-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Doctrine of Grace/Calvinisim In Hymns and Songs
- Thread starter Jarthur001
- Start date
- Status
In other words, you are saying the Lord (isn't Jesus the Lord?) started Calvinism? I agree with webdog on this one...it is a blasphemous statement. How can the Lord Jesus Christ follow something that never existed in the first place?Rippon said:
My Bible doesn't even have the name Calvin in it...it doesn't say "In the beginning God created "Calvinism"...It says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1). Although the Bible mentions the name "John", there is no mention of him having the last name of Calvin.
Good grief, folks. It should be as clear as the driven snow what rippon meant.
When he said "The Lord started Calvinism" he obviously meant that he believes that God, in the scriptures, initiated the docrine now known as Calvinism.
So why not argue against his point instead of pretending that you are oblivious to what he meant???
Sheeeesh.
Mike
When he said "The Lord started Calvinism" he obviously meant that he believes that God, in the scriptures, initiated the docrine now known as Calvinism.
So why not argue against his point instead of pretending that you are oblivious to what he meant???
Sheeeesh.
Mike
Back to the OP.
My church uses the 1991 Baptist Hymnal.
There are a multitude of songs in it that have been changed to modify the Calvinism in the original version.
Example - Hymn #300 Without Him - written by Myron R. LeFevre in 1945.
The chorus goes like this in the new version.
Jesus, O Jesus
Do you know him today?
Do not turn Him away. (the original line read "You Can't Turn Him Away)
O Jesus, O Jesus
Without Him,
How lost I would be.
That replacement of two words changed the songwriter's message.
Another example is "At the Cross"
First Stanza goes like this in the new version.
Alas and did my Savior bleed
And did my sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
For sinners such as I? (some even say, "for such a one as I)
Original reads,
Alas and did my Savior bleed
And did my sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
Worm describes Total Depravity better than a sinner like me. The new wording is a movement toward relativism rather than Biblical truth. Isaac Watts would turn over in his grave if he knew what they've done to his words.
Those are just two examples about how man centered Newer Baptist Hymnals are becoming.
My church uses the 1991 Baptist Hymnal.
There are a multitude of songs in it that have been changed to modify the Calvinism in the original version.
Example - Hymn #300 Without Him - written by Myron R. LeFevre in 1945.
The chorus goes like this in the new version.
Jesus, O Jesus
Do you know him today?
Do not turn Him away. (the original line read "You Can't Turn Him Away)
O Jesus, O Jesus
Without Him,
How lost I would be.
That replacement of two words changed the songwriter's message.
Another example is "At the Cross"
First Stanza goes like this in the new version.
Alas and did my Savior bleed
And did my sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
For sinners such as I? (some even say, "for such a one as I)
Original reads,
Alas and did my Savior bleed
And did my sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
Worm describes Total Depravity better than a sinner like me. The new wording is a movement toward relativism rather than Biblical truth. Isaac Watts would turn over in his grave if he knew what they've done to his words.
Those are just two examples about how man centered Newer Baptist Hymnals are becoming.
Jarthur001
Active Member
webdog said:
Oh brothers.....:BangHead: :BangHead:
If you can't understand the post, don't blame the poster.
How many [Veiled curse word removed] times have you been told that Calvinism is but the nickname for the GOSPEL!!!!!
Do you now deny every hearing this? You webdog...that spends so much time debating this and trying your best to understand, yet cannot get it after all these years, blames others for your lack of understanding and logic.
I know you have heard it. I have seen post on threads you have posted on. Yet you claim rippon follows John Calvin? :BangHead:
[Removal of personal attack in violation of BB Posting Rules 3 & 4.]
The point could be no clearer. People like you, those that hate Calvinism are the ones that gave Calvinism its name. If we that believe the doctrines call it anything else like the "doctrines of grace", just as the name of the thread is called, we are still called Calvinist.
I have also been blamed by others of trying to hid and trick people when I use "doctrines of Grace" for it is really Calvinism.
