"I don’t care if it gives you tears or goosebumps, the question that matters is, ‘Is it true?’”

4103 reads

There are 19 Comments

Mike Harding's picture

When folks leave the service they are humming the songs not the sermons.  This article makes a good point, poetic license not withstanding.

Pastor Mike Harding

DavidO's picture

Obviously, a song's text must be true, but true is not enough; it must be more than that.

ChrisC's picture

which is true? uhmm… both?

anyway, how many people are singing this song from a hymnbook? wouldn't it largely come from a screen?

words get substituted all the time. how many people have substituted "Christian" in "O Zion, Haste" without even knowing it had anything to do with amillennialism?

looks like lifeway chopped out a bunch of hymns a few years back too:

Dave Gilbert's picture

One thing I've noticed in the last 30 years or so, is the increasing number of denominations and churches that are choosing to downplay the things in God's word that shows He is to be feared, and up-play His love.

 

From what I gather, PCUSA is one of the denominations that has already slipped into apostasy in quite a number of ways, including ordaining women as pastors and allowing them to teach congregations despite God's commandment to the contrary ( 1 Timothy 2:8-15 )...it also ordains homosexual ministers, baptizes infants, performs "same sex unions, " and has this result of a recent survey : “One in eight members (14 percent) and ruling elders (15 percent) but fewer teaching elders (pastors, 6 percent; specialized ministers, 2 percent) believe the Bible is to be taken literally word for word".

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that an apostate denomination would be willing to "tone down" God's wrath in favor of His love...but without His wrath, from what are we saved? ( 2 Corinthians 5:11 )

JohnBrian's picture

Dave Gilbert wrote:

...ordaining women as pastors and allowing them to teach congregations despite God's commandment to the contrary ( 1 Timothy 2:8-15 )...it also ordains homosexual ministers, baptizes infants, performs "same sex unions, " 

some things are not the same, and paedobaptism doesn't fit with the others you list!

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Dave Gilbert's picture

The reason I listed all of them, is the fact that if PCUSA were following Scripture, they wouldn't baptize infants anymore than they would ordain people who are living in sexual sin....would they?

 

On the subject of infant baptism, so does the Roman Catholic Church. Apostate? I believe so, just apostate from further back in history, IMO. I'm not sure I understand your objection, sir.

 

Is not apostasy characterized by departure from Scripture? That was the intent of my listing these things.

JohnBrian's picture

Dave Gilbert wrote:

The reason I listed all of them, is the fact that if PCUSA were following Scripture, they wouldn't baptize infants anymore than they would ordain people who are living in sexual sin....would they?

I am a Baptist and the PCUSA is a liberal denomination.

With both of those out of the way, let me state that paedobaptism is not sin nor apostasy, and therefore does not belong in a list that includes sin and apostasy.

There are a number of conservative Presbyterian groups: PCA, ARP, Bible to list a few.

As Presbyterians, they practice covenant baptism, because they believe that is the correct form.

To suggest that they are not "following Scripture" because you hold to a different form, is to show your lack of understanding of their position, and a lack of charity to your brothers in Christ,

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Larry's picture

Moderator

The reason I listed all of them, is the fact that if PCUSA were following Scripture, they wouldn't baptize infants anymore than they would ordain people who are living in sexual sin....would they?

That's not actually true, Dave. Baptizing infants isn't actually sin. It's the failure to baptize believers that is sin. It is true that the theology behind Presbyterian infant baptism is faulty theology. But in truth, it is very similar to what Baptists do in baby dedication (which I call baby dry cleaning). In the list of things wrong in the PCUSA, baptizing babies is pretty far down the list.

In addition, infant baptism for the Roman Catholic Church is something entirely different than infant baptism in the Presbyterian church. Failure to make these distinctions is something akin to bearing false witness. It misleads people concerning the actual distinctions.

We should take care that we properly represent those who disagree with us.

Mike Harding's picture

Larry, how much do you charge for dry cleaning?  I charge extra for heavy starch.

Pastor Mike Harding

Dave Gilbert's picture

I get your point.

To me, any willful, consistent error in departing from Scripture ( if a person or group of people have been shown the error via the Bible ) is heresy ( Titus 3:10 ), and those that practice such deviations are apostate. Infant baptism practiced by any group naming the name of Christ is adding to Scripture, IMO, at least in practice....therefore I would not fellowship with them. Whether or not it represents the same thing in the Presbyterian Church as it does in the Roman Catholic Church means little to me, but apparently it is a big difference.

 

JohnBrian: I was once a Baptist of the fundamental, independent type. I no longer consider myself as such, mainly because they don't teach election properly. Now, from what I understand of Presbyterian infant baptism, it appears to be just ceremonial in nature...but I still don't believe it's Scriptural. Reason: I just did a little reading, and it appears to me that Presbyterians practice this similar to Israel practicing circumcision with male children..as a reflection of God's covenant with the Jewish people. One problem with this outlook, however, is the fact that God's new covenant is based on faith in Christ via the Holy Spirit...God makes a covenant with the believer, and infants are not capable of believing. I'll leave that one alone for now, however.

 

Larry: Agreed. I stand corrected...I really should take more care that I treat others graciously, while at the same time standing for the truth of Scripture.

