Chapter 23

I'm not sure about this chapter. Culver knows well enough the background of the early church fathers. But he doesn't at all engage with the last two centuries of thinking on the question of God and suffering. (Perhaps he will cover more of this in his section on Christology?)

Why do we assume that the early fathers were correct on some things (e.g. impassibility), yet we wouldn't sign up to their ecclesiology or soteriology? Maybe they were wrong on this too...

Surely God can choose to suffer? Surely he felt the pain of Christ?

The last three paragraphs of the chapter are interesting - I think they reveal much about Cuvler's assumptions. I'm wary of the whole question of analogy. If the Son became human (a man), that strikes me as going beyond analogy.

I thought about this in church this morning, in relation to all the gender neutral language used these days to refer to God. The big problem is that Jesus, the man, is Lord and Saviour. Not easy to get round that - but, even for us conservative guys, we need to reckon more with what that means about the nature of God.

Trust you are all well, Shed

Infrequency of Miraculous Gifts and their Purpose

Culver's comment that miracles occur very infrequently (as mentioned already by David) is important. God can always act supernaturally in answer to prayer, but He has only worked miracles through certain individuals at certain points in redemptive history.

God did miracles through Moses, who brought the Law. The next major activity of miracles was around Elijah and Elisha's ministry, who began the phase of prophecy that was to be inscripturated as the prophets. The next phase was through Christ and His Apostles, who brought us the New Testament. There is only evidence to suggest that the NT miracles were performed either by Christ and His Apostles, or those who God bestowed miracles upon through them. These were the signs of the Apostles (2 Cor. 12:12). As the Early Church leaders state in their writings, the miracles ceased after the Apostles left the earth.

The ability of certain men and women to perform miracles (rather than just God's answer to prayer) was intimately linked with the giving of the major portions of Scripture. This is one reason that we should not expect believers to be bestowed with such charismata.

The NT introduced two new gifts: speaking in other languages and the interpretation of them. Why was this? The Gospel was going out to all nations, so the Apostles were enabled to speak in other languages at Pentecost (Acts 2). To many this seemed like drunkenness, ('Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.' 1 Cor. 14:11) but to those who spoke the relevant languages, it was evidently miraculous, just like all true miracles are clearly from God. Gobbledegook (a.k.a. modern pseudo-tongues) are not evidently miraculous.

Paul states the following in 1 Cor. 14:21,22:

In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

He quotes Isaiah 28:11, 12, where Israel would hear God's judgement through the lips of foreigners. Even so, tongues were primarily a sign for unbelieving Israel, even though they contained content that could edify all believers.

The Gospel going out to all nations was partly a judgement upon Israel (Rom. 11:11) and tongues were a sign of this. The purpose for this gift was unique and has passed away. If anything, the only gift of tongues that one might see is Gentiles speaking in Hebrew as a sign of Israel's return to God (Rom. 11:25-29).

More...

Angels, pp164-173

Respect to Culver for including chapters 19 and 20. No matter what we make of his style or his theological sophistication, I think Culver makes a serious attempt to reflect the Scriptures in his writing. I am increasingly impressed by his background reading too.

I liked Culver's recognition that miracles appear to be scarce in the biblical history (top p173 - I think I criticised him for implying the opposite in an earlier post.) But I appreciated that he did this while pointing to the work of angels, manifest and 'out of sight'.

On pages 172 - 173, I was again conscious of a tension between accepting 'natural laws' and acknowledging supernatural causes in our world. Which of these takes precedence?

Note especially the sixth paragraph of p172, beginning, 'These remarks by no means exhaust...' Culver earlier mentions the lack of coverage that angels receive in evangelical writers such as McGrath and Reymond. I think that biblical/orthodox Christian theologians have yet to provide us with a coherent theology that combines modern knowledge of our world with basic biblical ideas of the world. (I'm aware that McGrath has contributed a substantial volume on science and theology, but I haven't read it.)

Do we need an 'evangelical orthodox Bultmann' for the 21stC? Or should we just start to reckon with angels and demons more often in our thinking?

Allah vs. the Sovereign and Gracious God

“Any strongly held monotheism that has no Savior-God, no wise, loving, holy Father, quickly becomes a hard fatalism, as in the whole Muslim world.”

Culver, p. 132

Paul, in addressing the pagans at Lystra says, “We... preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who... did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” (Acts 14:15-17) In preaching to a people who worshipped capricious, selfish and immoral 'gods', Paul, apart from emphasising the witness of general, or natural, revelation, also seems to have emphasised the goodness of the living and true God.

Culver brings out the difference between the true God and the false Allah of Islam, and so in the light of Paul's preaching, we also should mark out the contrast in our evangelism of Muslims (and indeed generic unbelievers who think that Christianity and Islam are basically the same thing).

Ron Rhodes in his excellent, but imperfect (esp. in the area of God's sovereignty), book, 'Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims', quotes a story about Islam's fatalism:

“[C]hildren in apartment buildings in Tehran... would fall over low balcony railings to their deaths, [but] because of the belief that this must have been the will of Allah, nothing was done to heighten the railings to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

What a contrast with the health and safety law provided by our loving God in Deut. 22:8: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.”

People are very much like their gods. The people of Islam reflect the nature of their 'god'. I don't know about you, but my dealings with Muslims have been universally of people who are satisfied to perform the Five Pillars of Islam, but don't care about holiness, just as their 'god' doesn't care about holiness. One Muslim even said to me, “You Christians are always concerned about holiness. God isn't holy. He's above all that. This is an invention of your minds.”

How we need to show them the true God, who is sovereign and terrible in judgement, but who is also gracious, loving and does good. A God who is righteous and holy, and abhors even the taint of sin, who will not be appeased with Five Pillars of religious deeds, but who could only be appeased with the precious blood of His only Son, the Second Person of the Godhead, who alone could provide propitiation for the many who believe. The God who comports with reality and whose holiness, righteous and goodness is higher than our own.