Saturday, November 6, 2010

Jesus Loves Some of the Children (A Calvinist Children's Song)


Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
But even children are depraved
That is why they misbehave
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (1)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
Every child deserves his wrath
But some he sets on heaven's path
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (2)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
He died for some, yes that is true
But only those that he foreknew
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (3)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
Those he calls will come to him
If your not called your future is grim
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (4)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
Those he elects will persevere
But those he hates have much to fear
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (5)



Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
All non-elect our Lord God hates
To burn in hell will be their fate
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (6)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
Some will see the pearly gates
But the rest are reprobates
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (7)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
Why only some? I'm glad you asked!
To display the glory of his wrath!
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (8)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
Some he loves and some he hates
That's his choice, for he is great
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (9)

Jesus loves some of the children
Some of the children of the world
His sovereign will, who can resist?
Don't question God or he'll be [ticked]! (10)
Jesus loves some of the children of the world (11)


(1) Total Depravity
(2) Unconditional Election
(3) Limited Atonement
(4) Irrestible Grace
(5) Perseverance of the Saints
(6) Reprobation
(7) Double Predestination
(8) Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9:22-23
(9) God's sovereign choice and God's glory
(10) There is another word that fits quite nicely here, but I have omitted in order not to offend anyone's conscience. The word can be found in the following scripture passages: 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8; 18:27; Isaiah 36:12 (KJV).
(11) Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9:14-21



Authored by Joshua Taylor, and reposted here!

21 comments:

JD said...

Well it sure is a harsh song. But, it's all true if Calvinism is true, so I like it!

Plus, the end made me do some research and wow did it make me think modern Bibles are way too cleaned up! For I had never seen the referenced word in the Bible before. And I must say, the KJV wording seems much more real and likely.

Peter Pike said...

Winning the hearts of Calvinists everywhere, eh?

Skarlet said...

Always :) It's my destiny!

Peter Pike said...

Of course, you can make anything seem sufficiently bad if you frame it that way. What would you do if you read these headlines:

God kills innocent man rather than punish murderers, adulterers, child molestors; Omnipotent being still claims to be "righteous judge"!

Witnesses: Hours before death, drops of blood like sweat from innocent man's brow as he pleads "Take this cup from me!"

In garden, God refuses to listen to own Son's prayer; still expects you to believe He will listen to yours.

Omnipotent being promises never to forsake you; forsakes own Son!


As should be clearly evident, it is trivially easy to be unfair to a view, even while speaking truth.

Skarlet said...

Peter, well said.

Yet, while I would agree that one can make good sound bad, when phrased in a certain light, I do not think that it proves that everything that sounds bad is really good.

Any system which propagates a "dark side" of God would, but of course, wish to keep all attention on the "light side." Even salesman try to sell things by keeping the focus "correctly" on the benefits and not the pages of life-threatening fine print.

In other words, some things that sound bad aren't bad. But some things that sound bad actually are.

Kuzco: When will you learn that all my ideas are good ones?

Pacha: Well, that's funny. Because I thought that you going into the jungle by yourself, being chased by jaguars, and lying to me to take you back to the palace were all really *bad* ideas.

Kuzco: Oh, yeah, well Anything sounds bad when you say it with that attitude!

Skarlet said...

Similarly, truth is often hard to swallow, but that does not mean that everything hard to swallow is truth.

Peter Pike said...

Skarlet said:
---
Any system which propagates a "dark side" of God would, but of course, wish to keep all attention on the "light side."
---

Which is exactly what the atheist will say about Christianity.

What makes the song unfair to Calvinists is that it presumes to speak for Calvinists when it is an *ARMINIAN* (mis)understanding of Calvinism that fuels the entire thing.

You have to agree that any person knowledgeable in the debate between Arminians and Calvinists, who stumbled upon this song in a random search, would know instantly that it was written by an Arminian! It would be just like if I put the headlines I wrote about Christianity on a blog without any more context to explain why I wrote them--everyone who stumbled upon that site would assume it was written by a non-Christian because Christians don't talk the way I summarized Christian views. And Calvinists don't talk the way this song summarizes our views either.

