Galaxy

Photo by Bryan Goff

by Vince Wright | February 7, 2018 | 12:00 pm

Hillsong UNITED is a household name.  Originating from Hillsong Church, which is located in Sydney, Australia, they are a powerhouse in Contemporary Christian Music.  “Hillsong UNITED” is one of four major bands concocted from Hillsong Church.  The other three are Hillsong Worship, Hillsong Young and Free, and Hillsong Kids.

My last review of What a Beautiful Name was very positive.  With such a strong presence in Christian music, and a glowing first review, I have high hopes for their song So Will I (100 Billion X).

Note to new users: This is a different kind of review site!  Read About the Berean Test and Evaluation Criteria prior to reading this review.  I strongly encourage you to consider the potential blessings and dangers of this artist‘s theology by visiting Resources.

1. What message does the song communicate?

God, the self-existent One, the Creator of our universe, does not speak in vain.  The Word of God is so powerful, when He speaks, things happen.  His Creation reveals His nature.  He sacrificed His life so that though it, we could find forgiveness of sins, despite our failure and shame.  He rose again and still lives today!

I will worship, sing praises to, obey, bow in reverence to, and roar greatness of God.  I will go where He sends me, cry out in silence, will surrender my life to Him, and will leave the grave behind (speaking of the final resurrection).

It contains one error within the song’s outro, that Christ would sacrifice Himself over and over again.  While a sentimental statement of Christ’s love for us, it implies that Jesus’ sacrifice was not “once and for all” as Scripture teaches (see section 2).

Score: 8/10

2. How much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?

Almost all of it!  However, there is an implication within Outro that is unbiblical.

Lyrics posted with permission.*

[Verse 1]

God of creation

God/Jesus is responsible for creating the universe (Genesis 1:1, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 8:3-8, Psalm 33:6, Psalm 96:5, Proverbs 3:19, Isaiah 37:16, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 66:1-2, John 1:1-3, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, and Revelation 4:11.

There at the start, before the beginning of time

Jesus existed before Abraham (John 8:58) and for all eternity (2 Timothy 1:9).

With no point of reference
You spoke to the dark and fleshed out the wonder of light

See Genesis 1:2-3.

[Chorus 1]

And as You speak
A hundred billion galaxies are born
In the vapour of Your breath the planets form

God spoke the universe into existence (Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6-9).

If the stars were made to worship, so will I

The entire earth will worship God (Psalm 66:4), so we should as well (Psalm 13:6, Psalm 18:49, Psalm 21:13, Psalm 27:6, Psalm 28:7, Psalm 51:14, Psalm 47:7, Psalm 59:16, Psalm 63:7, Psalm 66:4, Psalm 69:30, Psalm 89:1, Psalm 101:1,Psalm 104:33, Romans 15:9, and 1 Corinthians 14:5).

I can see Your heart in everything You’ve made
Every burning star, a signal fire of grace

The universe points to God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4) and we are all without excuse (Romans 1:20). Refers to the doctrine of common grace.

If creation sings Your praises, so will I

Repeat idea of line 4, above.

[Verse 2]

God of Your promise

Far too many Scripture passages to refer to the promises of God and the prophecies that have come to fruition.  See pages on God’s promises and fulfilled prophecies concerning the Messiah.

You don’t speak in vain, no syllable empty or void

References Isaiah 55:11.

For once You have spoken
All nature and science, follow the sound of Your voice

When God speaks, creation happens.  See Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:6-7, Genesis 1:9, Genesis 1:14-15, Genesis 1:20-21, Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 1:26-27.  There are far too many Bible passages to exhaustively include every instance of God’s Word coming to fruition.

[Chorus 2]

And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath

See Genesis 1:20-21, Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 1:26-27.

Evolving in pursuit of what You said

This is very controversial. It all depends on the songwriter’s definition of evolution. Is it change over time? Microevolution? Macroevolution? Nonetheless, it is clear that God is given credit as responsible for creation given other lines.  For this reason, I choose not to deduct points.

NOTE: For those who have reservations leading worship with this song due to this line, consider substituting the word “unfolding” to avoid controversy.  I found out recently that my church did just that.

If it all reveals Your nature, so will I

Concept repeated elsewhere.

I can see Your heart in everything You say
Every painted sky, a canvas of Your grace

See Chorus 1, lines 5-6.

If creation still obeys You, so will I
So will I, so will I

Too many Bible verses than I have time to list. This includes the Creation account (Genesis 1), all the miracles, natural disasters, diseases, and other natural phenomena.  Once again, the idea of “so will I” is repeated elsewhere.

[Bridge]

If the stars were made to worship, so will I
If the mountains bow in reverence, so will I
If the oceans roar Your greatness, so will I
For if everything exists to lift You high, so will I
And if the wind goes where You send it, so will I
If the rocks cry out in silence, so will I
If the sum of all our praises still falls shy
Then we’ll sing again a hundred billion times!

Piggybacks on other prior references in Genesis 1, Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, and other places. Line 6 specifically references a statement by Jesus in Luke 19:39-40.

[Verse 3]

God of salvation
You chased down my heart through all of my failure and pride

Indeed, and those who are His cannot be snatched from His hand (John 10:28-29).  Our failures were paid on the cross.  See Isaiah 53:1-12, Matthew 27:32-56, Mark 15:21-41, Luke 23:26-43, John 19:17-37, Romans 5:6-8, Acts 2:36, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Colossians 2:13-14, and Hebrews 9:22.

On a hill You created

That is, calvary, also known as Golgotha, The Skull or The Place of the Skull (Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17).  Since Jesus was responsible for creating all things, He would have also created this hill.

The light of the world abandoned in darkness to die

Line 4 likely contains an oversight in capitalization. Jesus declares Himself as the light of the world in John 8:12.  This is possible excessive nitpicking on my part.  Also, the “light of the world” is in Matthew 5:14-16, which refers to the church; the body of believers; Christ-followers.  The church is the light of the world because of Jesus.

In addition, it says in Line 4 that Jesus was “abandoned in darkness to die”. There is some dispute on this. When Jesus quotes from Psalm 22:1, it seems that He is expressing His feeling at the time, not making a theological fact. When one reads all of Psalm 22, it becomes clear starting in Psalm 22:19 that the Lord is not far off!

However, it also says in Habakkuk 1:13 that God is too pure to look at evil. Would that include His own Son, who bore our sins (1 Peter 2:24)? It is certainly possible. We know the Father was pleased to crush Jesus (Isaiah 53:10) not because He enjoyed it, but because through Jesus’ death (His Servant), “it will justify the many, and He will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11).

[Chorus 3]

And as You speak
A hundred billion failures disappear
Where You lost Your life so I could find it here

The “great exchange” in which we as Christ-followers receive the righteousness of Christ and Christ receives the punishment for the sinfulness of mankind.  See Psalm 103:10-14, Proverbs 28:13, Isaiah 1:18, Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 26:28, John 3:16, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:23, Romans 8:1, 1 Corinthians 10:13, Ephesians 1:7-8, 1 John 1:9, and 1 John 2:1-2.

If You left the grave behind You, so will I

Jesus rose from the dead proving that He defeated death.  See Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, Acts 1:3, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:33, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

We too will leave the grave behind in the final resurrection (Luke 20:34-38, Acts 24:15-16, Romans 6:1-5, Romans 8:11-13, 1 Corinthians 15:20-26, 1 Corinthians 15:50-56, 2 Corinthians 4:13-14, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

I can see Your heart in everything You’ve done

Derivative of Verse 1 and Chorus 1, which touches on God’s creation.

Every part designed in a work of art called love
If You gladly chose surrender, so will I

God showed us how much He loves us through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  See John 3:16, John 13:34, John 15:13, Romans 5:6-8, Romans 8:37-39, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 2:4-5, Ephesians 5:25, 1 John 4:8, and 1 John 4:16-19.

I can see in Your heart, eight billion different ways
Every precious one, a child You died to save
If You gave Your life to love them, so will I

Refers to the 8 billion or so people image-bearers (Genesis 1:27) who currently live on earth. Christ died to save us (2 Corinthians 5:15, Ephesians 5:2, Ephesians 5:25-27, Philippians 2:8, and 1 Thessalonians 5:10).

[Outro]

Like You would again a hundred billion times

While I understand Hillsong’s sentiment, that given the chance and given a precedent of a legal requirement for multiple sacrifices, Christ’s love for us compels Him to go through with it (John 3:16 and Romans 5:6-8), it is an exercise of futility.  Scripture tells us that Christ’s sacrifice was once and for all (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:26, and Hebrews 10:10).  It is a throwaway line that should have been thrown away!

But what measure could amount to Your desire?

That is, to show us His Grace towards us (Ephesians 2:6-7).

You’re the One who never leaves the one behind

References the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7 and Matthew 18:12-14.

Score: 8/10

3. How would an outsider interpret the song?

It will be obvious to anyone who is not a Christ-follower that this song claims God is the Creator, that nature worships and obeys Him, and speaks on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Score: 10/10

4. What does this song glorify?

The majesty and wonder of God and His great love for us; However, it is blunted only by Hillsong’s throwaway line: that Christ’s desire for compels Him to re-sacrifice Himself despite Scripture’s “once and for all” statements.

Score: 8/10

Closing Comments

Hillsong UNITED’s “So Will I” celebrates the creative power of God.  Its major flaw lies within Outro, stating that Jesus’ desire for us is so strong, He’d go through crucifixion multiple times, in contradiction to a “once and for all” sacrifice. Yet, through His word, God calls us to worship, surrender to, and obey God.  It is theologically thick, loaded with Scripture, and glorifies God’s grandeur and His sacrificial love for us.

Given the controversy over evolution and the error within Outro, this makes it difficult to recommend for corporate worship.

Final score: 8.5/10

Artist Info

Track: So Will I (100 Billion X) (listen to the song)

Artist: Hillsong UNITED

Album: Wonder

Genre: Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)

Release Year: 2017

Duration: 6:51

Agree?  Disagree?  Don’t be shy or have a cow!  Calmly and politely state your case in a comment, below.

*Copyright © 2017 Hillsong Music Publishing (APRA) (adm. in the US and Canada at CapitolCMGPublishing.com) All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Updates:

02/08/2023 – To remain consistent with the artist’s actual name, I capitalized the word “United”.

05/07/2021 – Per Artist Theology announcement, I expanded the red text to encourage others to study Hillsong’s theology.

05/16/2020 – In light of prayerfully considering Neal Cruco’s analysis of the 99 as angelic beings in his commentary to Reckless Love and commentary from Gary, I took the following actions:

  • Restored my commentary on the song’s end.
  • Added a second reference to the Parable of the Lost Sheep to the end of section 2.
  • Added commentary to address Outro’s first line, “Like You would again a hundred billion times” in sections 1, 2, 4, and Conclusion.
  • Fixed several spelling/grammar errors.

