Calvinist Hymn Revision

i think just like 2 Peter 3:9, Fanny Crosby's version could still be considered a 'calvinistic' version. 'That all may go in' could very easily be referring to 'us' earlier in the stanza. This would mean 'that all (of us) may go in. Either way- that's quite interesting. I haven't noticed any other changes like this- but I HAVE had Arminians try to prove their position using songs (such as 'Jesus loves the little children' etc.). Just because we have songs that aren't doctrinally correct, doesn't make the doctrine bad. it's an interesting subject to study tho.

 

My church is Baptist, but the hymnals are Mennonite. A lot of the hymns are changed to make the natural human condition seem less dire.

Can't remember any specific examples off-hand, but I'll bet you a dollar that it doesn't say "for such a worm as I".

Churches, denominations, etc. quite commonly change hymns to make them fit better with their own theology. And if they don't change them, then they just choose not to sing them.

And don't quote me on this, but I remember being told somewhere that Fanny Crosby was a Calvinist. What I can vouch for is that her family came from Puritan roots.

 

Russell, could you give me an example of songs that the Mennonites have changed? We have Mennonite song books too, and it DOES say "for such a worm as I." I'd like to see some examples. Remember that Mennonites wrote quite a few hymns as well, which could have been changed in other books.

 

There obviously had to be some guilt involved singing "all". If the "all" could go both arminian or calvin, why change it? I wonder if satan or the Holy Spirit influenced the change?

 

Whetstone, I assume that you quoted 2 Peter 3:9, because you take the words: "not willing that any should perish" to refer to the "elect"?

I mean, do you really think that this is what Peter was saying here? Read the whole verse, and you will see that this interpretation is 100% wrong.

Peter says, that God is "longsuffering towards us". Why would He have to be "longsuffering" with the "elect", as though there are some who would NOT want to be saved? Peter then goes on to say, "but that all should come to repentance". Does this mean there are some of the "elect" won't come? Just does not make any sense to apply these words to the "elect" only.

 

Most likely neither.

 

Uh... I'm not Calvinist, but the revised version with "we" instead of "all" seems to me like a welcome clarification that we don't embrace Universalism.

 

I've dealt with this objection so many times I just went ahead and wrote an article about it. Enjoy.

link

 

Okay, I looked up "for such a worm as I". It's "for someone such as I". I can't remember others off hand, but I do notice them occasionally when we're singing a hymn. There was one in one of the Easter hymns we sang--I noticed because I was blaring words different than everyone else!

I don't have a hymnal with me right now, but I'll try to get a couple more examples later.

(This particular hymnal changes many of the gender terms, too, BTW.)

 

Jesus Loves SOME of the little children
SOME OF the little children of the world
Red, brown, yellow, black and white
SOME are precious in HIS sight
Jesus Loves SOME of the children of the world.


Oh how He loves some of us
Oh how He loves some of us
He gave His life
What more could He do
Oh how He love this one
Oh how He doesn't love that one
Oh how He loves some of us.

 

never? Not even once JohnB?

 

This is the first bit of good theology I've heard from you in a long time Diane. lol.

Of a truth, I should hope Christ loves his bride more than the whoreish unbelievers. What kind of husband would he be?