The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Miscellaneous questions

There were a number of things that concerned me at the church my wife and I attended last Sunday. I thought I would collect them in one post.

1. One of the songs we sang during the service had a line to the effect (not exact words)

"He paid our debt so that we could become his righteousness"

This struck me as completely backwards. Does not Christ become our righteousness? Or more appropriately, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

2. Another song we sang was written in the first person where the first person was Christ, e.g. (again not exact words),

"I came to die for you, I came to save you"

Is it appropriate for a hymn to be written in the first person where Christ/God is the first person? The more I think about it, the more I disagree with it. It seems songs/hymns like this are becoming more common.

3. The sermon text was 1 Cor. 7. On verse 18


the pastor made the comment that to become uncircumcised was a medical procedure in the 1st century where circumcised people could physically have the foreskin restored. I have never heard this before. I always thought the proper interpretation was circumcised=Jews and uncircumcised=Gentiles. So, to be uncircumcised would mean to turn your back on your Jewish heritage or to leave Judaism. Is the pastor correct in his interpretation?

John

Methinks at best the wording is poor although it probably goes far beyond that. Today, theological accuracy (true to biblical teaching) is not a priority apparently. 2Cor 5:21b says, "...that we might become the righteousness of God in him.", which is a far cry from "...we could become his righteousness."

Unless the words are a direct quote or a very accurate paraphrase of that which God spoke, I believe this qualifies as a violation of Rev 22:18, 19 (adding to or taking away from Scripture). Additionally, the phrase is theologically wrong if used as a universal application of Christ's death and atonement. If Christ actually died for everyone and if it was His purpose to save everyone, then ALL without exception would be infallibly saved.

Perhaps you should offer to preach in this pastor's place? Your understanding of Scripture, at least on this particular passage, is far better than his. And, I seriously doubt that physicians of the 1^st century had the knowledge, skills nor surgical tools to accomplish "uncircumcision". Admittedly, the idea he had was novel but I think hardly what the Spirit of God intended when He inspired Paul to write that passage.

Okay, 3 strikes and they're out!

John, perhaps not completely in line with your question but I think related to: one thing I noticed around here, is how easy many people would say "Jesus gave his life for me" or "Jesus died for me" or "Jesus saved me". Of course, such statements are correct and we should also be making such statements. But what worries me is that it seems as if it has become an easy thing to say without realizing what the REAL meaning of such phrases is. Also, if one takes the context in which people sometimes say these words, I just can't do otherwise than wondering whether they really understand the depth of such statements. The impression I get is that these statements are sometimes made almost in the same sense as when someone says that "our soldiers gave their lives for us" in battle. I don't say that when people make these statements that they are not serious. It is just the whole context in which the above statements sometimes are being made that makes me wonder.

In Mark 8:27 we read about Jesus asking his disciples: "Who do the people say I am?". But he also asks them: "But who do you say I am?" Clearly, people can have different views of Jesus and some can be wrong. And that can filter through to songs.

My opinion is that when we say things like "Jesus saved me" or "Jesus died for me" we have to understand and keep in mind what it really means. We have to remember Peter's confession: "You are the Messiah of God". What a deep statement this is: In it we confess our guilt before God because if we had no guilt there would not have been the need for a Messiah. God's whole salvation plan is contained in this confession.

Back to the songs. With what I have said above, I would feel more at ease if the words you refer to were not in the first person, but were phrased more like a confession or a proclamation of the work of Jesus in God's glorious salvation plan. Let's stick to the examples given to us in Scripture, eg. Rev.7:10 "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" or Rev.19:6-8: Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."


Johan

Just to verify,

"...that we might become the righteousness of God in him"

is still implying that we become the righteousness of God because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. So even 2 Cor 5:21b shows (to me) that the song has it backwards.


I agree that a quote (or possibly a paraphrase) would be ok, but, in this song, that was not the case. I am not sure if the song was trying to say that Christ's death and atonement have universal application. I know the church does not agree with unlimited atonement, but their doesn't seem to be very good oversight in their worship song selection.


I have been thinking that myself. There are so many aspects of this particular church that I like and that I think are Biblical, but these things keep occurring with too much regularity for comfort.

John

I agree that as Christians we far too often say things that, when we truly examine our lives, we find that we are not living them out. I find myself often praying that God would change all the "head" knowledge I have into "heart" knowledge. I don't mean however to imply that doctrine is unimportant.

John