These combined efforts decreased its score from 9.5/10 to 8.5/10.

01/18/2020 – This review became inconsistent upon updating my review of Reckless Love based on my rejection of the Parable of the Lost Sheep in connection with God. I reflected that change here also. I’ve slightly lowered the score from 10/10 to 9.5/10. Thank you Daniel Namkung for pointing this out!

Comments

LaRita Armour

I love the message in this song. All of creation was meant to obey and worship Him. I was too, but I’ve been given the choice and I choose to do what my creator created me to do.

May 09.2018 | 11:03 am

Craig Hurner

Who am i to say whats what! But in my opinion, even reading your reviews of this song i am touched. This is a moving song. I especialy like the version by Torri Kelly

Jun 15.2018 | 09:14 am

    tastywallet

    Thanks for your compliment, much appreciated!

    Jun 15.2018 | 10:02 am

      Doug Fritz

      One of the other big problems with this song is the word “if.”
      It is repeatedly used, so it has to be considered as more than one-off artistic license — which I believe there is no room for in worship lyrics anyway.
      When a song says “if,” it implies a question of whether the event happened:

      “If you gave your life
”
      “If you left the grave 
”
      “If creation still obeys you 
”

      These are taking statements of fact:

      “Jesus died for us”
      “Jesus rose from the grave”
      “God is in control”

      and putting a question mark on them, or at least opening the door for them to be considered less than 100-percent fact.
      One might dive into the if-since exegesis of Scripture, but that wouldn’t apply here. Why? Because of the pronoun “you” throughout the song. This song is clearly being sung to God, which is the first word of the song. So why, in corporate worship, should we gather together and use the word “if” when signing to God? (Especially when the word could be removed and solve the problem without creating an awkward fit for the music — or the word “and” could be substituted in each pre-“so will I” instance).

      Also the song states, if Jesus did this, so will I, which — because of the word “if” — implies Christians are taking a chance as followers, based on the possibility of something being true — as opposed to Biblical assurance.

      And the lyric that states:
      “Where You lost Your life so I could find it here 
” seems to be in opposition to John 10:18. Jesus didn’t “lose” his life
.

      John 10:18
      “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

      Given all of these problems, plus the honestly bad “evolution” reference, I don’t believe this song is appropriate for corporate worship.

      Apr 02.2023 | 02:58 pm

        Vince Wright

        Doug,

        Thank you for your comments!

        I don’t agree with you that the word “if” is implied doubt. Chiefly, because in the world of logic, there is a concept called “if then arguments” (see https://open.lib.umn.edu/goodreasoning/chapter/if-then-arguments/). In its most basic form, an argument of this type is constructed that assumes some premise (p) is true and the conclusion (q) follows from the truthfulness of p.

        This form of logic is all over the place in this song. Although the word “then” is not explicitly stated, it is understood that “then” represents our response to the truthfulness of these “if” statements. For example:

        “If You give Your life to love them [then] so will I.”

        This assumes that “You gave your life to love them” is true. What follows from that is that “so will I”. In other words, if it is true that He gave His life to love them, then I will too.

        Finally, there are several Scriptures that present statements in this form, including 2 Chronicles 7:14, Matthew 17:20, and Mark 11:25-26. You should easily see the “then’s” in these passages, even if the word “then” is not present. There is also a negative version of this form in 1 Corinthians 15:14 (if NOT / then).

        If Scripture uses if-then arguments to present truth, [then] so can this song (see what I did there?)

        -Vince Wright

        Apr 02.2023 | 08:08 pm

          Paul

          The argument you have put forward would make sense if the content were true. We do not worship because creation was made to worship. We also don’t worship because we were created to, because each has turned his own way and worshiped creation rather than the creator. So instead, because he rescued us from death to life – then we worship. If he gives us eyes to see, then we see and worship. The difference is subtle but very significant. The “if this, then that” logic makes sense if we do not leave God out of the picture.

          Jun 19.2023 | 01:04 am

            Christian

            Paul, we, and all of creation, were made to worship. Jesus rescued us from slavery to sin and death, and gave us new life so that we could be RESTORED to the purpose we were created for, but which we rejected in the Garden of Eden.

            Nov 30.2023 | 12:26 pm

            Christian

            Yes, we were created to worship. Jesus died for us and rose again so that we could be RESTORED to our created purpose which we rejected in the Garden, and we have continued to reject throughout our history because we inherited the nature and tendency to do so from our ancestor Adam. Jesus’s death and resurrection destroys our inheritance of sin and death, and gives to all who have repented and put their faith in Him, a new inheritance as sons of God, who worship Him again. Just because “…each has turned his own way and worshiped creation rather than the creator…” doe not mean that we weren’t CREATED to worship God.

            Nov 30.2023 | 12:32 pm

James

Love the analysis! We changed “evolving” to “all moving” for the sake of the congregation and to keep from distracting from the point of the song.

Jun 15.2018 | 09:38 am

    tastywallet

    Thanks for the compliment and Good move! There is just so much controversy over evolution that justifies the slight alteration.

    Jun 15.2018 | 10:03 am

      Mark

      First thanks for the site. I come here often to check the lyrics of a song so as not to be swayed by the emotional impact of the music, a big danger for me as for all of us.
      Ref this song, for a song correctly stating God’s word to be so powerful that no “syllable is empty or void”, a shame that there should be words in here for believers to sing that are not true. Especially one that is the biggest lie of all time. And the temptation is for congregations to think ‘o it’s just one word’ when all the rest is so good, the music so powerful’.
      Evolving suggests a process not an event. For example the resurrection of Jesus was an instant event, not a process. So any word suggesting a process, ‘unfolding’ is flawed. Perhaps substitute ‘living to pursue’ for ‘evolving in pursuit’? So many other beautiful lyrics in here that can totally mask the core deception that then gets subconsciously reinforced every time it is sung. So a very good example of why your site is important and how subtley dangerous lies can slip in.

      Apr 10.2023 | 02:53 am

    Dennis Taylor

    I think a better word to convey the idea of what happened in creation and would fit better lyrically, would be the word “embarking” in pursuit of what God said.

    Jun 24.2018 | 12:00 pm

      tastywallet

      I see where you’re going with it. Below is the full range of definitions from Merriam-webster. Only the second, intransitive verb would fit.

      Definition of embark

      embarked; embarking; embarks

      intransitive verb

      1: to go on board a vehicle for transportation – the troops embarked at noon

      2: to make a start – embarked on a new career

      transitive verb

      1: to cause to go on board (a boat, an airplane, etc.)

      2: to engage, enlist, or invest in an enterprise

      In contrast, unfolding has nothing that resembles God’s creation. So, I do think you have a point!

      Jun 24.2018 | 05:25 pm

        A

        I’d replace it with ‘becoming in pursuit…’?

        Jul 12.2018 | 12:13 pm

          Chad

          All great suggestions. Personally, I like “They continue in pursuit”

          Jul 02.2020 | 11:56 pm

            racefangurl

            My church doesn’t tweak it, as of last time we sang it, but maybe the singers just weren’t able to think of a word to replace it that fits either lyrically or in meaning. Or maybe they just don’t care. We’re not extremely seeker sensitive*, but discipleship and outreach, along with power ministry and also missions, are important to the current pastor as I type this. It’s a coffee in the lobby type church and we had a cocoa outreach in December. *However, I don’t see us having some of the over the top stuff seeker sensitive churches have done, like turning the front of the church into a lake or a car showroom (as seen in a video).

            Apr 16.2021 | 02:11 pm

Suzanne Rood

How about “existing” in pursuit of what you said?
Or “increasing” in pursuit…? I love the idea that as the creatures multiplied in Genesis and throughout the next millenia, they continued to praise and live for the one who created them. I don’t want to lose that thought.

Jun 25.2018 | 12:55 pm

    tastywallet

    Perhaps “constructed” would be the best fit. It ties in the creation account in Genesis 1 and the ideas you mentioned, about the continuation of that creation, bringing Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13, Psalm 119:73, Isaiah 44:2, and Jeremiah 1:5 into the fold.

    Jun 25.2018 | 07:23 pm

    Tammy

    I see a tree frog change it’s color depending on where it’s sitting or a seed that evolves into a beautiful tree or flower. Evolving in pursuit of what God said, they are following His designed plan. Just read the words and not phsychoanalyze. But I also would agree for the sake of others, that unfolding would work well, like watching a fast forward video of a plant evolving/unfolding before your eyes. Continuing in action.

    Jul 31.2022 | 09:02 pm

      Arhbee

      My thoughts exactly. Thank you for this.

      The line says “Evolving in pursuit of what you said”

      I interpret it to mean we’re constantly growing and changing as we walk with Him, to become that which He has made us to be.

      Dec 04.2023 | 03:38 pm

Suzanne Rood

Or better yet… “thriving” in pursuit of what you said.

Jun 25.2018 | 01:06 pm

Nicolas Thomas

Genesis Chapter 1 tells us that after God created the universe, he let it make itself.
Let the earth put forth vegetation (1:6)
Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures (1:20)
Let the earth bring forth living creatures (1:24)
Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth (1:28)
Yes, all this was still under God’s supervision, but it is the start of what science calls evolution. It saddens me that we needlessly cause friction over this.
Nicolas Thomas

Jul 12.2018 | 06:40 am

    Lee

    Wonderful comment, was thinking the very same thing. I’d like to believe God drives everything including science and evolution which is the message I think was being conveyed in the part of the song.

    Aug 10.2018 | 04:23 pm

    Nate

    In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.
    God made all things perfectly and at no point did He say go for and evolve, He said multiply. Man is made to multiply and so is creation.
    I think removing the word evolving is the way forward.

    Oct 02.2020 | 03:52 am

      Neal Cruco

      Nate,

      While “evolving” is a strange word to use in that line, it is not inherently unbiblical. God created the fish, birds, and animals with the ability to adapt themselves to their environment- not just in behavior, but in appearance as well. Charles Darwin got his theory of evolution from studying GalĂĄpagos finches- each species of finch had adapted its beak to better fit its main source of food. From there Darwin theorized that one species of finch had diverged into many due to different groups living in different places and eating different foods. That was all sound scientific practice.

      The problem came when Darwin took a mammoth-sized leap of logic (that was completely unsupported by his observations) and extended this concept to all life on earth- a single-cell organism somehow being the ancestor of all life, eons ago. Now he had leapt from relatively minor adaptations of existing structures (the beaks of his finches) to something that defies description as “adaptation”- so that everything from humans to octopi to giraffes to oaks came from a blobby single-cell organism. For decades, most scientists have been telling themselves and everyone else that scientific observations support this- but they haven’t, they don’t, and they won’t.