You said:
---
Even salesman try to sell things by keeping the focus "correctly" on the benefits and not the pages of life-threatening fine print.
---

Yes, and debunkers keep the focus on the perceived deteriments without ever allow you to see the benefits. "That insurance will cost you $100 a month. Money you will no longer be able to use for food! Do you really want to lose out on food just to lower a hospital bill later on?"

It's not like salesmen only go one direction. They pitch all the bad things about their opposition's products too.

Skarlet said...

Peter, you say correctly salesman point out only the downsides of their rival's products, but this is not a produce. This is about God, and God is perfect -- there is nothing to hide!

If there is a part of your doctrine that you feel you have to hide in order to "sell" it, then something is very wrong.

The atheist may say what they want, but Arminianism does not teach that there is any dark side to God, but rather teaches that God is a God of light which radiates in Love and Holiness toward ALL people. No shadow of turning.

"Calvinists don't talk the way this song summarizes our views either."

They may not talk this way (to keep it positive), but at what point does the song actually contradict Calvinist theology?

If the best complaint that can be leveled against the song is that the focus is wrong (it should be focusing on what God does for the elect, and the non-elect who are unloved should not be talked about) and "unfair" to a palpable presentation of the doctrine --
then, the moral repulsiveness of the ACTUAL TEACHING still must be dealt with rather than swept under the rug.

Peter Pike said...

Skarlet,

Taht's the reason why I summarized Christianity the way I did. Everything you said about Calvinism can be applied to what I wrote about Christianity. You ask at what point the song contradicts Calvinism. Well, at what point do my "headlines" contradict Christianity? Yet would you say that was an accurate representation of Christianity?

JD said...

Well, I know what I'd do if I saw those kind of headlines, (and this is just my own personal private opinion) I'd have nothing to say but may God be praised, He indeed is wonderful!

Skarlet said...

Peter, I would only call one of the headlines actually false (That the Father refused to listen to His Son's prayer).

I would not say that the headlines were an accurate representation.

The final headline relies on a usage of a word which does not fit the situation.

The second to final headline is false.

The second one implies the lack of the second half of that statement.

The first one is pretty accurate; it just replies on the second statement to imply that righteousness is not what God is doing.

I would not complain if someone posted those headlines about Christianity, as it would give opportunity for discussion. If they truly think that's the most important part of the picture, then they can focus on that.

I would be able to show them where their theories are wrong. God did not forsake Jesus in the American sense of the Word, did not ignore His prayer, Jesus wanted to die more than He wanted the cup to be taken away from Him, and substitutionary atonement is just with the addition of regeneration.

So again, if the best complaint that can be leveled against the song is that the focus is wrong (it should be focusing on what God does for the elect, and the non-elect who are unloved should not be talked about) and "unfair" to a palpable presentation of the doctrine --

then, the moral repulsiveness of the ACTUAL TEACHING still must be dealt with rather than swept under the rug.

Peter Pike said...

JD,

So if someone were to say, "I can't possibly believe in a God who was so evil as to execute an innocent man after the man bled drops of blood like sweat *PLEADING* that God not kill him" you wouldn't say, "Hey, wait a second, you're leaving out a few important details there"? You wouldn't at all object to an atheist framing it that way to justify not believing Christianity?

I agree with you that God is to be praised for all things surrounding the Gospel. I agree that there is nothing to fear about the truth of Christianity.

But I would disagree with an atheist who'd frame the issue in such a manner, and I would object to him using this characterization if his attempt was to convince Christians to abandon Christianity.

For the record, I'm not upset with Skarlet, nor do I think she shouldn't have posted this. I read it as Arminian bravado. That is, this post was a post for her Arminian friends. Nothing wrong with that.

