20
back
5 / 06
Image of birds flying. Image of birds flying.

#596 “So Will I”

September 16, 2018
Q

A currently popular worship song, called "So Will I" by Joel Houston contains the following line which I think poses some fascinating questions I'd value your opinion on:

"I can see 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

Like You would again a hundred billion times"

There are at least three interesting theological questions raised:

1) Can we say we see "God's heart" in every person? Even the likes of Adolf Hitler? Is that a correct way of viewing the concept of Imago Dei?

2) Is everyone a "Child" of God, or is "child" only an appropriate terminology to apply to the saved?

3) - The most interesting question which I'd most value your thoughts on: The song suggests Christ "would" die for us 100 billion times. (Which I think is a reference to the fact there have been about 100 billion humans to ever live i.e. Christ's death is for each individual personally) Is it ever reasonable to talk about what God (as either the First or Second person of the Trinity) "would" do? Does that kind of counterfactual have any meaning when talking about a necessarily existing God? To speak of a "would" surely implies a set of contingent counterfactual circumstances which God as it were "finds himself in" which are different to the actual circumstances. Yet, isn't it true to say all circumstances are contingent UPON God, rather than he contingent upon them? Does a counterfactual in the subjunctive mood have any meaning when applied to God? This is a popular song in many churches right now, being sung by many congregations, and I think shows how theology matters at the level of the ordinary believer.

Matthew

United Kingdom

Flag of United Kingdom. United Kingdom

Photo of Dr. Craig.

Dr. craig’s response


A

Since I much prefer hymns to contemporary praise songs, I’m not familiar with this song, Matthew. But in general I think that we would do well not to interpret such poetic texts too woodenly. I remember well my philosophy professor Stuart Hackett once rebuking a student who expressed his doubts about the truth of the Gospel song “Every Day with Jesus is Sweeter than the Day Before.” Hackett said, “Don’t you understand anything about the nature of religious language?” The song was not meant to be taken literally but functions as an expression of one’s love for the Lord. Similarly, we should not press “So Will I” too hard for literal truth.

That being said, in response to your questions:

1. Can we say we see "God's heart" in every person? Sure, why not? God loves that person and sent His Son to die for him. “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5.8). “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance” (II Peter 3.9). Moreover, that person is, as you note, created in the image and likeness of God and therefore is intrinsically valuable, regardless of his fallen, sinful condition. The song can be seen as a poetic expression of the imago Dei in which every person is created, even Adolf Hitler.

2. Is everyone a "Child" of God, or is "child" only an appropriate terminology to apply to the saved? Only the saved can be properly called children of God. John says with regard to Jesus, “To all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1.12). We are not children of God by natural birth; rather being a child of God is the result of adoption, a legal standing which we have in Christ through spiritual rebirth.

But I notice that the song does not use the expression “child of God” but simply “child.”  Could that be deliberate? Maybe the idea is that unbelievers are like precious, if erring, children. God loves them and Christ died to save them. But they cannot yet be called children of God until they believe in his name.

3. Is it ever reasonable to talk about what God (as either the First or Second person of the Trinity) "would" do? I think so. When some action conflicts with the divine nature, then I think that we can say pretty confidently that God would not do that. For example, I doubt that God would create the world if He knew that everyone would freely reject Christ and be damned. That seems incompatible with His love and saving will. By the same token, if something is an expression of God’s nature, then we may reasonably think that God would do that.  So the song suggests that if God had things to do all over again, He would still send Christ to die for us, even 100 billion times. God’s love knows no bounds.

Yet, isn't it true to say all circumstances are contingent UPON God, rather than he contingent upon them? Does a counterfactual in the subjunctive mood have any meaning when applied to God?” Certainly, God is not Himself contingent upon anything.  But you seem to have overlooked the fact that on a Molinist view God has not only knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (middle knowledge) but also knowledge of counterfactuals of divine freedom.  He does not have middle knowledge of counterfactuals of divine freedom, since such counterfactuals are not true logically prior to God’s creative decree, as are counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Rather on the Molinist view God’s decree to create a world also includes His decision as to how He would freely act in any circumstances. So His knowledge of His own free choices is not logically prior to His creative decree but simultaneous with it.  Since most discussions of God’s knowledge of subjunctive conditionals have to do with His middle knowledge, His knowledge of counterfactuals of divine freedom tends to be overlooked.  But it is an essential part of the Molinist scheme.

My complaint about the song, rather, is the grammatical error in the final line:  “Like you would” instead of “As you would.” It just grates on me to have to sing sentence fragments and grammatical mistakes.

- William Lane Craig