Suggested change in Article of Faith XVI

[Hans Deventer]

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall perish [suffer eternally in hell].

Reason: this would make the article align with John 3:16, the core of the gospel, both in promising eternal life as in making clear that the alternative is to "perish". This word has been used in this verse ever since the KJV and is still used in the NIV. This also aligns better with par 26.4.

[Benjamin Burch]

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall perish [suffer eternally in hell].

Reason: this would make the article align with John 3:16, the core of the gospel, both in promising eternal life as in making clear that the alternative is to "perish". This word has been used in this verse ever since the KJV and is still used in the NIV. This also aligns better with par 26.4.

That's probably a good first step, but eventually I'd just like to drop it off all together. Why not:

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ out Lord.


Why do we need to say anything more?

[Hans Deventer]

That's probably a good first step, but eventually I'd just like to drop it off all together. Why not:

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ out Lord.


Why do we need to say anything more?

The question then of course becomes, why did Jesus say more? Perhaps to indicate that we do have a choice? That man indeed is free to make that choice?

More technically, if we'd change it as you propose, we'd also have to change the Agreed Statement of Belief and I don't think (I may be wrong) that it has ever been amended.

[Benjamin Burch]

The question then of course becomes, why did Jesus say more? Perhaps to indicate that we do have a choice? That man indeed is free to make that choice?

More technically, if we'd change it as you propose, we'd also have to change the Agreed Statement of Belief and I don't think (I may be wrong) that it has ever been amended.

What would we have to change?


We believe that our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place.

I submit that, in the words of Karl Barth, it is possible that while God has given a universal "NEIN!" to mankind, God has said "YES!" to mankind in Christ, and we hold out hope that in the final judgment God will say a final "YES!" to all of creation.

Maybe God won't. But what good does it do to cement it into an Article of Faith?

I see no contradiction between Universalism and our Agreed Statement of Belief.

I also see no contradiction between exclusivism and my proposed change.

[Hans Deventer]

What would we have to change?

"26.4. We believe that the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost."

[Benjamin Burch]

"26.4. We believe that the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost."

AHA! Missed that. :smilies1722:

I skipped ahead to the end, where I thought judgment would be! Oops!

Seriously, I wouldn't mind changing that. I just don't see the value in having it there.



The question then of course becomes, why did Jesus say more? Perhaps to indicate that we do have a choice? That man indeed is free to make that choice?


Maybe Jesus didn't say more. Maybe John and other authors inferred more. Maybe there is ambiguity in Scripture on this regard. Maybe we'd be best to not deny hell, but instead to just leave it alone and let God do the judging at the end? (Something I"m sure you're fond of, Hans!)

[Benjamin Burch]

Maybe Jesus didn't say more. Maybe John and other authors inferred more. Maybe there is ambiguity in Scripture on this regard. Maybe we'd be best to not deny hell, but instead to just leave it alone and let God do the judging at the end? (Something I"m sure you're fond of, Hans!)

I guess I could sum up how I feel this way:

We know heaven is true.

We think Hell is true.

Hell might not be true.

There is a tradition within Christianity that says hell will not be eternal, or maybe not true at all.

We know God will say "YES!" to those in Christ.

We think God will say "NO" to those not in Christ (whatever that means).

We know God MIGHT say "YES!" to all of humanity.


On THAT day, I want to stand there knowing that my church proclaimed the one truth we knew - that God will say YES to those in Christ. I'll be comfortable knowing we left the rest up to God. If we include Hell, and God says YES to all humanity, I'll be a little ashamed.

[Hans Deventer]

Maybe Jesus didn't say more. Maybe John and other authors inferred more. Maybe there is ambiguity in Scripture on this regard. Maybe we'd be best to not deny hell, but instead to just leave it alone and let God do the judging at the end? (Something I"m sure you're fond of, Hans!)

Sure! But I'm also pragmatic. Don't want to change more than necessary. This proposal already recognizes the ambiguity. I think it pretty much achieves what you'd want too, Ben.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sure! But I'm also pragmatic. This proposal already recognizes the ambiguity. I think it pretty much achieves what you'd want too, Ben.

No, it removes all possibility that God will save all. Shouldn't we leave that possibility open, in case God chooses to do so? (Something God is totally capable of!)

The word "perish" cannot be compatible with God's universal salvation.

[Hans Deventer]

No, it removes all possibility that God will save all. Shouldn't we leave that possibility open, in case God chooses to do so? (Something God is totally capable of!)

The word "perish" cannot be compatible with God's universal salvation.

I think you're moving beyond what I am comfortable with, Ben. I may have hope for universal salvation, but that is a personal hope in who God is. I don't think we can turn that into an Article of Faith. Those will have to be founded on the Scriptures. And I prefer to follow them as closely as possible.

If I have to choose between finding out that God is more merciful than I ever thought and finding out He is less merciful than I thought, I prefer the former. I'd love to come to know that the gospel is even better than we ever dreamed it is.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think you're moving beyond what I am comfortable with, Ben. I may have hope for universal salvation, but that is a personal hope in who God is. I don't think we can turn that into an Article of Faith. Those will have to be founded on the Scriptures. And I prefer to follow them as closely as possible.

If I have to choose between finding out that God is more merciful than I ever thought and finding out He is less merciful than I thought, I prefer the former. I'd love to come to know that the gospel is even better than we ever dreamed it is.

