Category Archives: Questions and Answers

The Omission of “Sanctified” in the Golden Chain

Posted on by
Reply

Pastor John, I have so enjoyed reading your teaching this week on the Golden Chain of Redemption from Romans 8:28-30. Because I can see myself in the chain in the word “justified” (in that I know He has declared me just or right in His sight through faith in Christ – Romans 5:1), I can now look both forwards and backwards in the chain, and understand that all the other things God says are also true of me. How amazing this is! Looking forward in the chain, in spite of my on-going struggles, He will bring me to full glorification (what comfort it is to know this); and looking backwards, He called me, predestined me, and foreknew me (set His love on me in eternity past). That’s so assuring to me!

I do have a question for you though. Why do you think the idea of sanctification is not included in the Golden Chain?

I am so glad to hear that the articles were a blessing. Isn’t God amazing! I believe that is the whole point of the text in Romans 8 – to bring a deep settled assurance to God’s people, even under the most intense pressure situations. The eighth chapter of Romans starts with the concept of “No Condemnation” and ends with the idea of “No Separation” for the people of God. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. That is where the truths of the chapter are all taking us, but sandwiched between those two thoughts of no condemnation and no separation is the statement of the Golden Chain of Redemption (v. 28-30), which is the foundational basis for this assurance.

Regarding your question, on the blog at desiring God, Dr. John Piper wrote of a reason for the omission of the word “sanctified” in the golden chain of redemption found in Romans 8:28-30. I agree with him completely but would like to add a second reason for the omission. Dr. Piper writes:

Have you ever wondered why “sanctification” is missing from this golden chain in Romans 8:29-30?

Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Continue reading →

Explicit Sexual Imagery and the Christian Walk

Posted on by

Some time back I wrote an article called “Run for your life” found where I warned of a very troubling concept found in a book by Ann Voskamp, namely to think of our union with God in sexual terms. For many days afterwards I was bombarded with hostile personal attacks in the comments, many of which I had to delete, and yet, no one was able to say that I had misunderstood the author’s words or taken them out of context in any way at all. Anyway, regarding this, here’s a question I received today (edited slightly):

Pastor Samson, I am in absolutely disagreement with Ann Voskamp’s book; but now I have a question, that I am not finding “easy” to answer. Ann has posted a sort of a response to criticisms she has received, in which she quotes men like John Piper, C.H. Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, using the “same kind” of metaphor that she used. I find this very dangerous because many Reformed women now are feeling “safe” about following her lead. That is why I want to be ready to give them an answer. What are your thoughts? Would you consider writing a post explaining what Edwards and Spurgeon meant when they used these words? Thank you.

Thanks for your question. I am not sure I could write with any degree of authority or certainty concerning what was in the minds of the men quoted when they wrote. God would know that for certain, but quite obviously, I do not.

I will say this though. A writer often uses hyperbole and every legitimate means to grab the attention of the reader and rightfully so. May God preserve us from boring writers! Because of this, we should always seek to believe the best of a writer until it is absolutely impossible than to see their words as crossing a theological boundary of heresy and blasphemy. I tend towards giving the benefit of the doubt to any author until I am absolutely forced by sheer weight NOT to do so. I would also hope that those who read my words would extend to me the same degree of courtesy.

Of course, though these men are very highly respected, their own writings would seek to remind all of us that neither any of them individually or all of them collectively are in any way infallible. Even the greatest teachers of the Church should be subject to the God breathed Scriptures and the boundaries of orthodoxy found there. Continue reading →

The Song of Solomon (2)

Posted on by
Reply

After reading my brief overview posted someone wrote to me just now with this question:

Interesting… so if Song of Songs is “not a book about Christ” why is it in the Bible? The way I understand the Old Testament and, it seems, the way Christ understood it, is that it is ALL about Christ. The book of Hebrews rather liberally applies the temple, sacrificial system, and priesthood to Christ… why not the Song?

My Response: It is a huge oversimplification to say that ALL the Old Testament is about Christ. Of course, much of it does point to Christ. Jesus was able to reveal much of this to the two who walked with Him on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:44 – “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

“Everything written about me” is not the same thing as saying “everything written is about me.”

There are countless things, people, places, etc, which simply are people, places and things.. and have no typological fulfillment in Christ. e.g. just at random, here’s a passage in Judges 1:33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, so they lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

34 The Amorites pressed the people of Dan back into the hill country, for they did not allow them to come down to the plain. 35 The Amorites persisted in dwelling in Mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, but the hand of the house of Joseph rested heavily on them, and they became subject to forced labor. 36 And the border of the Amorites ran from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.

Its important to stay within biblical parameters in our hermeneutics (Bible interpretation). The Amorites here are the Amorites… Mount Heres is Mount Heres… Akrabbim is Akkrabim.. etc., etc. It would be grossly incorrect to seek to force the text to make these people and places refer to “Christ” in some way.

The Song of Solomon is in the Bible because it is a wonderful God inspired love story and a reflection of God’s own love for His people. That a whole book of the Bible would be devoted to such a thing is breathtaking, and so far removed from the Greek concept that all fleshly activity of the body is sinful. (Sadly Greek thinking has had a huge influence on the Church through the centuries).

It is also true to say that the fact that an entire book of the Bible is devoted to the theme of romance, eroticism and sexual pleasure between a man and a woman in marriage shows us very clearly that God does not hate these things. He actually rejoices in them, being their Divine Author.

Think about the profound ramifications of this for a moment. He could have said to couples, “just mix substance A with substance B, put it in a pot and leave it overnight and whammo – you will have a child.” That was an option. Instead, God gave the human race sex with all that goes with it. God is certainly no killjoy, though He is quite clear regading the biblical boundaries for sexual enjoyment and pleasure, namely marriage (between a man and a woman).

The Song of Solomon also teaches us that God has a wonderful purpose for marriage in and of itself. This is a wonderful encouragement for precious couples who for some reason are not able to produce children.

The hyper-allegorical school of thought has brought much confusion and harm to the Body of Christ (and society and culture at large) through the centuries – none more so than in the arena of marriage. If properly understood (without all the allegorical trimmings) this book would have been a huge corrective in Church history when many leaders in the Church promoted the idea that all sex was sinful and that marital sex was only ever to be engaged for the purpose of procreation. The Song of Solomon clearly teaches us otherwise.

Why could these gifted leaders of the Church not see what is obvious to us?

That is a question that is actually fairly simple to answer: because they saw the Song of Solomon through the lens of the allegorical method of interpretation and therefore saw it as being ALL about Christ and His Church, rather than what it actually is, a book about romantic love.

The Hebrew people never viewed this book as an allegory of God’s love for Israel. As I pointed out before, that is why boys were not allowed to read it until they were considered adults in society. All understood what the book was truly about.

It is a rich and deep book and worthy of our study.