Hymn of the day

by Richard on July 27, 2008

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy
like the wideness of the sea;
there’s a kindness in his justice,
which is more than liberty.

There is plentiful redemption
in the blood that has been shed;
there is joy for all the members
in the sorrows of the Head.

There is grace enough for thousands
Of new worlds as great as this;
There is room for fresh creations
in that upper home of bliss.

For the love of God is broader
than the measure of man’s mind;
and the heart of the Eternal
is most wonderfully kind.

But we make his love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify his strictness
With a zeal he will not own.

If our love were but more simple,
we should take him at his word;
and our lives would be illumined
By the presence of our Lord.

Frederick William Faber (alt.)

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

1

Kim 07.27.08 at 10:13 pm

Great hymn, expressing a universalism of hope as much as any in English hymnody. The original actually contains twelve verses. Here is the third:

It is God: his love looks mighty,
but is mightier than it seems:
’tis our Father: and his fondness
goes far out beyond our dreams.

And here is the eleventh:

‘Tis not all we owe to Jesus;
it is something more than all;
greater good because of evil,
larger mercy through the fall.

Thanks, Richard!

2

dh 07.28.08 at 3:21 pm

love includes not condoning sin or allowing into His Kingdom those who have throughout their life rejected Christ to their deathbed (unless they repent, accept Christ, etc.). It isn’t man saying that those in the Kingdom are those who accept Christ as their Savior. Didn’t Jesus, I repeat Jesus, say “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” or “Except a man be Born Again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”? How can He not own to something that He specifically said being that He is a God and He does what He says?

3

Kim 07.28.08 at 4:38 pm

I just love your oracular understanding of revelation, DH, and the way you reduce the personhood of Christ, which transcends any human capacity fully to apprehend, to a catalogue of facts.

4

dh 07.28.08 at 7:20 pm

Kim, did I mention Revelation? I don’t think I even mentioned directly or even indirectly Revelation. Am I reducing the personhood of Christ to facts when Scripture states specifically something that contradicts ones view of universalism which in fact Scripture does not support? Even Jesus mentions (not in Revelation) “Lord, haven’t we done these mighty deeds, prophesied in your name, did miracles in your name?” “In that day I will say depart from Me I never knew you.” It it does “trancend one ability to understand” then why would Jesus say these things which clearly state the specifics that contradict universalism? It seems to me when one looks at ALL of Scripture Universalism is not support except for the idea that God’s message is made available to all but entered into by ones Faith in Him.

5

Kim 07.29.08 at 4:54 am

r, not R.

6

Richard 07.29.08 at 10:30 am

Are you being a pain in the r’s, Kim?

7

dh 07.29.08 at 2:48 pm

Thanks Richard. The implication being. Why focus on “capitalization” and take away from the point of the message.

Richard while Kim may be a pain in the r’s, I need prayer. I have a pain in the “a”. In my reply on 3:21pm I placed an a in front of God when God is not “a” God but the One true God. Pray for my pain in the a. :)

8

Kim 07.30.08 at 3:56 am

DH, it sounds like you need some Preparation h - or rather H. :)

9

Richard 07.30.08 at 9:42 am

I wonder if pursuing this thread is YYY…

10

dh 07.30.08 at 6:02 pm

I agree Richard “why, why why”. However, it is kind of bad that the thread is “held hostage” just because someone is focusing on capitalization as opposed to seeing value, rationale, etc. to be consistent what God and Christ are saying in His Word.

It is kind of sad when a person like myself points out things that God specifically says in His Word and ignores it due to capitalization. Reminds me of the parable of the seed.

I have some additional thoughts but I really can’t relay them when I’m being ignored.

11

Richard 07.30.08 at 7:02 pm

You’re not being ignored, DH. Kim was talking about revelation (“the disclosure of knowledge by a divine or supernatural agency”) and you introduced Revelation, which from the context of what you said I assumed to mean the NT book. What ensued is a bit of light-hearted silliness, with no harm to anyone intended.

I can’t respond to the substance of what you said because I didn’t understand it…

12

dh 07.30.08 at 7:57 pm

Richard, I mentioned Revelation in relation to Kim because the phrasing of the 4:38pm reply was ambiguous between the book and the definition which Kim finally mentioned. Also, I only mentioned the book when I thought, understandably, that Kim was referring to the book of Revelation when in fact he wasn’t. Also, the Scriptures I mentioned were NOT from Revelation nor the context of my first reply was directly in reference to Revelation.

Richard, I would be interested in knowing where you don’t understand my statements. I was specifically pointing out the fallacy of Universalism under Kim’s context and using Scripture thatmakes very clear how Salvation is not universal but is made available in a universal way.

Here is the substance:
“Didn’t Jesus, I repeat Jesus, say “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” or “Except a man be Born Again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”? How can He not own up to something that He specifically said, being that He is a God and He does what He says?”Even Jesus mentions (not in Revelation) “Lord, haven’t we done these mighty deeds, prophesied in your name, did miracles in your name?” “In that day I will say depart from Me I never knew you.” If it does “trancends one ability to understand” then why would Jesus say these things which clearly state the specifics that contradict universalism?” Also I believe all revelation from God will be consistent with God’s Word. That isn’t “reducing revelation to facts” but understanding how God is always consistent with what He says. That is if I understand what Kim is saying.

13

dh 07.30.08 at 8:00 pm

Richard, I the conversation was really funny about the “r’s”, “a’s”, etc. :) I thought it might be good to go back to the point of the relies and thread. I don’t want to give the indication that I took what ensued as being overly harsh because I understand it wasn’t. Sorry for the possible misunderstanding caused from my part in the relaying of my true emotions. :)

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>