      So, when discussing how evolution fits with the Bible, we must distinguish microevolution (sometimes known as speciation) from macroevolution (the idea that all forms of life could be created from nothing by compounding the minor adjustments made by microevolution). Believe it or not, humans have microevolved since the Garden of Eden – skin color is an excellent example of this.

      Oct 02.2020 | 01:29 pm

        victor

        ES QUE EVOLUCION creo que no es la palabra..evolucion definitivamente te lleva a finalmente terminar por ser otra especie mientras que la adaptacion o especializaciĂłn no. Es mas me atreverĂ­a a decir que la evoluciĂłn tiene que ver con la ascencion supuesta del hombre hasta llegar a ser como dioses..en definitiva una palabra muy mal escogida y peor aĂșn analizada.

        Edited by Vince Wright:

        Google Translate: IT IS THAT EVOLUTION I think that is not the word .. evolution definitely leads you to finally end up being another species while adaptation or specialization does not. Moreover, I would dare to say that evolution has to do with the supposed ascent of man to become like gods … in short, a very poorly chosen word and even worse analyzed.

        Nov 03.2020 | 02:18 pm

        Harold Geern

        I don’t think evolution is an appropriate word to use, especially with the connotation it now has. Natural selection and adaptation and both true and both happen, but they obviously don’t support Darwinism. I feel like using those words define what we as Christians believe better than saying evolution, due simply to the fact that when people think of evolution they think of Darwin’s evolution.

        Aug 01.2022 | 03:56 pm

    John

    Nicholas, cherry picking bible verses is never a good idea.
    The beasts created themselves in Gen 1:24?
    Read the next verse.

    Oct 04.2020 | 09:41 am

      Nicolas Thomas

      Hi John — no one is saying “the beasts created themselves”. In verse 24 God says “let the earth bring forth living creatures 

”

      You then point to verse 25 which goes on to say “God made the beasts of the earth 
”. So do you think this cancels out verse 24? Do you think that God didn’t mean for the earth to bring forth living creatures?
      Do you think God just went ahead and made the beasts himself (on the spot) and didn’t let the earth bring them forth after all?

      As a check, look at verse 11. There, God says “Let the earth put forth vegetation 
” and the following verse 12 simply restates that “the earth brought forth vegetation 
”

      In other words, after creating life, God’s way of “making” life develop is to let the world make itself. Hope that avoids the cherry picking!

      Oct 10.2020 | 05:14 pm

        John

        I’m sorry but nowhere does it say God “supervised”. It is Clear that anything that has breath God-made it. Verse 21 verse 25 verse 27.

        Oct 10.2020 | 08:36 pm

    Imo

    Thank you Nicolas for your comment. Creation has evolved over time all in obedience to God’s Word spoken at “The Creation”

    Aug 03.2021 | 07:56 pm

Katie Ellis

I’m not so worried about the “evolving” lyric as I am with the “if, then” statements of this song. I actually love the song in its entirety, but how do justify a conditional statement, where it seems like, “well if they do it, I guess I will too”. How would you tie that in according to scripture?

Aug 29.2018 | 01:11 pm

    tastywallet

    Great question! My initial thought was Hebrews 11, given its plethora of examples of those who had faith and serve as an example for us to carry forth in our own faith (or contextually, to the audience of this letter); However, the context is about promises we receive vs. the faithful of old, so that won’t work.

    In fact, 1 Peter 2:20-22 is a great passage that supports this idea. It tells us that Christ gave us an example to follow, that we should imitate His behavior and lived like He did. There are other supporting passages also, including 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2, and 1 John 2:6.

    That works for Chorus 3, but what about the rest of it? Psalm 19:1-4 is the best supporting passage I could find, under the same vein as imitating Christ. We ought to worship and obey God as nature does.

    Aug 29.2018 | 01:58 pm

      Bobbie

      I agree with the concern over the thought that if creation worships “so will I” .
      I tried not to let it bother me at first because – it’s such a pretty song, right? Then my teen daughter was baptized yesterday and on her Instagram post with the pic she put “If creation was made to worship so will I”.
      And I was like – that’s not right, true or biblical. In all the answers you’ve given – even Hebrews 11, no one worships BECAUSE creation worships. We worship because he is the great I AM. We worship because of what Christ did.
      I am now wondering why we are letting these little slips sink into our hearts because it’s a “great song”.

      Sep 17.2018 | 12:37 pm

        tastywallet

        Bobbie,

        I appreciate your willingness to express your concerns! Take a look at my reply to Katie Ellis and tell me what you think?

        -TastyWallet

        Sep 19.2018 | 06:24 am

          Bobbie

          Yes – be imitators of Christ, absolutely. Yes, have faith as those in Hebrews 11. Yes – the heavens tell of his glory! All fantastic. But – does it say anywhere that we are to worship the Creator because these things worship Him? I know – it’s a small line in a beautiful song we are discussing. But – here’s the problem: People who don’t know the Word will think we worship because creation worships – and totally miss out on the reason why we worship. Again – I would not mind it but, this line,
          “If the stars are made to worship so will I” is so popular that my daughter just ordered a shirt with those words on it!:) (At least it could get conversations going at school for sure!) But – again, I am just missing out on the biblical support of this very popular and pretty line. Thanks for testing all against scripture!

          Sep 19.2018 | 12:45 pm

            tastywallet

            Bobbie,

            Understood, thanks for the exchange of ideas!

            -TastyWallet

            Sep 19.2018 | 12:48 pm

            Ronnia

            I always thought of it in the sense that everything in creation obeys God except man. We are the only ones on open rebellion. Everything else He made does exactly what it was created to do. The wind is obedient, animals are obedient, the universe does and operates exactly as God designed it to and therefore for gives Him glory. But humans are born into sin and Jesus paid the price so that we could be reconciled back to the Father and now we too can do as all of creation does. Worship and be obedient. Hence the repeating phrase if creation was made to worship so will I. I never looked at it as oh we’re doing this just because they do but more like because of Jesus sacrifice we can now do what we were all created to do and that’s worship the one true God. Ofcourse we must be willing but you get the point. Sorry for the lengthy response I just had to respond because I think they’re so many ways of looking at this. But I do see your point that a non-believer may get the wrong idea, but then again kinda feel like this song was written for believers and we should know better.

            Sep 05.2020 | 10:19 pm

              victor

              HOLA , solo un comentario , la biblia dice que las plantas y sus frutos fueron hechos para alimentar a los animales, entonces si un animal mata a otro para alimentarse, no creo que esté adorando a Dios, la Biblia dice que la creación también fue corrompida por causa del pecado del hombre y toda la tierra serå pasada por fuego y serå una nueva tierra .

              Edited by Vince Wright:

              Google Translate: HELLO, just a comment, the bible says that plants and their fruits were made to feed animals, so if one animal kills another for food, I don’t think it is worshiping God, the bible says that creation was also corrupted because of man’s sin and the whole earth will be passed through fire and will be a new earth.

              Nov 03.2020 | 02:27 pm

          Suzanne Rood

          Bobbie, This is intriguing, so I got out my Bible and concordance to do some searching for a verse that supports worship God BECAUSE creation worships Him. Take a look at Psalm 148 and see what you think. It comes pretty close. The psalmist commands the heavens to praise him – including the stars. He commands the sea and the mountains, wind, and wild animals to praise the Lord, and then concludes by simply telling us to also Praise the Lord. It’s not a blatant “if-then” statement, but it carries the idea.

          Sep 19.2018 | 07:35 pm

            Bobbie

            I suppose we should ask if it matters if it’s an inaccurate statement or a misunderstood sentiment, but at least gets people thinking. My daughter just explained it as – if the stars made by God are to worship, and God also made us, then we should worship too. But not because he made us, but because it’s something we are designed to do. I get that.

            Sep 19.2018 | 09:38 pm

        Juanita

        Katie Ellis and Bobbie, I agree with you about the “if”s in the song and there are many. If you look at each ‘if’ statement, well, as they say: “There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it!” Whenever one uses the word ‘if’ it’s referring to something that is not a done deal: ‘if’ this, then ‘that’…with the implication that things could easily go the other way. All the ‘if’ statements in this song make weak, wishy-washy, inexact statements about God, especially “IF You left the grave behind You”! From an artist’s viewpoint, this is okay, because we create what we are feeling, thinking, wondering about. But for worship, these words are not a good idea. We can’t just worship God how we think He should be worshiped…He is very specific in how He wants to be worshiped; for starters He wants to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. Here’s an article that says it much better than I am saying it: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/not-a-hillsong-to-die-on#for-leaders

        Feb 20.2019 | 04:37 pm

          Joseph

          To Juanita and Bobbie

          I think that the heart behind the ‘if then’ statements shouldn’t be taken to be a reflecting of a ’cause and effect’ relationship from the creation to Believers… But rather, it is distinguished reminder that creation is worshipping the Lord for who He is, and so we too should be worshipping him for who He is.

          It is no different than the biblical calling for us to lovingly check our brothers who walk in sin and lead them out of it. Would you say that those people who we assist are worshipping God because of us? I think not. And to be even more specific, God saw it fit and necessary to reveal to us in His word that we should be worshipping Him for who He is. Without that specific revelation in our broken state, would we be Worshipping him?

          In the end, I see the revelation of Creation pointing to and worshipping a Creator because he is creator as a healthy reminder that we too should be worshipping a Creator because he is creator. If the corporate worshipper still doesn’t feel like the song communicates that, a song’s words in question never, in the end, should hinder us from singing them correctly

          Oct 03.2019 | 10:59 am

            Vince Wright

            Joseph,

            Thank you for your comment!

            In logic (and programming), the term “if” is a conditional statement. “If” such and such condition(s) are met, “then” this thing occurs. This applies to causes and effects. “If” such and such cause occurs, “then” it will (usually) produce an effect. If I drop my computer off a cliff, then it will drop like a rock.

            There is another usage of how “if” and “then” are used, namely, inspiration. “If” the animals worship God, “then” I am inspired to do the same.

            Hillsong utilizes the inspirational usage of “if” and “then”, not cause/effect.

            -Vince Wright

            Oct 03.2019 | 11:14 am

        Denis

        I tend to agree to point about creation not worshipping God but it does reaveal Him and we know that if we did not call out His name the stones of earth will . Hard to imagine but that’s what Jesus himself said . My reservation is about the word evolve and there are many good suggested replacements ,but it’s Joel Houston’s theistic evolutionary response of more concern . If you don’t accept 6 day creation then how much else are you going to question about scripture? JESUS accepted the authority of it , so should we . Joel tends to be a fence sitters, go read his views, still a great song and some of the old traditional hymns we sing are not strictly correct either. Do lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Regards Denis Wickman

        May 13.2019 | 03:40 am

        Patrick Warren

        Amen!

