Category Archives: Questions and Answers

“He descended into hell…”

Posted on by
Reply

Sandy Grant is the senior minister at St Michael’s Anglican Cathedral in Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. I do not know him at all, other than the fact that he serves on the writer panel at solapanel.org. However, I did find myself in full agreement with him on this article. Pastor Grant writes:

Recently on a feedback card at church, someone commented: “I thought Jesus didn’t descend into hell! Just that he suffered the death we deserved.”

The answer is: yes and no! The question raises complex issues that cannot be easily answered in a short space. So let me take a long space. (And if you are interested, read on, read slowly, and re-read if you need!)

There are a couple of complicating factors. The first is how we use the English word, ‘hell’ to translate various Hebrew and Greek words. The second is the history and meaning of the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed, “he descended into hell”. Let me now try and unpack these issues in turn.

The various uses of ‘hell’ in translating the Bible into English

The English word ‘hell’ often does double duty in translating words from the original biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek.

The Hebrew word ‘Sheol’ is pretty much a close equivalent of the Greek word, ‘Hades’. These words (especially ‘Sheol’) can refer simply to the grave, where bodies decay. But more particularly they can also refer to what I define as “the shadowy place dead souls go to await their punishment” (i.e. before the final day of judgment).

To give you an idea of the range of meaning, in the New Testament, for example, Hades is translated by the NIV variously as: Continue reading →

What’s the Point? Why Bother?

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. John Piper:

I am often asked, present, and future is infallible, then what is the point of praying that anything happen?” Usually this question is asked in relation to human decision: “If God has predestined some to be his sons and chosen them before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4,5), then what’s the point in praying for anyone’s conversion?”

The implicit argument here is that if prayer is to be possible at all man must have the power of self-determination. That is, all man’s decisions must ultimately belong to himself, not God. For otherwise he is determined by God and all his decisions are really fixed in God’s eternal counsel. Let’s examine the reasonableness of this argument by reflecting on the example cited above.

1. “Why pray for anyone’s conversion if God has chosen before the foundation of the world who will be his sons?” A person in need of conversion is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1); he is “enslaved to sin” (Romans 6:17; John 8:34); “the god of this world has blinded his mind that he might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (II Corinthians. 4:4); his heart is hardened against God (Ephesians 4:18) so that he is hostile to God and in rebellion against God’s will (Romans 8:7).

Now I would like to turn the question back to my questioner: If you insist that this man must have the power of ultimate self-determination, what is the point of praying for him? What do you want God to do for Him? You can’t ask that God overcome the man’s rebellion, for rebellion is precisely what the man is now choosing, so that would mean God overcame his choice and took away his power of self-determination. But how can God save this man unless he act so as to change the man’s heart from hard hostility to tender trust?

Will you pray that God enlighten his mind so that he truly see the beauty of Christ and believe? If you pray this, you are in effect asking God no longer to leave the determination of the man’s will in his own power. You are asking God to do something within the man’s mind (or heart) so that he will surely see and believe. That is, you are conceding that the ultimate determination of the man’s decision to trust Christ is God’s, not merely his. Continue reading →

Ten Objections to Divine Election

Posted on by
1

Perhaps you can relate to this – Divine election does indeed seem to be clearly taught in the Bible. Passages such as Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians 1 and 2, John 3, John 6, John 10, John 17, and many others, make a convincing case. However, certain verses, at least at first glance, seem to present a different picture.

Over time I have sought to deal with some of the most frequently cited verses that are raised as objections to Divine election (the “what about?” verses, as I call them) trusting that this can be a helpful resource.

“WHAT ABOUT?” VERSES:

John 3:16

2 Peter 3:9

1 Tim 2:4

1 Tim 4:10

1 John 2:2

John 12:32

2 Peter 2:1

“WHAT ABOUT” CONCEPTS:

How can divine election be true if God is not a respecter of persons?

Does God create people knowing they will end up in hell?

If Divine election is true, why should we even bother to evangelize?

The ten different uses of the word “world” in John’s Gospel

Another question that often arises is “how can God be just in requiring man to do what he is unable to do?” John Piper answers that question here in this short video:

If God Wills Disease Why Should We Try to Eradicate It?

Posted on by
Reply

I read this short article by Dr. John Piper today and thought it was well worth passing on:

This question arises from the biblical teaching that all things are ultimately under God’s control. “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isaiah 46:10). “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps” (Psalm 135:6). “He does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?'” (Daniel 4:35). “[He] works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).

This means that God governs all calamity and all disease. Satan is real and has a hand in it, but he is not ultimate and can do nothing but what God permits (Job 1:12-2:10). And God does not permit things willy-nilly. He permits things for a reason. There is infinite wisdom in all he does and all he permits. So what he permits is part of his plan just as much as what he does more directly.

