Progressive revealing of God's nature? -- need help explaining

[nwink]

I have a friend that is Reformed and has been struggling somewhat to see that God as revealed throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament is the same God, just progressively revealed. Obviously, this is a huge issue, and many people have wondered this for years (Gnostics said the "OT God" was different than the "NT God"), yet in cases like pre-Christian Augustine, Ambrose of Milan was able to convince him that the whole Bible was about the same God.

I know my friend has kind-of been influenced by redactor theory and the unbelieving teaching of how God "evolves" over time (that God first deals with individuals/families, then becomes a God of law/wrath and becomes transcendent, then is a God of love in the NT, etc). Any thoughts/resources you could provide would be very helpful. (One resource I've read some that is good on this subject is Geerhardus Vos' book "Biblical Theology.") Thanks!

 

[py3ak]

I would suggest that there might be a few problems.

1. Accepting any notion that God changes already puts you outside not only Reformed theology, but even basic Christian theology. It's no surprise if you get troubing results when the whole foundation is already subverted.
2. Reading Scripture through the lens of unbelieving theories is an excellent way to distort it. I think a lot of redaction criticism is quite circular, and is almost certainly a dead end. When you have to claim "interpolation" on the grounds of pure conjecture because the facts of the text don't fit your theory as to when certain views arose, common sense would suggest tampering with your theory instead of inventing imaginative histories of the texts. But common sense doesn't keep graduate students in research grants.
3. The idea that the revelation of God becomes more detailed over time is certainly true: in the nature of the case, no revelation to humans could be complete all at once. But that does not mean that it changes over time. One good example is God's declaration to Moses in Exodus 34. If you use a concordance to find other occurrences of those words, you find that again and again they are taken up and repeated in Scripture. What God told to Moses is echoed by subsequent prophets. Going further back, you find that the promise to be a God to Abraham and his seed is fundamental, and is a theme that is reiterated throughout Scripture, appearing finally in Revelation at the consummation of the ages. Going back further still, the whole Bible represents God as the Creator: and anyone who does not see in the Creator of all things the fountain of all goodness is laboring under some spiritual blindness.
4. Finally, it sounds like there may be some notion that "wrath" and "love" are inconsistent. The first eight verses of Nahum 1 should suffice to show that this is not a Biblical idea: it is another instance (like redaction criticism or ideas about evolution being applied to God) of people importing themselves into the text and judging it on that basis, instead of reading the text for what it is, and taking seriously its assumptions about itself. Even if this were simply Cleanness or Statius, you should extend the text the courtesy of taking it on its own terms. But this is the word of the living God: you don't merely take it on its own terms, you submit to its terms as being infallible and as passing judgment on you, rather than vice versa.

As far as what to read, I would suggest tracing the Scriptural themes I mentioned throughout the Bible to show "the consent of all the parts". On the stupidity of much Biblical criticism I have found C.S. Lewis' critical writings instructive and illuminating. He comes at things from an incorrect dogmatic perspective on some points, no doubt, but he was a very talented and sensible critic. Here is (sadly only a partial preview of) one good article to get started with:
Christian Reflections - Google Books