        Jul 30.2019 | 08:06 pm

        Patrick Warren

        I completely agree with you! Thank you for sharing this concise response to why we should not accept these “little slips”. Just a trickle will eventually erode a mountain.

        Jan 02.2021 | 11:20 pm

          Deji Williams

          The “if” before each of these statements started to bother me too – and that’s what got me here on this page!

          I really think it’s a great song – minus the “if”s (and if it bothers you, “evolving”).

          1.The problem with “if” is that it assumes there are alternatives to the statement – to which I don’t believe there is, in this case.
          “If You gave Your life to love them” – could be misconstrued to mean Jesus did not die or give His life; or “If creation sings Your praises” – could be flipped over to say that maybe creation does not sing God’s praise…

          2. “So will I” after each phrase sounds like, “If they do, I will do. But if I find out they don’t, then I’m out!”

          Maybe I’m overthinking it.. anyway, I love the concept and the depth of the lyrics. I just believe it could be edited properly – unless the author intended it so.

          Apr 15.2021 | 03:00 pm

            Vince Wright

            Deji,

            Thank you for your comments!

            The Bible is also full of “If” statements. For example, consider the following:

            1) If you love me, keep My commandments. (John 14:15)

            2) If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed. (John 8:36)

            3) If you are eager to do good, who will harm you? (1 Peter 3:13)

            4) If you seek Him, He is found. (2 Chronicles 15:2)

            5) If faith is without action, it is dead. (James 2:17)

            6) If your heart is wise, then you will be glad. (Proverbs 23:15)

            7) If God is for us, who is against us? (Romans 8:31)

            There are many others as well. What makes these “if” statements different than Hillsong’s “if” statements? Should we remove them from Scripture because they assume an alternative that could be misunderstood?

            -Vince Wright

            Apr 15.2021 | 04:08 pm

              Mr Pete

              Vince, your #7 here is VERY important. It demonstrates that “If” can also mean “Because.”

              I’m not enough of a grammarian to specify those word forms, but clearly there is nothing wrong with Rom 8:31… and NOBODY is questioning whether God is for us 🙂

              May 03.2021 | 10:22 pm

        Levi Uzodike

        To all the “if” complaints, make sure you read Ronnia’s comment. I don’t see anybody rebutting her, so maybe you missed it. I wish I could like it or upvote or something. Short summary: If creation worships, so will I because I am creation! To quote the song, “If everything exists to lift You high, so will I”. I am not merely copying everything, I am a part of everything, so I’ll do what You made me “exist” to do. I worship because that was what I was made to do. I just was born into sin, but now because of Jesus, I get to do what all of creation that couldn’t sin has already been doing.

        Dec 03.2022 | 07:03 am

    Lanie

    I agree with you! I really love this song and use to sing it with without really focusing on the lyrics in too much detail. But then that started bothering me.
    We shouldn’t decide to also worship God ‘because they do’, we worship Him because we’ve placed our ultimate value unto Him. Because we view Him, then respond in worship… because we can’t NOT!

    This being said, I know their hearts are to glorify God and worship Him. 🙂
    But the reason for my worship shouldn’t be ‘because they do’.

    Feb 20.2019 | 02:53 am

    F L A M I N G S P A R R O W

    Remember, Jesus Christ telling the crowd ‘,,,if you don’t worship me the stones e,t,c ,,,as for the line that implies ‘He would die again and again’ to me it’s in reference to the God’s love to mankind that If it was not enough, He would do it again and again to ensure complete redemption, His sole plan from the time man fell into sin

    Apr 10.2022 | 03:50 pm

Nicolas Thomas

I guess I took it as poetic language which should have a degree of legitimate “poetic licence”. If it’s the case that creation worships God (points to God’s glory) then that is another thing that inspires us to worship God. It’s another refreshing insight, but not to the exclusion of God’s greatest revelation through Jesus Christ.
In fact, what Jesus did is beautifully presented in these words near the end:
The light of the world abandoned in darkness to die
[Chorus 3]
And as You speak
A hundred billion failures disappear
Where You lost Your life so I could find it here
If You left the grave behind You, so will I
(If it’s true that you left the grave [AND IT IS TRUE!],
then I truly trust that I will too — because I’ve put my trust in you.)

Sep 19.2018 | 06:22 am

    tastywallet

    Nicolas,

    I agree, there is some poetic license, much like most of Christian music. We do have to be careful not to compromise the Bible, taking things out of context for more creativity. I did not see that here of course, but something to consider when examining lyrics.

    -TastyWallet.

    Sep 19.2018 | 06:27 am

Shannon Proffitt

Originally I loved this song. But recently I stumbled on a video by “answers in genesis” discussing the controversy over the line “all nature and science follow the sound of your voice”…my initial reaction was to think they were just nit picking and trying too hard to read between the lines….obviously if God created every then scientific evidence aligns with His creation and there is no war between God and Science….BUT then I wa watched an interview with the song writer who openly talks about his belief in evolution as in God got the ball rolling and then evolution took it from there; I at one time might have shared that opinion…maybe not exactely that same opinion but more along the idea of I dont understand how it all went down but know God had a hand in it..I recently was digging into to creation and of it was a literal 6 day and we count a day or 1000’s of years and the term day is not the same 24 hours. In all of the reading I did I was struck by a question/argument raised…(paraphrasing very loosely) if we start questioning if God really mean a day when inspired the scriptures what else didn’t he really mean…why is it ok to leave room personal interpretation within the creation account but not in other areas of scripture….did God really mean then that Jesus was the only way to heaven?…so as I dug deeper and deeper into that….I started to worry if the song writer openly believes in differing accounts of the creation story outside of what genesis stated….then they are intentionally is promoting the God created the big bang 1,000 of years point of view the lyric choice was not an oversight. I am certainly NOT a biblical scholar and O think it’s a beautiful song! But the bible warns us that the enemy comes as a wolf in sheeps clothing and in Jude it refers to shepard’s who feed only themselves…I worry that these small almost undetectable twist to what scripture teaches allows the enemy a foothold creating tiny hints of doubt like the serpent in the garden whispering….did God really say that? Did God really mean that. Just my two cents. I have enjoyed your website and appreciate the work that you have put into this ministry.

Sep 29.2018 | 01:34 am

    tastywallet

    Shannon,

    Thank you for taking the time to read my review and responding to it! Personally, I do not believe that there is a war between science and Scripture. They answer two very different questions about the universe. While science answers the question “how does the universe go?”, the Bible answers the question “Who was responsible for the universe?”

    One could attempt to choose between two different explanations for, say, why a pot of water boils. One explanation is that molecules expand when heated up, causing the water to boil. Another explanation is that I wanted a cup of tea. Which is correct? Well, they both are! One is a scientific explanation; the other is an agency explanation. One is a “how” explanation and the other is a “who” explanation. They do not contradict one another because they approach the same question differently. The same is true when it comes to science and the Bible.

    Now, you should understand that both science and the Bible have been highly politicized, pretty much since the beginning. This taints the way we see both of them, making objective inquiry more difficult. Recently, it has been over evolution, abortion, and LGBT. Our views on these issues change how we approach Scripture and science.

    This particular line brings us back to the God of creation, the Creator of our universe. It is Him who is responsible for all the science that we can perform, discovering the universe on a mechanical level. Yes, some of the statements of scientists are sometimes politically motivated; However, we should not confuse the statements of scientists with the discipline of science. It is the latter that “follows the sound of [God’s] voice”.

    While I understand the author’s intent, namely his view of theistic evolution that drives this line, they do make a valid point regarding the discipline of science. We may not always come to the right scientific conclusion, but the objective truth that science discovers was put there by God. This is true, regardless of one’s own personal view of Genesis 1, whether it be literal days or billions of years.

    I appreciate your compliment, thanks!

    -TastyWallet

    Sep 29.2018 | 05:51 am

      John Demola

      The writer also believes that the big bang lines up with God’s creation. Oh how mixed up people can get when they try to be poets instead of trusting the Ultimate Poet. The stars came first in the big bang. God created the earth first. Stick to the bible Joel.

      Jun 24.2019 | 06:44 am

        MrPete

        The Big Bang DOES line up with God’s creation.,, better than most can imagine.
        Oh how mixed up people can get when they try to be wise about areas outside of their understanding.
        You might want to take a look at sixdayscience dot com

        May 03.2021 | 10:25 pm

      victor

      HOLA…No entendĂ­ tu comentario referente a esto “Recientemente, se ha pasado por la evoluciĂłn, el aborto y LGBT.”. Que yo sepa la visiĂłn de la iglesia siempre ha sido BĂ­blica referente a estos termas. No entiendo como podrĂ­a nuestros puntos de vista cambiar referente a que es pecado.? Crees tal vez que se nace siendo LGTB?

      Edited by Vince Wright:

      Google Translate: HELLO
 I did not understand your comment regarding this “Recently, there has been evolution, abortion and LGBT.”. As far as I know the vision of the church has always been Biblical regarding these hot springs. I don’t understand how our views could change regarding what is sin? Do you think perhaps that you are born being LGTB?

      Nov 03.2020 | 03:28 pm

        Vince Wright

        Victor,

        Great question! Just do that you are aware, TastyWallet was my handle before I “came out” with my real name.

        My comment is poorly worded. Allow me to explain. What I meant is that if we allow our personal feelings and polarization of evolution, abortion, and LGBT to dictate our lives, then our feelings become the standard by which we view the Bible as well as science. If we understand the limitations of science and examine these issues through the lens of Scripture, then this will help us see these issues objectively, through God’s eyes.

        -Vince Wright

        Nov 03.2020 | 03:55 pm

Mrricko

“On a hill You created” Jesus was not created but begotten.

Oct 06.2018 | 09:02 am

    tastywallet

    Mrricko,

    I’m not quite sure I understand. How does “On a hill You created” have any relevance to Jesus’ creation or lack thereof?

    -TastyWallet

    Oct 06.2018 | 09:34 am

      Marlon

      Tastywallet, the line that Mrrricko referenced is actually the reason I came to this comment section. It seems to indicate that Jesus was created on a hill. The line actually reads, “On a hill you created/the light of the world/abandoned in darkness to die. Jesus was not created, but that’s what the song seems to be saying.

      Feb 14.2019 | 10:11 pm

        tastywallet

        Marlon,
        I appreciate your commentary, but I still do not see it that way. I did notice that I did not provide commentary on this specific line, so I added it. Here is a summary of how I break it down:

        On a hill You created – The place that Jesus created, a hill called Calvary, or Golgotha, or the Place of the Skull.