I have been nearly hung for calling Calvinism the gospel.
When Rippon used the very label that you Calvin haters came up with because just as you the inventors had their own lack of understanding for they think we follow John Calvin just as you said above, when the real meaning of doctrines of grace/ the gospel is meant, [Removal of personal attack in violation of BB Posting Rules 3 & 4].
This reminds me of those that do not believe in the Trinity, saying it too was man made doctrine. They base this on the fact that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Well folks the label "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, but the logic Trinity haters hold is worthless. Logic and understanding cannot be found in people that think like this.
The fact is truth does not start when man labels something. The Trinity was there before man found it and labeled the truth. Like wise, the doctrines of the gospel of God were there before Paul wrote them and before Calvin wrote OF them and before John Calvin haters labeled them Calvinism.
The doctrines if you like it or not are from God. They are supported through out the Bible. The reformers said that grace can be found on each page of the Bible. I have found this is true
[Moderator Warning: The is a family oriented site and you are not allowed to use veiled curse words in your posts. Likewise, the BB Posting Rules require you to show grace to your fellow posters (rule 3) and prohibit you from making personal attacks (rule 4). This is your official warning. If you continue to post in this same fashion you will face a 10 day suspension from the BB Administrative Council]
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
I rest my case.Linda64 said:
:tear:
It is unbelievable that Baptists who can read and write and type cannot have a debate that allows for interchange of ideas without acrimony and accusations of blasphemy and heresy.
All Calvinists I know believe that "Calvinism" preceded John Calvin and even Augustine and Paul.
"Calvinism" is the inconvenient name that was chosen not by any of us or even Calvin himself but by debaters centuries ago to describe these Biblical doctrines.
You people need to get a life! You are shooting the wrong enemy!
All Calvinists I know believe that "Calvinism" preceded John Calvin and even Augustine and Paul.
"Calvinism" is the inconvenient name that was chosen not by any of us or even Calvin himself but by debaters centuries ago to describe these Biblical doctrines.
You people need to get a life! You are shooting the wrong enemy!
"oblivious to what he meant"? I'm sorry, but I'm not ignorant...I know exactly what he meant.D28guy said:
He is equating the Gospel (which is immutable truth) to calvinism (which is NOT immutable truth). To say that our Lord "started something" anything less than pure truth is blasphemy and heresy. It's nothing more than arrogance to think our theology is on par with Christ's.
Want proof?
I don't care who gets offended or flames me, this is [Removed heated rhetoric]!!!!!!!!!jarthur said:
Supply the quote...retract...or be labeled a liar.jarthur said:
Now you are accusing me of being a murderer, James...unjustly I may add? This is not hate speech?jarthur said:
I do not hate calvin...I do not hate calvinists. I'm tired of being told by you James that I do. I hate that which is NOT truth. Many aspects of calvinism is not truth...and the doctrine as a whole is not truth. Quit pretending your theology is Christ's...it's far from it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001 said:
Please take note of the warning in the above quoted post. Violation of the BB Posting Rules will not be allowed (this goes for those on both sides of this debate). If one poster makes a personal attack against you, you are not free to respond in like fashion. You must report the bad post and wait for the BB Mods to deal with the issue.
Bible-boy,
Forum Moderator
While unlike webdog I do not hold the above quote as blasphemous, I do hold it to be a false teaching. Your Soveriegn Grace Doctrines are no different that another mans attempt to understand the word of God and thus forms your SGD theology.Jarthur001 said:
It is NOT the Gospel nor is it a nickname FOR the gospel.
The Gospel has a name and needs no nickname from us - it is Jesus
But I will agree it is a nickname for a theological view regarding how they see the scriptures unfolding. You know that I agree with some of them, or is it that you agree with some of my views theologically. The 'truth' is it doesn't matter who was right first but that we both hold to that which is right.
