I first met Brother John W. Swails in 1952 when I was a freshman at Emmanuel College. He was my Bible teacher. As I recall, I wrote a theme on "Sanctification." How little did I know about the Biblical theology of this experience that is available to all Christians who after they are born again desire to sanctified. I learned that sanctification begins in the new birth when we are initially sanctified. A number of things happen all at one time. That is called a concomitant experience, e. g. regeneration, justification, adoption, and initial sanctification. He whetted my appetite to learn Biblical theology and to study the Bible.
For a number of years I have been concerned about the wording of Article 2 of our Articles of Faith, and over the years I have conferred with Brother John Swails on this topic and others. Because I believe this article needs a major tune up, i. e. to come into agreement with the Word of God, I interviewed John at his home in Franklin Springs, prior to the 26th General Conference that was held in Greensboro, NC, in July 2009.
Let me rehearse the history of this article of faith for you to consider prayerfully.
I believe it was at the General Conference in Oklahoma City in the summer of 1977, that a motion was made to change the wording of a phrase in Article 2 of our Articles of Faith to bring it into agreement or alignment with the Bible.
The current wording reads like this: “. . . to reconcile the Father to us.”
I remember well that Noel Brooks, a noted Pentecostal scholar from the United Kingdom and writer urged the General Conference not to change the wording.
He said, “The concept of reconciling God to man had its roots in the reformation and is handed down to us through the Episcopal Articles of Faith. He was right. It's in #2 of the 39 Anglican Articles of Faith. The 25 Articles of Faith of Methodism also has it in Article 2. Mr. Brooks implored the body not to change the wording--and the session of that General Conference did not.
Many people, including myself, were not satisfied with that explanation that was given by Noel Brooks, although we highly respected him. And I would be one of the first to honor his name and legacy. He served on the faculty of Southwestern College, now Southwestern Christian University, when I was president. So, I got to know him personally and found him to be an authentic and genuine Christian gentleman.
It is now time to revisit this phrase and write or re-write it in keeping with what the Bible says about God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
I believe in any wise decision concerning our faith we should look to the Scriptures to see what they tell us. Although tradition, reason and experience are good guidelines, there is no substitute for the written logos, the Bible. The Bible for me still remains the infallible and authoritative rule for our faith and conduct in this life.
What does the Scripture say about reconciliation? Let us hear from the Apostle Paul who wrote to the Corinthians these words:
2 Corinthians 5:17-21
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.
KJV
It was my distinct privilege to visit with the Rev. Mr. John W. Swails and his wife, Sylvia Williams Swails, on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, in their lovely home in Franklin Springs, GA.
John Swails was my Bible professor at Emmanuel College when I was a freshman there, 1952-53, only one academic year. However, I have heard him teach the Bible in many conferences, and in my own churches. I consider him to be a trustworthy Bible scholar and theologian.
Brother Swails granted me permission to record him on my digital recorder about this whole matter of reconciliation, and especially this troublesome wording of it in Article 2, of our International Pentecostal Holiness Manual.
In my opinion John Swails was the greatest Bible teacher and theologian alive in the IPHC when I did the interview. At that time he was 93 years old. His mind was alert, and his speech was articulate and clear. He spoke with authority and conviction. Here is what he had to say about this issue:
“You cannot read that God needed to be reconciled to man in the Bible. No, God never needed that. You can’t read that in John 3:16. Man needed to be reconciled to God and He provided for that reconciliation through Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.”
I believe that consideration should be given now to changing this phrase in Article 2. It currently reads: “. . . to reconcile the Father to us.”
I believe that wording above should be replaced and read like this:
“. . . to reconcile us to the Father.”
I want my faith to be anchored in the Bible. What we have is not Scriptural by any stretch of the imagination. Our faith should not trust in the tradition of man as valuable as that may be, and certainly not in this case. The Bible is our source. The Anglican Church has taken out the mention of the blood in their Prayer Book. One example is the Benediction recorded in Hebrews 13:20-21:
20 Now the God of peace, Who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ; to Whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
KJV
If the Anglican Church would take out the phrase “through the blood of the everlasting covenant” the element for our salvation, regeneration, justification, adoption, and sanctification, can we trust their tradition? No! Never will we give up the blood of Jesus, which is the everlasting covenant God has made with man through Jesus Christ to provide for our reconciliation to God the Father and the promise of eternal life.
As for me and my house, we will always stay with the Truth that is set forth clearly in the Word of God, the Bible.
Noel Brooks appealed to Tradition; John W. Swails appeared to Truth.
I implore you, and those who will be members of the 2013 Polity Committee to consider my recommendation which is based on Truth and not Tradition.
Let us change this article of faith to read like this:
“. . . to reconcile us to the Father.”
Here is the way it currently reads on page 32 of our IPHC Manual 2009-2013:
"We believe that the Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, so that two who and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and perfect man, who actually suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile the Father to us, and to make atonement, not only for our actual guilt, but also for our original sin" (p. 32).
Where will you stand on this issue? For Truth or Tradition?
I rest my case.
Hugh H. Morgan
Ordained minister, Georgia Conference
The International Pentecostal Holiness Church
Posted on
Sun, June 13, 2010
by Hugh Morgan