        The Light of the world – Refers to Jesus.

        Abandoned in darkness to die – Refers to the crucifixion.

        Does that clarify my position?
        -TastyWallet

        Feb 14.2019 | 10:57 pm

    Marlon

    Mrrricko,
    Your comment is the same thing I was thinking when I heard that line in the song. I listened multiple times to ensure I heard what I thought I did. That line, if it means what I think the author is saying, is definitely unbiblical. Hopefully, he means something else and comes out and clarifies the statement.

    Feb 14.2019 | 10:15 pm

    loganobaynegurl

    The hill was created by God.

    Apr 16.2021 | 02:18 pm

    Christian

    Bro, the song doesn’t imply that Jesus was created, it implies that the hill that Jesus died on was created by Him. He died on a hill that He created.

    Nov 30.2023 | 12:35 pm

Nicolas Thomas

“On a hill you created/the light of the world/abandoned in darkness to die.”
Very helpful to add the “obliques” (//). So now we can reorder the sentence like this:
“the light of the world was abandoned to die in darkness on a hill you created”.
In other words, this whole scenario was set up (created) by God himself. In Christ, God gave himself at great cost for the salvation of the world.

Feb 15.2019 | 05:40 am

    tastywallet

    Nicholas,

    Thank you for reordering the lyrics in a cohesive manner! Perhaps this is more clear than my own explanation.

    -TastyWallet

    Feb 15.2019 | 05:47 am

Debo

This is a blessing. God bless you for doing this

Apr 28.2019 | 10:18 am

    tastywallet

    Debo,

    My pleasure!

    -TastyWallet

    Apr 28.2019 | 09:29 pm

Sarah

My biggest issue with this song is: “If the rocks cry out in silence so will I.” The example given in scripture is that the rocks would cry out if people were not praising so I don’t see how this line makes sense. Or, it seems to be indicating that no one is praising God except ME and the rocks! It bothers be because I feel like that, along with the other “so will I” statements, seem to indicate a confidence in MY faithfulness to praise God, rather than His faithfulness to me.

May 13.2019 | 10:39 pm

John Demola

I agree with many here. I believe the basic premise of this song is way off. The “if then” argument is contrary to scripture. How “If” God loved us “Then” we love Him. Not because a rock cried out. And please correct me if I am wrong but I don’t see that the stars were “made” to worship God. No,no we were made…..

Jun 24.2019 | 10:13 am

    John Demola

    I meant to say “How About”

    Jun 24.2019 | 10:14 am

Jonathan Dixon

When will you change your review in light of comments that prove your view is contrary to God’s word?

Jul 01.2019 | 06:58 am

    tastywallet

    Jonathan,

    Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately, the way that you asked this question come dangerously close to committing the loaded question fallacy, but I think I understand what you are asking.

    I’ve already addressed the comments that are not a repeat of something I’ve already responded to. If you feel that I missed a comment that you believe is contrary to the Bible, please let me know so that I can address it.

    Sorry about the spam message! I need to work on tweaking the spam filter. A lot of legit comments are going into the “spam” folder.

    -TastyWallet

    Jul 01.2019 | 12:26 pm

Jon

Thanks for your analysis. I greatly appreciate and am able to worship with the majority of this song.

However the last verse and chorus are a problem for me, when they state:
“If You gave Your life to love them so will I
Like You would again a hundred billion times”

It mainly revolves around the word “would”…would Jesus die a hundred billion times for our sins? No.

Jesus gave His life once for all, and will never again sacrifice His life again.

From Romans 6: “We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.”

From Hebrews 7: “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.”

From Hebrews 10: “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

I can’t in good conscious state that Jesus “would” if we know He will not, and to me that statement cheapens His perfect sacrifice.

Or does the word “would” imply that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that He “would” choose to sacrifice His life if presented the same situation repeatedly (in a nonexistent existence where God is bound by time)? Maybe I am overthinking it.

What do you think?

Jul 30.2019 | 12:11 pm

    tastywallet

    Jon,

    Thank you for your thoughts! My understanding is that Hillsong is expressing how much Jesus loves us, that He would go through it again over and over if that is what was required of Him. I do not believe Hillsong is suggesting that Jesus must go through it more than once. If they were, then I agree with you: that is unbiblical. However, it might be possible that I am giving Hillsong too much credit by ignoring this possible criticism.

    -TastyWallet

    Jul 30.2019 | 09:35 pm

      Neal Cruco

      I don’t think you’re giving Hillsong too much credit. If Jesus had to die 100 billion times for our salvation, He would. The fact that He didn’t doesn’t change that.

      Sep 03.2019 | 02:02 pm

        Adam

        I love this song. Not going to let one lyric ruin it. But that line about Jesus would do it again 100 billion times is pretty speculative and not very reverent. God has show us exactly how much he loves us. More than we could have imagined on our own…he gave us His Son. That was very very costly to him. For us to say Father, we actually think you love us enough to see your son die 100 billion times for us strikes me as a bad attitude even if it is true. That is, even if it is true, we shouldn’t say it or assume it.

        Oct 29.2019 | 01:05 pm

          Neal Cruco

          God has been quite clear about His love for us. Do you think there is a limit to it? In other words, do you think there’s a point at which God would say, “Sorry, saving you would cost too much. You’ll get what you deserve”? I don’t. God sent His only Son to die a horrible death, just so that we could be redeemed. I see no reason to believe that He wouldn’t have done more if necessary.

          Dec 12.2019 | 11:57 am

            victor

            creo q estas muy errado. al ser su sacrifico , unico y suficiente, esta supuesta posibilidad es una herejĂ­a,, la Biblia dice que el que no acepta el sacrificio de JESUS, QUEDA BAJO LA IRA DE DIOS. Esta frase es un total desacierto..o muestra lo lejos que estĂĄ Hillsong de una sana doctrina cristiana para componer sus canciones .

            Edited by Vince Wright:

            Google Translate: I think you are very wrong. Being his sacrifice, unique and sufficient, this supposed possibility is heresy, the Bible says that whoever does not accept the sacrifice of JESUS, IS UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD. This phrase is a total mistake … or shows how far Hillsong is from sound Christian doctrine to compose their songs.

            Nov 03.2020 | 03:47 pm

              Vince Wright

              Victor,

              Thank you for your comment!

              I must side with Neal on this point. God’s love is indeed unconditional. His love for us is not conditioned upon whether or not we receive Him. God’s condition comes into play in terms of relationship. When I married my wife, I love her no matter what she does; However, if we are to remain married, then I have some demands of her. For example, she must remain faithful to me, love and cherish me, till death does us part. Similarly, she makes the same demands of me, that I do the same. If I don’t meet those expectations, then we won’t be married long!

              The same is true with God. While His love for us is unconditional, when we enter into a personal relationship with Him, He will make demands on our lives. He expects us to be holy like Him. He demands that we remain faithful to Him. Yes, He will forgive if we screw up, but our heart and our goal ought to be obedience. That’s what a good husband does, sacrificially gives to his bride. That’s what Jesus did. I ought to do the same.

              To summarize, yes, God’s love for us is unconditional. This isn’t heresy. But, our relationship with Him has conditions.

              -Vince Wright

              Nov 03.2020 | 04:10 pm

    Jennifer Morrow

    I took this to mean that Jesus’ sacrifice was very intentional and not by chance. If that situation happened 100 billion different times, he would make the same choice each time. Unlike flipping a coin, where you would not get the same result if you flipped a coin 100 billion times. He chose us over himself and would again and again.

    Apr 16.2020 | 09:31 am

    Levi Uzodike

    The answer is given by Joel Houston in this video https://youtu.be/CFVYfVp1cP4 from 6:19-6:43. Basically, the original excerpt in question:

    “If You gave Your life to love them so will I
    Like You would again a hundred billion times”

    needs the following line to be correctly interpreted as the author intended it:

    “But what measure could amount to Your desire?”

    If I understand Joel, correctly, he’s saying that You would do it more if 100 billion or any number could amount to Your desire, but it doesn’t, so You didn’t do it multiple times. So I don’t think it’s a throwaway line. This sentiment addresses any concerns that people have about the actual number 100 billion limiting God. The author is clearly stating here that 100 billion doesn’t measure up to God’s sacrifice, love, forgiveness, creation or God’s anything. It is just a number used to represent something like infinity throughout the song.

    Dec 03.2022 | 07:32 am

C. Moe

“You don’t speak in vain, no syllable empty or void.” My mind jumped to Isaiah 55:11
“So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”
Thank you for the wonderful reviews, research and references! This site is truly a blessing 🙂

Sep 17.2019 | 02:58 am

    Vince Wright

    C Moe,

    Thanks, I appreciate that!

    -Vince Wright

    Sep 18.2019 | 05:38 am

Gary

I cried and cried to this song in the beginning of my walk with Christ. It was just so beautiful and awe inspiring. However, when we worship God, we must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Where the Bible is silent, we should be silent. Where the Bible proclaims the truth, we should nail our emotions and thinking to the cross and conform to the truth, even for 100 billion painful times. There is a verse that clears up if Jesus would have died 100 billion times:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. -Hebrews 6:4-6

The word of God equates Jesus being crucified again to putting him to open shame. This plan of salvation is predetermined prior to the foundation of the world. God does not make mistakes. There is not would’ve could’ve or should’ves. Jesus’ price is of infinite worth (worthy is the Lamb of God!). To suggest otherwise is to cheapen Christ. To cheapen Christ is to make Him less than who He is: Your Lord God and Savior. That’s idolatry, because His words are very clear cut, like a two edged sword. The crucifixion is the focal point of God’s story of wrath toward sins and mercy toward sinners. This event was planned by God to bring Himself infinite glory. We need to be careful when we approach the word of God. He did create a sun that would consume our naked eyes if we stare too long, and He created trillions of stars like it. How should we approach this almighty God, who is a Consuming Fire? Ask yourself, do you care about God’s word more, or your itchy ears more?

Besides, only 100 billion failures disappeared? I know this is supposed to be poetic: to describe the many many sins that are forgiven due to the work on the cross. However, there are 7.6 billion people on Earth right now. Not counting people who lived prior to this generation, His work is only able to wipe out 13.15 sins per person? Even disappearing 100 billion failures for myself seems not enough! But He died once, and now I am white as snow. That’s way more powerful than dying 100 billion times for us.

