Here's a song I've fallen in love with.
- Thread starter Ed Walsh
- Start date
- Status
The song's central metaphor is foreign to Reformed theology. The line "more like falling in love" frames faith as spontaneous, emotional, romantic, self‑expressive, and inwardly generated.
But in Reformed theology, faith is grounded in God's work in Christ, which is a revelation and a testimony that we must believe. Our response to God is bound by truth, not sentiment. It is created by the Word and Spirit, not by emotional experience. And it is oriented towards Christ as Lord, not Christ as a lover in the pop‑romantic sense. In fact, he is an object to be trusted in for righteousness. "Change" is not the fundamental message of the gospel, although change is a consequence of it.
This song is anthropocentric and sensualised. It moves us away from the covenantal and doctrinal schema of the Reformed religion. If you "need more than a truth to believe" you have given in to "evangelical expressivism" where experience is primary and religion is replaced by spirituality. You will ever be seeking to validate your faith with feelings. In Reformed theology faith rests on God’s promises, not inner states. Religion is good because it gives structures for the Christian -- what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.
I don't normally speak to something beyond the content but in this case the aesthetic form reinforces the theological problem. It borrows romantic pop idioms and uses intimate vocal styles to support its theological content. It frames Christ in "boyfriend‑language" and adopts a therapeutic, self‑focused tone to push it on the listener. This aesthetic is not neutral. It shapes the listener's theology.
Reformed worship historically avoids sensuality, romanticism, emotional manipulation, and performance‑driven spirituality.
But in Reformed theology, faith is grounded in God's work in Christ, which is a revelation and a testimony that we must believe. Our response to God is bound by truth, not sentiment. It is created by the Word and Spirit, not by emotional experience. And it is oriented towards Christ as Lord, not Christ as a lover in the pop‑romantic sense. In fact, he is an object to be trusted in for righteousness. "Change" is not the fundamental message of the gospel, although change is a consequence of it.
This song is anthropocentric and sensualised. It moves us away from the covenantal and doctrinal schema of the Reformed religion. If you "need more than a truth to believe" you have given in to "evangelical expressivism" where experience is primary and religion is replaced by spirituality. You will ever be seeking to validate your faith with feelings. In Reformed theology faith rests on God’s promises, not inner states. Religion is good because it gives structures for the Christian -- what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.
I don't normally speak to something beyond the content but in this case the aesthetic form reinforces the theological problem. It borrows romantic pop idioms and uses intimate vocal styles to support its theological content. It frames Christ in "boyfriend‑language" and adopts a therapeutic, self‑focused tone to push it on the listener. This aesthetic is not neutral. It shapes the listener's theology.
Reformed worship historically avoids sensuality, romanticism, emotional manipulation, and performance‑driven spirituality.
What kind of love is that? You do not know anything about His love apart from the truth of Scripture. And loving Him consists with a love of the truth, something that is objective. You cannot see Him, so it is not sensual, but based upon the kind of "believing" that is denigrated by the song. Songs like these are designed to lead you by sentimentality. They undermine your ability to take every thought captive and bring it into the obedience of Christ as He is revealed in Holy Scripture.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Revelation 19:6-10 KJV
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. [7] Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. [8] And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. [9] And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. [10] And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Granted the songs a little gushy, and not Reformed. But I am. And it took me over 40 years to believe to the saving of my soul and my delight is in Him. Is that really wrong?
You are putting together the song and your experience, so anything I say about the song could be taken as if I am judging your experience. Please note that my comments only relate to the song. I rejoice with you in the saving of your soul. But the song is not only "not Reformed," it directly attacks things that are basic to being Reformed -- truth, believing, religion. It reframes Christianity in terms that are more in line with expressive evangelicalism where one's experience is self-validating. I only say these things to put you on your guard against things that have a tendency to militate against the Reformed faith, which I know you love.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Here's my favorite non-Reformed, don't tell Justin Peters song:
Last edited:
Ed, A number of people have made the same complaint. You can email me. Go to the AFC website and the contacts page for the address.
