Andrew Meredith’s Reviews > All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism > Status Update

JED: "I readily affirm that biblical theology has been a profound catalyst for improving and enriching our understanding of the progress of redemption. But it seems to me that biblical theology, with its unique focus on historical development and progress, is not best suited for the study of theology proper. The reason for this is because God is not a historical individual, and neither does His intrinsic activity undergo development or change. This places God beyond the proper focus of biblical theology. God is not changed by what He does—though what He does certainly brings about progress in history, creatures, and salvation. In an attempt to understand God as one of the historical characters in the narrative of redemption, many have fallen into the trap of historicizing His very life and existence. Suffice it to say, while biblical theology tells us many true things about God, its proper focus on development and progress is not methodologically suitable to the study of the One who does not change."

Me: So, to summarize, "We must go beyond God's revealed works in history to discover the God beyond history." My rejoinder here is that we can ONLY know God as He has revealed Himself in redemptive history, lest we blasphemously, though perhaps unwittingly, create for ourselves an idol out of the precious metal of changeless "Being" to go before us into the fearful wilderness of flux.

JED: "The contemplative approach to theology proper treats God as an ahistorical being and seeks to discover the timeless truths about Him by thinking through the implications and entailments of those things He has revealed to us in creation and Scripture (and this certainly includes those things revealed about God in the unfolding course of redemptive history)."

Me: The word "includes" gives me more than a hint of pause. "Of course, we will intermittently consult what the Lord God has to say on the matter when it suits our naturalistic-philosophical purposes to do so." A cynical summary of his point perhaps, but, being aware of the natural/supernatural dualism undergirding it, I can't help but give it the suspicious side-eye.