May 16.2020 | 11:26 pm

    Vince Wright

    Gary,

    Thank you for your comment! I have two comments to offer in consideration:

    1) The line “Like You would again a hundred billion times” speaks of desire, not of reality. Would Jesus have died 100 billion more times to save us? I think so, if that’s what it took to save us. I agree, that it’s not required and Scripture bears this out with its “once and for all” statements; However, Hillsong’s expression of Christ’s desire does not negate this truth nor does it cheapen grace.

    2) The line “100 billion failures disappeared”, if taken literally, would indeed result in 13.16 sins per person (rounded up); However, it is also true that if we took Jesus “Seventy times seven” statement in Matthew 18:21-22 literally, then after the 491st time that such an individual shall no longer be forgiven! Of course, Jesus is not literally giving us a set limit on forgiveness. He is saying “unlimited” in poetic fashion. Hillsong does the same with its “100 billion failures” here.

    -Vince Wright

    May 16.2020 | 11:27 pm

      hughjomlet

      “However, it is also true that if we took Jesus “Seventy times seven” statement in Matthew 18:21-22 literally, then after the 491st time that such an individual shall no longer be forgiven!”
      Not trying to be a picky authority or anything, but wouldn’t the correct interpretation of “seventy time seven” be 77, as in seventy times and seven? That is how they would have spoken and meant it in the original language, not a translation based on an English slang for “multiplied by”.
      Again, thank you for your thoughtful review, and I know this doesn’t matter in actuality for our faith, I just think we should be cautious to interpret things in their historic context.

      Jul 09.2020 | 02:05 pm

        Vince Wright

        hughjomlet,

        Thank you for your correction!

        In the future, I could say “71st, or 78th, or even 491st time” to cover all the variants/possibilities that are interpreted.

        -Vince Wright

        Jul 09.2020 | 04:23 pm

      victor

      Hola Vince: Entonces Hillsong sabe que el deseo de Cristo es ser aplastado por su padre otra vez de ser necesario? lo veo sin ningĂșn sentido. Meternos en el pensamiento de Dios, cuando sus pensamientos son mas altos que los nuestros. Esta linea es algo muy motivacional pero sigue siendo una herejĂ­a.

      Sobre el punto 2.- 70 veces 7 es 70 elevado a la 7 osea= 770 = 1435036016 0986843428 5603076356 6710717400 7738373924 6066639249 es decir infinito…

      Edited by Vince Wright:

      Google Translate: Hi Vince: So Hillsong knows that Christ’s desire is to be crushed by his father again if necessary? I see it without any sense. Get into the thought of God, when his thoughts are higher than ours. This line is something very motivational but it is still heresy.

      On the point 2.- 70 times 7 is 70 raised to 7 bone = 770 = 1435036016 0986843428 5603076356 6710717400 7738373924 6066639249 that is to say infinite …

      Nov 03.2020 | 04:02 pm

        Vince Wright

        Victor,

        Thank you for your comments! I understand your reservations as they are similar to Gary’s.

        This is the second time you’ve used the word “heresy” today, so allow me to clear the air. This word is not something to be used lightly and is a serious accusation. It refers to doctrine taught that is contrary to foundational teachings (in this case, of Christianity). For example, teaching that Jesus is not God is heresy, but teaching that drinking is a sin is error but not heresy (it’s drunkenness, not drinking). I don’t see any major Christian theological doctrine violated by these statements by Hillsong.

        -Vince Wright

        Nov 03.2020 | 04:20 pm

          Victor

          Hola Vince… Entiendo tu punto. Pero es doctrina bĂĄsica y fundamental el sacrificio Ășnico y suficiente de Cristo por toda la humanidad. JESÚS muriĂł por los pecados de toda la humanidad, pecados presentes, pasados y futuros, para acceder a ese perdĂłn, solamente debemos creer en El

          Sugerir algo diferente por supuesto que es herejĂ­a… Y claro que es una acusaciĂłn grave. Lo que no puedo asegurar es que lo hicieran adrede.. Pero si yo dijera por ejemplo que JesĂșs no es Dios lo. Puedo hacer en ignorancia pero sigue siendo una herejĂ­a. Lo que no entiendo es que simplemente se tome como una frase “desafortunada” cuando va contra todo lo que significa el cristianismo.

          A ver, imagina que yo dijera “si JesĂșs hubiese sabido que no iba a resucitar, aĂșn asĂ­ hubiese muerto por mi, porque nos ama”… Te das cuenta de la gravedad de esta frase “bien intencionada”, pues el cristiano que compone mĂșsica para Dios es: primero cristiano antres que artista y debe someterse a la escritura antes que a emociones.

          Saludos

          Edited by Vince Wright:

          Google Translate: Hi Vince
 I understand your point. But the single and sufficient sacrifice of Christ for all humanity is a basic and fundamental doctrine. JESUS ​​died for the sins of all humanity, present, past and future sins, to access that forgiveness, we only have to believe in Him

          Suggesting something different of course is heresy … And of course it is a serious accusation. What I can not assure is that they did it on purpose .. But if I said for example that Jesus is not God. I can do in ignorance but it is still heresy. What I don’t understand is that it is simply taken as an “unfortunate” phrase when it goes against everything Christianity means.

          Let’s see, imagine that I said “if Jesus had known that he was not going to rise again, he would still have died for me, because he loves us” … You realize the gravity of this phrase “well intentioned”, because the Christian who composes music for God it is: first Christian before artist and must submit to writing rather than emotions.

          Cheers

          Nov 04.2020 | 12:40 am

Gary

Hi Vince,

Could you point to a verse in the Bible that speaks of this desire if circumstances require of Him? I just don’t want to ascribe to God my own thinking or emotions. I also do not want to create a “God” in my own head that’s not found in the Bible. I much prefer the truth that He has revealed in the scriptures. My God given conscience prevents me from singing this song unless you could help remedy but only with scriptures. Thank you.

-G

p.s. I accept 2.

May 16.2020 | 11:35 pm

    Vince Wright

    Gary,

    Great question! If I were to name one verse that spoke of God’s desire, it would be John 3:16. Had the Law required Jesus to be re-sacrificed over and over again, would Jesus have gone through it? I think so. But, therein lies the problem. Why would Jesus need to go through it again and again if He did it “once and for all” as Hebrews 10 teaches? What is the point in contemplating if Christ “would again a hundred billion times” if He sacrificed Himself “once and for all”? I see your conclusion.

    Therefore, in light of this commentary, I must update this review.

    -Vince Wright

    May 17.2020 | 12:25 am

      MrPete

      In this case, I step back and ask this question: Is it heresy, evil, or even bad to **consider** something (anything) that is not-real?

      As I look at John 3:16, particularly the greek verb tense — a tense that allows for truly INFINITE love for all… I am humbled. I honestly cannot fathom that love.

      Many have questioned my own assertions of the fact that God loves even those who hate Him.

      To me, this is a perfectly valid “thought experiment” toward comprehending just how awesome is God’s love.

      – I have no sense that God can’t handle such imagining. It is not something vain, not something that limits God, not something claiming a different reality.

      What is the point in such contemplations? It begins to scratch the surface of what “infinite” love might possibly look like.

      May 03.2021 | 10:35 pm

        Vince Wright

        MrPete,

        Great question!

        The answer to your initial question is of course no. Jesus’ parables are full of stories that are not real. They illustrate a point. Yet, I don’t recall any of them contemplating a scenario that is contrary to Scripture! Contrary to 1st Century Jewish culture perhaps, but not God’s inspired Word.

        Some of Jesus’ parables are thought experiments. The dead giveaway is the word “suppose” that starts the parable, and Jesus asks a question. Luke 7:40-50 is a great example, where Jesus laid out a scenario and asked for Simon’s opinion. Again, this is perfectly fine.

        I recall that the Apostle Paul contemplated at least one thing that wasn’t real. Namely, if Jesus had not risen from the dead. You’re probably familiar with it, in 1 Corinthians 15:14-23. Paul’s conclusion is that our faith would be in vain. But, then he goes on to say that Christ indeed rose!

        However, this song presents something a bit different. It’s neither a parable nor a thought experiment. It makes a claim about the depths of God’s desire by making a claim. Namely, that God loves us so much that if He had to, He would die for us 100 billion times. The claim happens to run contrary to the “once and for all” statements in Scripture.

        -Vince Wright

        May 04.2021 | 07:12 am

dtfoursite

Great song.

What about that last chorus line:

I can see in Your heart, eight billion different ways
Every precious one, a child You died to save…

Eight billion would refer to “everyone in the world”, but wouldn’t John 1:12 only consider those who receive Christ as “Children” of God? Curious to see what others think. Thanks!

Jan 07.2021 | 04:32 pm

    Vince Wright

    dtfoursite,

    Great question!

    There’s two primary camps to this. The first would say that God only died for the elect, that those He died to save are only those whom He predestined would be saved. The second would say that God died for everyone, but its application is for only those who receive it. I happen to fall in the latter category.

    -Vince Wright

    Jan 07.2021 | 04:38 pm

    Jolee

    Jesus died for everyone. not just those who receive christ.

    Aug 13.2023 | 04:05 pm

Jason Henry

“Unfolding in pursuit of what you said” is a good substitute. I also like “they’re growing in pursuit of what you said.”

Aug 31.2021 | 11:42 am

Jason Henry

The hypothetical/hyperbolic statement “like you would again a hundred billion times” reminds me of another hypothetical/hyperbolic statement that I run into more often: “If you were the only person on earth, Christ would still have suffered and died for you.”

It’s not that either one is demonstrably false, it’s just that neither circumstance could ever possibly exist, and neither statement is found in Scripture so I feel weird assuming what God would or wouldn’t do in a non-existent circumstance.

Aug 31.2021 | 12:02 pm

Kerry Ingold

A lot of criticism written here. I seem to recall a verse I think was written by Paul referring to even if preaching was done by people whose beliefs were not entirely correct, glory was still given to God because Christ was being preached! The example I take from all these comments is that peoples interpretations of the Bible vary as much as people’s interpretation of the song. The result is a church originally cast to be a single entity being divided into hundreds if not thousands of denominations with slightly different beliefs . I believe this diversity in thinking came with the fall and it will get worse before it gets better. The true words from God in the Bible are the ones spoken by Jesus himself. I cannot help believing that each Apostle’s humanity did not impact their teachings in some fashion, not in lies but in interpretation of God’s word to them. In the context of some comments here, I guess that would make me a heretic. I will the songwriters space in their verses and celebrate the tens of thousands of young people brought to Christ through the music.

Jun 14.2022 | 10:47 pm

K Mendoza

Thanks for all your insights! I’m planning to use this as one of my resources as we try to study about worship in our discipleship group 🙂

Jun 22.2022 | 09:23 am

    Vince Wright

    K Mendoza,

    Thanks for letting me know! I’m honored.