Just realize that you're not going to convince a single Calvinist with this sort of thing. That's the point of my first comment. The rest is just to show why.

Skarlet said...

Peter, this post was not posted for my Arminian friends. You are right that this post does not attempt to logically or Biblically dismantle Calvinism itself; that is not its purpose.

I realize that shock value of God (who IS love) not loving people has no effect on those who are hard core Calvinists.

However, it is good for starting good conversations which can delve deep into the topic to either explain why God not loving people is fine, or how God not loving people is unscriptural.

JD said...

Peter,
As to the framing of it that way, I would, of course, disagree. And I don't agree with the examples you provided, of course you realize I was being sarcastic. But I think you might have missed part of my point (please correct if wrong). Not only do I think those headlines were wrong in characterizations of the situation, I also can see little other way a consistent Calvinian could see the situation. Of course no Calvinian would say they believe the type of stuff coming from the fake headlines, but I was was using my sarcasm to point out my horror at what I see the Calvinian as having (at very least) to believe.

I most certainly knew you were not mad at her.

Peter Pike said...

JD,

If you saw those lyrics online anywhere, not knowing where they came from, would you even for a *second* think a Calvinist wrote it? If not, then that is proof enough that they do not accurately reflect Calvinist thought.

Skarlet,

I don't know how much of a worthwhile discussion you'll get when someone has to continually say, "That's not what Calvinism teaches." If you want in-depth discussion on the issue, I would suggest there are much better ways to get it than by this tactic. But do as you will. It's your blog and all :-P

JD said...

Well, I would not expect to see them at all, but I did I would not think they were serious. But I would immediately conclude they would have to be from a Calvinian, most likely, making fun of Arminians. If, however, I thought them serious, I would think it was some very bizarre, though consistent, Calvinian.

Skarlet said...

Peter, I actually think that it would be a good discussion if a person said "That's not what Calvinism teaches."

You disagree with the presentation, since it does present the politically correct side of Calvinism. But is it not what Calvinism teaches?

"But do as you will. It's your blog and all"

Well, I'll do as God wills me to will to do. :) It's not like I could have chosen *not* to post this blog.

Peter Pike said...

I've already explained the problems I have with the song. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It has nothing to do with political correctness and you well know it. I'd rather not fight you, so have a pleasant evening. I will say no more.

Josh Taylor said...

For the record, I wrote this song first and foremost, because I enjoyed writing it. I didn't really have an agenda one way or another. That is to say, I wasn't under the delusion that this was going to convince a Calvinist to reject Calvinism. I just thought that combining the aspects of Calvinism that are hard to accept with a popular lighthearted Christian children's song would create a satirical contrast that was comical from an non-Calvinist perspective. And in my defense, before I posted the song I showed it to two Calvinist friends of mine who thought it was both funny and accurate in its portrayal of certain aspects of Calvinist teaching. Now, is it one sided? Of course! That is, in part, why it's so funny. But it is still accurate in how it describes those aspect of Calvinism that are the most controversial.

Mark said...

I realize that shock value of God (who IS love) not loving people has no effect on those who are hard core Calvinists.

God cannot be "love" if He is not first and foremost holy. Nor is God divided - He is Unity in all His attributes. A student at LU should know this, and a "hardcore" Calvinist may just be a hardcore follower of God's word and Jesus' example. I don't recall Jesus having much to say to those who thought they needed no "sin doctor". :)

Skarlet said...

Mark, could you not also say that God cannot be "holy" if He is not righteous (and righteousness as defined by the law of Scriptures is to love)? God is not divided - He is Unity in all attributes, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. Therefore, to say that God does not have one of His attributes (of being love) is an incomplete, and even false, proposition.

Hardcore Calvinists ARE followers of God, and loyal to the Word of God, and I respect that -- but all humans are fallible, and I believe their doctrine and interpretation of the Word of God is not true.

We all need a Savior from sin... I don't see the connection between that and the topic. ?

Post a Comment