Wouldn't it be pointless to know reformed theology, all the creeds and catechisms if we don't have a prayerful personal relationship with our Lord?
I completely agree with everything you said though brother!!
That we would be making an idol if we tried to seek God outside Scripture- and we must worship Him in Spirit and Truth!
Lest we should be offering strange fire! Those who make an idol will become like it(Psalm 135) but as we know more of God through Scripture we'll grow in reverence and awe for Him!
[automerge]1768571296[/automerge]
I mean many of the older Hillsong songs aren't that bad theologically- at least would be better than listening to all the trash degenerate demonic pop/hip hop music out there
I've seen accounts on instagram critiquing Bethel/Hillsong while having satanic hip-hop music in the background of their reels- seems like a double standard
They'd teach us those songs when we were in vacation Bible school in a church I was previously in- Here I am to Worship, Shout to the Lord etc.
Aren't some of the older hymns theologically weak too!
There's this hymn called "Showers of Blessing" which doesn't really mention Christ or the gospel
Which even woke pagans here sing - in ecumenical public meetings
Wouldn't some of the Hillsong songs that focus on the gospel be better than some of the hymns like those as long as the churches from which they come from don't influence the listeners?
It's very unfortunate that they're part of the NAR/Word of faith nonsense
Last edited:
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
I don't believe instrumentals or particular genres can be innately sinful. It is the lyrics that make a song a tool for evil or for good. This is not saying that all such music is proper as worship music in a church context. But for music generally, I see nothing wrong with Christian rap, or Christian metal, or Christian rock.
I was talking about secular pop/hip hop- like eminem for example with all the vulgarity both in the words and meanings of their songs
[automerge]1768572413[/automerge]
I think some of Shai Linne's music is great too
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Gotcha. Sorry I misconstrued. I know some people think certain types of music can be innately sinful. Glad to see your not one of those.I was talking about secular pop/hip hop- like eminem for example with all the vulgarity both in the words and meanings of their songs
[automerge]1768572413[/automerge]
I think some of Shai Linne's music is great too
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
It's in his signature brother. Australian Free Church.
That "relationship" is bound (religio) within the contours of God's revealed truth and is fundamentally dependent on believing. We see no form of God but only hear His voice, as taught in Deuteronomy 4. Sensualists are adopting a whole new method for knowing and loving God, and contemporary Christian music is filled with sensualism.
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ed, I am grateful for your life and witness. It is encouraging for me to hear of your love for Christ. May the Lord grant us younger men to persevere to our old age as you have, dear brother.
“The next thing that comes under consideration is, the way whereby we hold communion with the Lord Christ, in respect of that personal grace whereof we have spoken. Now, this the Scripture manifests to be by the way of a conjugal relation. He is married unto us, and we unto him; which spiritual relation is attended with suitable conjugal affections. And this gives us fellowship with him as to his personal excellencies.
This the spouse expresseth, Cant. ii. 16, “My Beloved is mine, and I am his;” — “He is mine, I possess him, I have interest in him, as my head and my husband; and I am his, possessed of him, owned by him, given up unto him: and that as to my Beloved in a conjugal relation.”
So Isa. liv. 5, “Thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” This is yielded as the reason why the church shall not be ashamed nor confounded, in the midst of her troubles and trials, — she is married unto her Maker, and her Redeemer is her husband. And Isaiah, chap. lxi. 10, setting out the mutual glory of Christ and his church in their walking together, he saith it is “as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels.” Such is their condition, because such is their relation; which he also farther expresseth, chap. lxii. 5, “As the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.” As it is with such persons in the day of their espousals, in the day of the gladness of their hearts, so is it with Christ and his saints in this relation. He is a husband to them, providing that it may be with them according to the state and condition whereinto he hath taken them.