    -Vince Wright

    Jun 22.2022 | 09:27 am

Amanda

I appreciate your Biblical analysis of these songs. I’ve heard multiple contemporary Christian artists make the following statement, but I’m not sure what their basis is for making it. It seems rather egocentric and unsupported biblically. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it:

“If I had been the only sinner on earth, Jesus loves me so much that He would have come to earth and died on the cross to save me.”

Nov 23.2022 | 10:17 pm

    Vince Wright

    Amanda,

    Great question!

    I think the best support for this can be found in what seems like an odd passage at first: Genesis 3:21. If you recall the context, Adam and Eve violated God’s Law to avoid eating of the tree of knowledge or they will die. They were naked, filled with shame. Yet, God provided the sacrifice. He clothed them. Scripture doesn’t say it, but many people see this as God bringing the sacrifice, killing an animal so that their shame could be covered. Although it wasn’t one, we see in Genesis 3 that God was willing to sacrifice to save two people. From this, we infer that He would be willing to do it with just one.

    -Vince Wright

    Nov 30.2022 | 07:52 am

mowglismom

Line 2 of Chorus 2 (“A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath”) is unbiblical. While it is true that God created everything that is, including every creature, mankind is different than all of the other creatures. Mankind is the only one that the Bible says is created in God’s image and likeness (Gen 1:26). The Bible states that God breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils and the man became a living soul (Gen 2:7). It doesn’t say that about any of the other creatures. The fact that we are “living souls” sets us apart from the rest of creation. To say that other creatures “catch (the Lord’s) breath” is to equate them to mankind, which is wrong.

Feb 20.2023 | 12:38 pm

    Vince Wright

    mowglismom,

    Thank you for your comments!

    Take a look at the article at https://www.all-creatures.org/book/book-alcr5.html. It makes the case that both man and animal receive the same source of “breath” to live, move, and have our being, despite the animals not explicitly stated as “created in the image of God” or that they “became a living soul”. What do you think?

    -Vince Wright

    Feb 21.2023 | 08:30 am

      mowglismom

      After doing my own deep dive into concordances and commentaries, my opinion is that the way the author of the link applies definitions and commentaries is problematic. While it probably wouldn’t be very helpful for me to go through and comment on the article line-by-line, I do think we can examine the author’s interpretation of Matthew 10:29 as an example of what I mean by “problematic.”

      The author focuses on Matt 10:24-33 for context and says of those verses, “Jesus is talking to His disciples on the meaning of discipleship.” He goes on to state, “The main thrust of what Jesus is here saying is that those who confess Him are more important than those who do not…All of God’s creatures seem to have a special place in His heart.” Is that a true and accurate summarization? Is that really the main thrust of what Jesus is saying in that passage of Scripture? My answer is a resounding no.

      Let’s go back further and read the entirety of Matthew 10 in order to get the full context. When we do, we see that Jesus is talking to His disciples about the COST of discipleship, specifically the persecution they will face as they go out and tell people about Him. The main point of verses 26-31 is that the disciples should not fear in the face of persecution, but instead trust the Father who is in control of all things. [Do not fear/Do not be afraid is repeated three times–see verses 26, 28, and 31.] The point of verses 32-33 is that discipleship (based on faith) leads to eternal salvation. [See Romans 10:8-15 and Matt 10:39]

      I can agree with you that both man and animals have physical life and existence, and that in both cases that physical life and existence comes from God. However, I cannot make the leap with the author that the only difference between man and animals is their “position governmentally,” and I reject his assertion that “the same reference to God’s creation is being given in the same manner to both man and animals.” In his own words, “There are such simple truths in the Bible, if we just take the time to look. They aren’t shrouded in mystery. They are right in front of us, written in plain language, though sometimes the plain language might be in the Hebrew or Greek.” The Bible gives a clear account of creation in Genesis. That account plainly states that man is created in God’s image; it does not say that about animals.

      Mar 04.2023 | 07:10 pm

        Vince Wright

        mowglismom,

        Thank you for responding!

        I agree with you: those are odd statements regarding the authors’ interpretation of Matthew 10:29 and that the ” only difference between man and animals is their “position governmentally,””. However, I’m curious to your thoughts on the authors’ commentary “roo-akh” and “nesh-aw-maw”. This is where the thrust of the argument lies to make the case for both man and creature receiving the “breath of God”.

        -Vince Wright

        Mar 05.2023 | 10:30 pm

Doug Fritz

Hi Vince,

Thank you for using Scripture to make your points.

But I believe it is possible there is a “tense” issue. In the first three Scriptures you referenced, the first part gives a condition, and the second part is a future result.

Matthew 17:20
If you have faith (now or in the future), the size of a mustard seed, you will say . . . (future)

But this song speaks of a past event that is true, and still says “if”

And although your Corinthians example expresses a past tense, it does so with a double negative — emphasizing the absurdity of one who would preach or have faith in something untrue.
And in verse 20 of that same Corinthians chapter, continuing the same message in context, it states that Christ has indeed been raised from the dead.
However, this song does not come back and say, “I know Jesus rose from the dead” and “therefore I worship”
It is a song of repeated “ifs”

I also think it is important to view the language of this song in a contemporary sense — because it is contemporary.
Here is the definition of “if”
(introducing a conditional clause)
“on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.”

“A state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted.”

And consider that a supposition is an uncertain belief.

The song says: “If You left the grave behind You, so will I”

Fact: Jesus rose

The song: worship is not possible or permitted unless Jesus rose.

And when supposition is added to the current definition, the song suggests “Jesus rose” is an uncertain belief.

We can’t look at the song as if it is Scripture. It must be viewed in terms of what it means in today’s English. And the word “if” in today’s English does not, by definition, imply certainty.
Also, adding “then” doesn’t change the uncertainty of the first statement in each “if” line. It only presents a possible response “if” the first part is true.

We must also understand the song writer could easily have cleared this up by using “since” — or even better by simply stating, “you left the grave behind you” which removes any ambiguity.
And this is very important if we are singing a song of worship. We must consider there may be unbelievers to our right and to our left during worship. We want to lead them with truth, not leave them with any question about what we are singing.
Look at the words of Chris Tomlin’s “Uncreated One.” It is one beautiful truth after another about Jesus. It can be done!
I would also add this: If a song creates this much debate — over five years now! — shouldn’t that make us question whether it is really needed in the corporate worship lineup? Let’s go with the 10s and 9.5s and praise God with solid lyrics that don’t create such debate!!

Thank you for your work on this website. I believe it is an important endeavor!

Sincerely, in Christ,
Doug Fritz

Jun 12.2023 | 10:44 pm

    Vince Wright

    Doug,

    Thank you for your comments! You’ve given me a lot to think about. I need a few days to process this.

    -Vince Wright

    Jun 20.2023 | 12:30 pm

      Neal Cruco

      Hi Vince,

      If you’ll allow, I’d like to put in my two cents here. Doug’s argument seems to be the same one I’ve heard from commenters before: “people could misunderstand this song, so it’s not theologically sound and doesn’t deserve a high rating on your scale”. He says, “We can’t look at the song as if it is Scripture. It must be viewed in terms of what it means in today’s English.” But that argument falls flat to me. I may be wrong, but “today’s English” has never been a part of your evaluation criteria. Instead, you evaluate song lyrics through the lens of Scripture. And this use of “if” has a very clear precedent in Scripture:

      “For IF we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. … Now IF we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.” Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭5‬,‭8‬ (ESV, emphasis mine)

      The surrounding verses (like v 2) make it clear that Paul is not doubting the spiritual state of his audience. Thus I cannot see this song’s use of “if” statements as anything but following in a clear Scriptural tradition. Their meaning has always been very clear to me. The potential for others’ misunderstanding is irrelevant; the teachings of Jesus Himself were misunderstood by his audience more often than not. Shall we hold man’s words to a higher standard than His? In my opinion, the only place where “potential for misunderstanding” would be relevant is in the outsider score, not in the score of the message or the biblical accuracy of the lyrics.

      Jun 21.2023 | 12:48 am

        Vince Wright

        Neal,

        Thank you for your comments!

        I agree with you. If anything, these comments are directed towards section 3. Even then, the potential misunderstanding is not significant enough to warrant an update.

        -Vince Wright

        Jun 21.2023 | 10:33 am

Paul

The issue I haven’t seen addressed here is the reason for worship. “If this, then that” is a cause and effect argument. If clouds, then rain. If the world was made to worship so shall I. That’s incorrect.
If they had said, “If God made the world to worship AND made me with that same purpose in mind, then I shall live out my purpose.” Then it would be correct. If they had attempted to say that poetically, it didn’t come through at all and the ambiguity is unhelpful.
Also, we do NOT live out our purpose just because we were made to do so, we worship God because he brought us from death to life – not in our own effort do we see him the way we should. Too much of the song assumes that everyone is going to read between the lines.
There are 8 billion other songs that are better for the church to worship God with.

Jun 19.2023 | 01:00 am

Doug

Hi Neal,

Today’s English is every part of Vince’s evaluation criteria because that is how he communicates. He doesn’t communicate on this website in Hebrew or Greek, though he may research those words to help him communicate in today’s English.

As for the Romans references, both of these are “if” statements followed by a future truth supplied by God. In the song lyrics, it is “if” followed by something the writer/singer proclaims he/she will do for God. The former is a teaching moment, the latter is another problem of this song and many others. It is man focused: “So will I”

In my opinion, the best worship songs have extremely limited use of “I” and any use is strongly that of a humble nature, one that would match that of the sinner in Luke 18:13.

Also, you speak of the surrounding verses. Look at the one right before:

Romans 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

We have been buried
Christ was raised
Through the glory of the Father

There are no “ifs” in this verse. Even though “if” is in the Bible, the surrounding verses always state things clearly. There is no ambiguity in Scripture.

And look at the other verses:

Romans 6:5-11
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

We know 

Has been set free

We know 

Will never 

Death no longer has dominion

He died to sin, once for all

You also must


Look at the teeth of those words. Now that’s a sharp two-edged sword! (Hebrews 4:12)

Lastly, you said, “The potential for others’ misunderstanding is irrelevant;”

I don’t think this is ever irrelevant. Those who produce songs such as this are teachers on a grand scale. Think of how many people hear these songs, that are classified as worship songs. And when a church plays them and sings them, that church is teaching the same thing. And the Bible says in James 3:1..

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

The admonishment here is we must take great care in how we present the gospel to non-believers. That is why I think Vince’s website is important. I believe so many churches aren’t careful enough about the songs they use to “teach” others. Music choice, lyrically, is vitally important.