No, those doctrines are not from God. The truths that by which those doctrines were postulated are from God. They can be seen in scripture through a certain theological view and the same can be said of the Non-Cal view.
Those 'doctrines' are derived by and through mans understanding God's word. You clain your theolgoy goes back the Paul and to Christ, well so does the Non-Cal; so who is right and who determines this??
You particular view of these doctrines have not been indisputably proven to be found through out the bible but in fact have been shown to be inaccurate regarding certain acpects and certain doctrinal views. PLease note: I am not saying everything about your view is inaccurate (you should know this by now) but there are some parts which IMO are and I base that opinion just like you, on the Word.
These doctrines of yours are not listed along side the other immutable truths that all believers hold dear because they are indisputable; like dieity of Christ, virgin birth, Trinity, Salvation by grace through faith, et..
I also agree with the Reformers who stated that "grace can be found on each page of the bible" but that is grace, not your theological view of the soveriegn doctrines of grace. They are not one and the same just as it is not one and the same with the gospel.
Last edited by a moderator:
reformedbeliever
New Member
Allan said:
Where are your facts Allan? And whos opinion is it that they have been shown to be inaccurate time and time again? Please show us the inaccuracies you speak of. Thanks bro.
Facts?reformedbeliever said:
Fact 1.
The fact that the early church did not specifically espouse it nor was it articulated into a dominant view until 500 years laters via Augustine. I'm not saying it wasn't a view till then but it wasn't a dominant or common view held by the Church till then.
Fact 2.
The Sovreign grace doctrines have never been proven to be among the immutable truths of scriptures as a whole. There are some aspects of it, yes, but I am refering to the whole theological system. Niether has my view by the way. Yet we both agree as does all true beleivers in the immutable truths.
Fact 3.
No theological view is without error thus it will always be found to have inaccuraies in it
Who's opinion??
The fact the Church as whole has never accepted this theological system of views as immutable truths. It has accepted the deity of Christ, virgin birth, Second coming of Christ, Salvation in Christ alone, saved by grace through faith, et... but it has not accepted yours nor my theolgical views as immutable. Aspects, yes. But not the whole system.
That was my point Reformed, both sides can contend theirs is the truth but the fact is both sides must admit the tension that exist in the scripture against their view and therefore neither is immutable or absolutely correct.
The specific inaccuracies?
There is no need to go where you know it leads. It is the same agrument that has lasted for centuries. Where I see no inaccuracies in my view, you do based upon your understanding of scripture and vise versa. The inaccuracies are more in line with the debated topics than personally held views by which we see no inaccuracies. Thus I do not claim infaliblity nor do I claim my view is such and I doubt you do either.
Last edited by a moderator:
reformedbeliever
New Member
Well brother, respectfully, I do not find the "facts" as you have presented them to be facts. Facts are easily verifiable. I think you have even modified your previous statement to include that your system is not without error also. That is enough for me. Your original statement seemed to say that your system is factual and mine is not. Thanks brother... and don't bother proving your facts... you don't have to do that for me. God bless you.Allan said:
edited to add. It seems that your theological system Allan is very clost to mine. What part of "my" theology do you not agree?
Yes, they are. Which is why I gave what I gavereformedbeliever said:
If they can not be proven then they are not facts, right?No, I didn't modify it. The comment was made that Sovereign Grace Doctrines were a nickname for the gospel and the statement I made was refering to my point " The truths by which those doctrines were postulated are from God." and thus even his theological system has inaccuracies in it. It could have been worded better after I reread it, but I was not contending mine was perfect and his was not.
You know, the usual. Those same things you and I have been debating for almost a year now.
Of the 5 basic points - Irresistable grace, Limited Atonment, and only half of the view (unconditional election) Mostly that involves the mechanics and not so much the view.
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW...while Allan would not consider Rippon's comments blasphemy, [removed heated rhetoric] From dictionary.com...
"impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things."
"the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God."
"irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.:"
"impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things."
"the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God."
"irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.:"
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status