Bavinck over the weekend that similarly serves to point us to Christ, and hopeful whets your appetite to read him:
The coming of Christ is the turning point of the ages. Grouped around his person is a new cycle of miracles. He himself is the absolute miracle, descended from above, and yet the true and complete human. In him, in principle, the creation has been restored, again raised from its fall to its pristine glory. His miracles are the signs (semeia) of the presence of God, proof of the messianic era (Matt. 11:3-5; 12:28; Luke 13:16), a part of his messianic labor. In Christ there appears a divine power (dynamis) that is stronger than all the corrupting and destructive power of sin. This latter power he attacks, not only peripherally by healing diseases and performing all kinds of miracles, but centrally, by penetrating the core, breaking and overcoming them. His incarnation and satisfaction, his resurrection and ascension are God’s great deeds of redemption. They are in principle the restoration of the kingdom of glory. These facts of salvation are not only means of revelation by are the revelation of God himself. Miracle here becomes history, and history itself is a miracle. The person and work of Christ is the central revelation of God; all other revelation is grouped around this center.
–Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1: Prolegomena, pg. 339
Soli Deo Gloria
Reformedish 
I appreciate both Wright’s suggestion and VanHoozer’s improvement on it; especially the caution that we don’t have to work out the way the play ends so much as live in the light of the ending.
We need to make a distinction here. These models do help us understand how the Bible functions as Guide, which is part of its authority; they do not help quite as much in picturing how the Bible, or the Word of God functions as judge of ideas, doctrines, ideologies, etc. I suppose the caveat that the participants must act “in character” as they work out the rest of the story goes a little ways in that direction; then, I suppose, a totally different Jesus from the Jesus in the early acts of the story would be a false Jesus, but the function of the Word of God as judge is not sufficiently clear in this model.