 

Now, back to the matter at hand: It doesn't surprise me that the PCUSA is changing this hymn the way they are. Smile

Bert Baker's picture

 

Why would I not be a fundamentalist?  Even if some have given it a bad public connotation, does not mean  I should cease believing and practiicg the fundamentals of the Holy Scriptures

which live and abide forever.

Because I do believe the fundamentals of Holy Scriptures, I am totally unashamed to be a Bible believing fundamentalist who happens to believe Baptists were given that label by those who

hated them or named them that because of their stand on baptism.

When I accepted the fact that I am a Baptist doctrinally,  I never looked back regardless of what others thought.  I cannot stand the thought of being or not being true to Holy Scripture from

my understanding because another mortal flesh told me to be or not to be or because it is or isn't politically correct in the religious sense, or just to attract people.

The truth is,  and we all know this, sprinkling IS NOT a Bible command.  Baptism is a Bible command. I understand Covenant Theology believes this as a covering until the age of accountability. I do not agree with that,

but must allow room for those who do believe that.

By the way, the only age I know of mentioned in Holy Scripture on age for accountability is twenty. Nu. 14:29.  Does anyone else know of a Bible number?

Even if I do not see the same from Scripture as does another, I respect them for being true to God's Word if that is what it is.  I came from a broken home, saved during that time,  Grew in God's

Word with no one to teach me.  Read in the Bible that when people were saved, they were baptized.  So I told my Mother and Step Dad, I wanted to be baptized.  In our Congregational Church, at age 11,

I was sprinkled along with about three or four babies. That is all I knew at the time, but was true to what I could grasp from Holy Scripture.

At age seventeen, found out what the Greek word for baptize is, then got immersed.  All because I was given truth of Scripture.  Just believe, obey and enjoy.

Do you believe and practice Bible Fundamentals?  If so, why would you not call yourself a "Bible Fundamentalist"?  Never allow someone else to dictate to you who you should be.  That work belongs to the

One Who works in you to make you whom you should be.

Enjoyed Mike Harding's comments.

 

In Christ,

Bert Baker  Ex. 15:2

Ron Bean's picture

I remember the first time I encountered the Baptist Bride doctrine. It may have been replaced by Baptist Pride.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Dave Gilbert's picture

I find it interesting that, in regards to my first post, nobody commented or speculated on why the PCUSA might be interested in taking out a reference to God's wrath, and replacing it with a reference to God's love, and instead focused on what I said about infant baptism...strange. Smile

JohnBrian's picture

Larry wrote:
...it is very similar to what Baptists do in baby dedication (which I call baby dry cleaning).
Exactly my impression the first time I observed a baby baptism. Told my wife that it was identical to all of the baby dedications I had observed my dad do, minus the water!

DaveGilbert wrote:
any willful, consistent error in departing from Scripture ( if a person or group of people have been shown the error via the Bible ) is heresy ( Titus 3:10 ), and those that practice such deviations are apostate.

Theopedia defines apostasy thusly:

Quote:
Apostasy is what one commits when they denounce, reject, or fall away from their faith.

and heresy as:

Quote:
...is a teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation.

Paedobaptism is neither! It is just a different form of baptism.

The dirty little secret is that Baptists baptize many unbelievers as well, unless one is going to insist that all those who profess faith, actually possess faith, which seems to go against Matt. 7:21.

BertBaker wrote:
I understand Covenant Theology believes this as a covering until the age of accountability. I do not agree with that, but must allow room for those who do believe that.

Exactly! There's enough room in the kingdom for both views and when we are together in eternity it will no longer matter.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Dave Gilbert's picture

A reflection of the scriptural understanding of those singing them, or just those who wrote them? Are hymns written with the intent of glorifying God, who can only be worshipped in spirit and in truth, or accommodating the greatest number of professing believers ( and all their many differences ) as possible? Depends on your point of view I suspect. I've already discovered one point in which a few people here do not share my perspective, how many more? Wink

 

One question I have to always ask myself...is my perspective Scriptural, or is it still incomplete? Would I sing a hymn to God, whom I know and trust because of His word, that was written by a heretic? I think so...it depends on what is written in the hymn. If it disagrees with Scripture, then I will not. Would I seek to change one because it does not agree with my understanding of Scripture? No.

 

Dave.

BobPatterson's picture

A very popular hymn in my church  is My Jesus Fair, which includes the phrase "That God should die for men".  It's a beautiful hymn and I love singing it, but this one phrase causes me great grief.  Poetic license notwithstanding, I find it difficult, however, to sing about God dying.  He is Immortal, and as such can not die.

So when we get to that phrase, I just sing out "That Christ should die for men".

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Bob,

Was/is Christ God? Same difference.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Dave Gilbert's picture

And there are many Scriptures to back up the fact that Jesus is/was God in the flesh... I say "was", because He now has a glorified body, not really flesh and blood, but different than our current ones. Not sure why that would make you feel especially uncomfortable Mr. Patterson, but it doesn't make me uncomfortable, it makes me joy in the truth:

 

Acts 20:28," Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Or this one:

 

1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Somewhere in there the passage doesn't mention the death, burial and resurrection, but then there are more passages to help fill in the rest. I remember some things I used to be uncomfortable about, disappearing as I began to see them in the Bible more and more; I'd say give it time.  Smile