Therefore this raises the question: If God wills disease why should we try to eradicate it? This is a crucial question for me because I have heard Christians say recently that believing in the sovereignty of God hinders Christians from working hard to eradicate diseases like malaria and tuberculosis and cancer and AIDS. They think the logic goes like this: If God sovereignly wills all things, including malaria, then we would be striving against God to invest millions of dollars to find a way to wipe it out.
Continue reading →

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.

The Song of Solomon

Posted on by
7

Pastor John, I am trying to make sense of the Song of Solomon. I recently went to a Bible study where the teacher was saying that it is a book about Christ and His Bride (the Church). Is this true?

I am very familiar with this view of the Song of Solomon. The concept stems from what theologians call the “allegorical” method of interpretation, which ignores the historical background and the actual subject matter under discussion in the text, to instead look for a “deeper” or “hidden” meaning, spiritualizing every word and detail to seek to make application to Christ. Though the method has noble motivation, the fact remains that Christ and His Church are never mentioned in the book.

Actually the book is about romance and love, even erotic love between Solomon and his bride. I am told that in Hebrew society, young boys are not permitted to read the book until their “bar mitzvah” when they “come of age” so to speak, and are considered fully adult men by their community. That is because the Jews understood the book to be something of a handbook for marriage.

It might be something of a disappointment to some when they come to understand this, but the facts are clear. In all actually, it is a wonderful book, so amazingly rich in beauty. How women must wish to be cherished in this way – how captivating is the love the husband has for his beautiful lady, and how wonderfully that love is returned to her husband by his bride. Its what every heart dreams of when they enter into marriage – true and deep intimacy and the reckless mutual abandonment of body, soul and spirit to one another.

The book is a romantic love story as Solomon remembers his courtship with the lady of his dreams; the early days of his first marriage, and then the maturing relationship that developed between this royal couple through the ebbs and flows and the ups and downs of their daily marital life.

It is amazing to consider just how widespread the allegorical interpretation is, as we note many ancient hymns which speak of Christ as “the lily of the valley” and the “rose of Sharon” but once again, these words were beautiful and rich words of love and romance, originally spoken between a husband and wife in the context of marriage.

Are there parallels between Solomon and his bride and Christ and his Church? Perhaps there are. Certainly Christ loves His Church with deep affection and we, the people of God, love Christ, the husband. But it must be pointed out that nowhere does Scripture speak of Christ as our Solomon or of the Church as Solomon’s bride.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. John MacArthur when he writes, “The Song has suffered strained interpretations over the centuries by those who use the “allegorical” method of interpretation…. A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality… The metaphoric and euphemistic nature of the book is designed by God to veil the private intimacy of marriage. Its beautiful expressions of romantic love are purposefully shrouded in poetic language – intended only to give general insight into the joys of passion, desire and romance. In this way, the Song expresses the wonders of marital love while distancing itself from anything crass or explicitly sensual. Interpreters of this book must be careful to maintain the dignified character of the book, and must not read anything into it that is not actually there.” (The MacArthur Study Bible notes)

Understanding this, I would encourage you to pick up the book again and just start reading. Chapter one starts out as follows:
Continue reading →

The Satanic Power of a Question

Posted on by
5

The first attack on the human race did not come from outer space. No alien fleet of space ships. No downloaded virus into a vein to ultimately kill, steal and destroy. It was not even a physical attack; no swords, clubs, guns or bombs. But O, the devastation it caused.

For those who know their Bibles, you will know I am referring to the attack on the first parents of mankind in a Garden called Eden, when the serpent attacked Adam and Eve… with a question. That was all it was. A simple question.

Oh it was a loaded question. The question spoke volumes about how God could not be trusted – how His word was not to be believed. It spoke of how God did not really have their best interests at heart – that He was holding out on them – that if God really did love them, then things would be different. Built into the question was an undermining of God, His word and His love; and more than that, an insinuation that God did not want them to achieve the most beautiful thing possible – the ability to be like God.

Think of it from the devil’s perspective (and I mention the devil because there are passages in Scripture which tells us clearly that it was the devil who entered into the serpent in the garden). If you were the devil, how would you tempt a perfect man and woman who were living in a perfect environment?
Continue reading →

Ask R.C. Live (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

The second Ask R.C. Live event took place on February 17, 2011. Watch as Dr. R.C. Sproul answers such questions as:

What advice would you give someone as they begin to study reformed theology to help them stay humble, loving and teachable?

Should we reduce being reformed to just embracing the doctrines of grace or is there ultimately more to it?

How is sanctification synergistic since it is God who works in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure?

One pastor said we should only pray to God the Father. Is it wrong to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit? Does the Scripture support this pastor’s view?

The Apostle’s Creed affirms that Jesus descended into hell. Is this concept faithful to the Scriptures – if so, is this related to the somewhat obscure passage in Peter which talks of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison?

Since sins are forgiven when one is justified, why do we continue to pray for the forgiveness of sins?

Has there ever been a time when an Arminian passage has caused you to question your theology?
Continue reading →