Jun 24.2023 | 09:07 am

    Neal Cruco

    Doug,

    You say, “In my opinion, the best worship songs have extremely limited use of “I”…” Perhaps a study of the Psalms would change your mind. Here’s a comment from Steve Barhydt, another frequent commenter here, who did just that:

    “For those who complain that Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) is too self centered I offer the following quantitative analysis:

    There are 2423 words in the English KJV in Psalm 119


    The most used word is “thy” (referring to God) at 209 occurrences.

    The second most used word is “I” at 142 occurrences.

    Let’s take this a step further


    Nouns and pronouns for God (Thy, Thine, Thou, Thee, Lord) are used 285 times. (or 11.76% of the total word usage.)

    Nouns and pronouns for the Psalmist (I, me, my ,mine, myself) are used 312 times (or 12.88% of the total word usage.)

    What does this mean and why is it important?

    First, to claim that a song is too self centered and, therefore, should not be sung in church because it has too many personal pronouns (I, me, my) is unsupportable in light of the fact that the Holy Spirit had no issues with inspiring the psalmists to refer to themselves multiple times in their songs.

    Second, a lot of Christian music is about the relationship the believer has with the Almighty God (or that the unbeliever could have with Him.) Relationships are NOT one-sided. Songs about relationships are not going to have just one side represented in the lyrics.

    As long as what the “I/me” in the song is claiming or proclaiming does not contradict what the Scripture says about “I/me”, the song should be considered Biblical.”

    I also wanted to quote this excerpt from a reply Steve made to a comment on the review for “Yes I Will”:

    “Psalm 138 – 8 verses long , David refers to himself 13 times and the Lord 23 times. Is this too man centered?

    If Psalm 138 passes your “man-centered’ test, what about Psalm 142, – 7 verses long – David refers to himself 32 times and the Lord only 9 times. Is this too man centered?”

    I do not understand the point of most of your post or its relevance to my previous comment- which argued, in short, that Scripture uses “if” before statements whose truth isn’t actually in question, so there should be no problem with this song following in that tradition. If you are rebutting that, I ask that you rephrase your argument to be more clear and perhaps more concise.

    Finally, I say again that the potential for people to misunderstand this song is irrelevant to its Scriptural accuracy. Jesus was frequently misunderstood when teaching to the public, as a study of the Gospel of John will show. His words were no less true because of that. We should not try to hold man’s words to a higher standard than His, since He is the supreme standard.

    If you cannot in good conscience sing or support this song, then don’t. But please acknowledge that this is a matter of personal conscience and be gracious with those who disagree. Romans 14 is a good guide for such behavior.

    Jun 25.2023 | 12:51 am

      Doug

      Hi Neal,

      As for as the Psalms go, yes, I am all for singing Scripture. Every Sunday!

      But as for the inspired use of I-me pronouns being the same as using I-me in uninspired lyrics, I disagree. I perhaps could compromise on my previous position and say some usage is OK — but not a song full of them.

      Also, there are countless “relationship” songs that don’t belong in corporate music. Scroll down Vince’s list and you will find many of them.

      You said, “Finally, I say again that the potential for people to misunderstand this song is irrelevant to its Scriptural accuracy.”
      And I say it’s always relevant, should always be considered, and as I pointed out in my previous post, I do not believe the song is Scripturally accurate — for the reasons I stated, using the supporting verses in my previous post.

      Lastly, you said, “If you cannot in good conscience sing or support this song, then don’t. But please acknowledge that this is a matter of personal conscience and be gracious with those who disagree. Romans 14 is a good guide for such behavior.”

      I do not sing this song. But you and your church are free to sing it every Sunday, if you wish. Everything a person does in worship is a matter of personal conscience. Only God knows the person’s heart.

      But this website is presented, at least in part (as I see it), so people can have a forum to discuss the worthiness of songs for corporate worship. And I don’t think that discussion violates the emphasis of Romans 14.

      — Doug

      Jul 05.2023 | 11:51 am

        Steve Barhydt

        Doug,

        I want to address both your issue with the word ‘if’ and that of personal pronouns.

        First, the ‘If’s in this song are what is known as ‘Zero Conditional’ phrases in English.
        https://www.bespeaking.com/conditionals-in-english/#:~:text=A%20conditional%20clause%20is%20a,%2C%20limitations)%20had%20been%20met.
        ********************Begin Quote**********************
        The Zero Conditional – (Type 0)

        The Zero Conditional is the simplest form of all the conditionals in English. It is formed in the following way:

        If + present simple, 
 present simple

        This is used when the result always happens. In other words, you can use this conditional for facts or cause and effects, whether what you’re speaking about is a scientific fact or a fact that’s only true for you.

        For example:

        If it rains a lot, we don’t need to water the grass in the yard. (Cause -> Effect)
        If I eat a lot of sweets, I get sick afterwards. (Cause -> Effect)
        If I press the “on” button, the TV turns on. (Fact)
        I eat if I am hungry. (Fact)
        *******************End Quote*********************

        In Greek, these are very similar to ‘First Class Conditionals’

        https://www.preceptaustin.org/conditional-clauses-in-greek
        ******************Begin Quote***************
        1. First class = (If) what follows is accepted as TRUE. Could be translated “since” or “because”. True statement or fulfilled condition.

        Ei + any tense of indicative mood

        1Peter 2:1+, Col 1:23+, Col 3:1+ Eph 3:2+; Eph 4:21+, etc

        Caveat – not every first class condition can accurately be translated with “since” — see addendum below.

        *******************End Quote*********************
        For further reading please refer to https://www.preceptaustin.org/conditional-clauses-in-greek#since

        In either the Greek ‘First Class Conditionals’ or the English ‘Zero Conditional’ , the word ‘if’ does not denote uncertainty.

        In fact, it indicates the exact opposite.

        The first part of the statement, the ‘if’ clause, sets forth a condition that is either known to be factual or believed to be factual (there is no doubt in the mind of the author)

        The second part of the statement, the ‘result’, will always happen because the ‘if’ statement is )or os believed to be) fact.

        For example, ‘If the temperature of pure water at one atmosphere falls below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the water will freeze.”

        There is no uncertainty, no skepticism, no questions. The first clause is known to be true and, regardless of the use of the word ‘if’, the result is assured.

        So how does this relate to the many ‘ifs’ of this song?

        Very simply, if the ‘ifs’ are known to be true (and I haven’t heard anyone disagreeing with the premise of the ‘ifs’ and Vince does a good job of proving the truth of them), then the results are going to be true in the life of the singer/songwriter should the singer/songwriter pursue the God of the ‘if’ clauses (That is ‘I will reveal Your Nature, ‘I will obey You’, ‘I was made to worship’, etc.)

        Secondly, the phrase ‘So will I’ is a declaration of the songwriter/singer devotion to giving God everything He deserves. As such, it is no more self/man-centered than Joshua 24:15
        Jos 24:15 (KJV – emphasis mine)

        And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for ME and MY house, we will serve the LORD.

        You say ‘But as for the inspired use of I-me pronouns being the same as using I-me in uninspired lyrics, I disagree. I perhaps could compromise on my previous position and say some usage is OK — but not a song full of them.’

        So, we are to hold ‘uninspired lyrics’ to a higher standard than the inspired Word of God? I’m not even sure how to address that other than to say that the Bible is the highest standard and if something, anything, was not a problematic for the Holy Spirit, it shouldn’t be so for us.

        Also, it is not ‘a song full of them’. The phrase ‘So Will I’ occurs 11 times but each of those occurrences has the same exact meaning (namely, the songwriter’s desire to glorify God!). The rest of the lyrics are talking about the greatness of God.

        There are 390 words to this song. Even taking the seemingly offensive ‘So Will I’ 11 times, 91.5% of the words to this song are talking about God!

        Finally, Neil’s Romans 14 comment. I believe, (Neil forgive me if I’m wrong) was in response to this statement of yours


        ‘I don’t think this is ever irrelevant. Those who produce songs such as this are teachers on a grand scale. Think of how many people hear these songs, that are classified as worship songs. And when a church plays them and sings them, that church is teaching the same thing. And the Bible says in James 3:1..

        “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

        The admonishment here is we must take great care in how we present the gospel to non-believers. That is why I think Vince’s website is important. I believe so many churches aren’t careful enough about the songs they use to “teach” others. Music choice, lyrically, is vitally important.’

        You are assuming that your view of this song is the correct one (without offering any substantial proof and ignoring that which is offered to you) and then, seeking to admonish both the writers, the singers, and defenders of this song to ‘take great care in how we present the gospel to non-believers’ as if we are not already doing so.

        In doing so, you are (in my opinion at least) passing judgement on us. This ‘violates the emphasis of Romans 14’

        This is why I believe that Neil said ‘But please acknowledge that this is a matter of personal conscience and be gracious with those who disagree. Romans 14 is a good guide for such behavior.’

        Jul 06.2023 | 05:58 pm

          Doug

          Hi Steve,

          I believe this song is not proper for corporate worship. I believe many other songs are much better.

          And if I was told I had to agree with things said in support of this song for corporate worship — or be accused of ignoring what “is offered” — then I would simply have to stand accused.

          I wrote: “But as for the inspired use of I-me pronouns being the same as using I-me in uninspired lyrics, I disagree.”

          And you responded: “So, we are to hold ‘uninspired lyrics’ to a higher standard than the inspired Word of God? I’m not even sure how to address that other than to say that the Bible is the highest standard and if something, anything, was not a problematic for the Holy Spirit, it shouldn’t be so for us.”

          No uninspired lyrics will ever meet the standard of Scripture. None. Therefore, uninspired lyrics are not the same as inspired lyrics, such as the Psalms — which I why I stated I have no problem signing the Psalms every Sunday. The song “So Will I” is not Scripture.

          Lastly, I will try one more time on Romans 14.
          Neal wrote: “The potential for others’ misunderstanding is irrelevant;”
          I disagree. I don’t believe as Christians we should take that stance. We should always strive to help others understand the Gospel. It is the Great Commission: making disciples. We should not just assume others are guarding the truth and taking great care in how they present the Gospel to non-believers. If you are doing so, this is a wonderful thing and I commend your work.

          — Doug

          Aug 02.2023 | 10:35 pm

Jolee

I love this song. I know the thing about evolution in verse 2 seems weird to putting a christian/worship song, but “evolve” means to gradually change. the song says “evolving in pursuit.” and “pursuit” means to follow someone. so the song is saying “to gradually change in following God.” so it means we are growing in God basically. thank you Vince!!!

Aug 11.2023 | 09:13 pm

NOTE: CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDER FOR EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS! All comments must be approved prior to posting. Comments outside the scope of Berean Test reviews (especially on artist theology) will be edited and/or deleted. ENGLISH ONLY!