To this purpose we have his faithful engagement, Hos. ii. 19, 20, “I will,” saith he, “betroth 55thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness.” And it is the main design of the ministry of the gospel, to prevail with men to give up themselves unto the Lord Christ, as he reveals his kindness in this engagement. Hence Paul tells the Corinthians, 2 Cor. xi. 2, that he had “espoused them unto one husband, that he might present them as a chaste virgin unto Christ.” This he had prevailed upon them for, by the preaching of the gospel, that they should give up themselves as a virgin, unto him who had betrothed them to himself as a husband.”
Indeed! My favorite devotional book is John Owen’s Communion with God. In chapter 7 he writes:
“The next thing that comes under consideration is, the way whereby we hold communion with the Lord Christ, in respect of that personal grace whereof we have spoken. Now, this the Scripture manifests to be by the way of a conjugal relation. He is married unto us, and we unto him; which spiritual relation is attended with suitable conjugal affections. And this gives us fellowship with him as to his personal excellencies.
This the spouse expresseth, Cant. ii. 16, “My Beloved is mine, and I am his;” — “He is mine, I possess him, I have interest in him, as my head and my husband; and I am his, possessed of him, owned by him, given up unto him: and that as to my Beloved in a conjugal relation.”
So Isa. liv. 5, “Thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” This is yielded as the reason why the church shall not be ashamed nor confounded, in the midst of her troubles and trials, — she is married unto her Maker, and her Redeemer is her husband. And Isaiah, chap. lxi. 10, setting out the mutual glory of Christ and his church in their walking together, he saith it is “as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels.” Such is their condition, because such is their relation; which he also farther expresseth, chap. lxii. 5, “As the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.” As it is with such persons in the day of their espousals, in the day of the gladness of their hearts, so is it with Christ and his saints in this relation. He is a husband to them, providing that it may be with them according to the state and condition whereinto he hath taken them.
To this purpose we have his faithful engagement, Hos. ii. 19, 20, “I will,” saith he, “betroth 55thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness.” And it is the main design of the ministry of the gospel, to prevail with men to give up themselves unto the Lord Christ, as he reveals his kindness in this engagement. Hence Paul tells the Corinthians, 2 Cor. xi. 2, that he had “espoused them unto one husband, that he might present them as a chaste virgin unto Christ.” This he had prevailed upon them for, by the preaching of the gospel, that they should give up themselves as a virgin, unto him who had betrothed them to himself as a husband.”
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Here's some things I asked Chat about help me understand better the 17th century view of a conjugal relationship
1. 17th-century meaning of conjugal relation
Core sense
In early modern English (roughly 1600–1700), a conjugal relation meant:
The legally and sacramentally constituted relationship between husband and wife, including the mutual duties proper to marriage.
The emphasis was not primarily on romance or personal intimacy, but on:
Legal status
Moral obligation
Household order
Sexual duty within marriage
Key components
1. Marriage as a legal and sacramental bond
“Conjugal” derives from conjugium (Latin: yoke, joining).
A conjugal relation existed only where a valid marriage existed.
Unmarried sexual relations—even stable ones—were not “conjugal” in this period.
2. Sexual relations as duty, not expression
When early modern writers referred to the “conjugal act” or “conjugal relations,” they usually meant:
Lawful sexual intercourse
Performed within marriage
As part of mutual obligation, not personal fulfillment
This duty was often framed in terms of:
Avoiding fornication
Producing legitimate offspring
Rendering the “marital debt” (a concept drawn from canon law and 1 Corinthians 7)
3. Hierarchy and roles
A conjugal relation was assumed to be:
Husband-led
Wife-subordinate (legally and socially)
Embedded in a wider household structure
Writers of the time discussed conjugal relations alongside:
Obedience
Governance of the household
Property and inheritance
4. Moral and theological framing
Especially in Protestant and Catholic moral writing, conjugal relations were:
Morally permitted only in marriage
Sometimes viewed with suspicion unless ordered toward procreation or moderation
Governed by religious norms (e.g., fasting days, pregnancy, illness)
In short:
A “conjugal relation” in the 17th century meant the lawful marital bond and its associated duties, especially sexual duty, not an emotional or personal relationship.
- Status
Similar threads