Keep in mind, Hans. I am not a Universalist. I have a very good friend who is, and we talk about it often. I oppose it strongly. However, my really big question would be, what do we gain by including a statement of belief on Hell? Especially when some Biblical authors (like the author of Colossians) may very well disagree?

I simply think that, as I said, if we leave hell out, it doesn't encourage universalism. It simply allows it. Again, what do we gain by including hell? I feel we gain nothing.

[Hans Deventer]

Keep in mind, Hans. I am not a Universalist. I have a very good friend who is, and we talk about it often. I oppose it strongly. However, my really big question would be, what do we gain by including a statement of belief on Hell?

Ben, if this amendment passes, we've deleted the only reference to hell in the Manual, apart from it's use in the Apostle's Creed where it means hades. So we won't any longer have a statement on hell. Again, I think we'd be very close to achieving what you want.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, if this amendment passes, we've deleted the only reference to hell in the Manual, apart from it's use in the Apostle's Creed where it means hades. So we won't any longer have a statement on hell. Again, I think we'd be very close to achieving what you want.

I'd still be uncomfortable with the word "perish." However, it's a change I completely support. I would just like to eventually go further. Thanks for this exchange. Thanks for your heart on this issue. Thanks for your persistence and your consistency here! Also, for your optimism and focus on the love of God.

[Hans Deventer]

I'd still be uncomfortable with the word "perish."

Hey, I'm not happy with it either! I won't be enjoying seeing any living soul "perish", whatever the meaning of that word will turn out to be. But from Genesis to Revelation the Bible speaks about the choice we have to make, and it's not between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini.

[Benjamin Burch]

Hey, I'm not happy with it either! I won't be enjoying seeing any living soul "perish", whatever the meaning of that word will turn out to be. But from Genesis to Revelation the Bible speaks about the choice we have to make, and it's not between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini.

but there are also those hints, where all are saved, and all are redeemed.

[Hans Deventer]

but there are also those hints, where all are saved, and all are redeemed.

Yes. But even if not, we may still have hope in who God is. One of the miracles in the Scriptures is that even against God's pronouncement of judgement, a mere human being can still protest and sometimes, even prevail. Incredible.

Still, there can be no denying that the choice is laid before us:



Deut 30:19-20 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This should be our proclamation.

But somehow I don't think I'll have to defend the amendment against people like you, Ben..........

Thanks for the discussion all the same! I always appreciate and respect your input. You're one of those who think like me to some extent, and that helps me to follow it, but precisely where you don't you challenge me.

[Eric Vail]

Yes. But even if not, we may still have hope in who God is. One of the miracles in the Scriptures is that even against God's pronouncement of judgement, a mere human being can still protest and sometimes, even prevail. Incredible.

Still, there can be no denying that the choice is laid before us:



Deut 30:19-20 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


This should be our proclamation.

But somehow I don't think I'll have to defend the amendment against people like you, Ben..........

Thanks for the discussion all the same! I always appreciate and respect your input. You're one of those who think like me to some extent, and that helps me to follow it, but precisely where you don't you challenge me.
Hans, do I remember correctly that you read a lenghthy book over a year ago now on hell and whether the Bible says it is a place of eternal judgement? Is this partially the impetus behind your interest in this topic?

I hear an interest from both of you to be faithful to Scripture in the way we articulate our articles. We need to be careful that our articles express the breadth of Scripture's witness. Westerners are mostly drawn to therapeutic notions. I am as guilty as any to focus on positive statements about God and explain away texts that seem harsh. I have heard from people more knowledgeable than I about the more recent UMC lectionary that texts about judgement and divine discipline are absent. I am concerned about how contextually driven this move may be. How far reaching globally is this concern?

Hans, I believe if you are wanting to propose a change, the safest route is to find biblical language as you have suggested. However, I would be interested in placing all relavant texts from both old and new testaments together and finding an appropriate synthesis of their combined message. Giving one text preferance over the others (even though I like the text) is something I would only want to do if the wider witness of Scripture gives warrant for that move.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, do I remember correctly that you read a lenghthy book over a year ago now on hell and whether the Bible says it is a place of eternal judgement? Is this partially the impetus behind your interest in this topic?

Yes, and the fact that this is the only part of the Articles of Faith that I do not agree with. So what can you do? To ignore is an option, to try to change it is perhaps a better one.


I hear an interest from both of you to be faithful to Scripture in the way we articulate our articles. We need to be careful that our articles express the breadth of Scripture's witness. Westerners are mostly drawn to therapeutic notions. I am as guilty as any to focus on positive statements about God and explain away texts that seem harsh. I have heard from people more knowledgeable than I about the more recent UMC lectionary that texts about judgement and divine discipline are absent.

Well, I definitely did not want to do that.


Hans, I believe if you are wanting to propose a change, the safest route is to find biblical language as you have suggested. However, I would be interested in placing all relevant texts from both old and new testaments together and finding an appropriate synthesis of their combined message. Giving one text preference over the others (even though I like the text) is something I would only want to do if the wider witness of Scripture gives warrant for that move.

Eric, I actually think that the word perish is a good one because it does justice to the several texts regarding the issue. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a concept that would cover all the various words and images that are used in the Scriptures on this topic. This one, translating "apollumi", which in itself already has several meanings, has a meaning that is a lot broader than the very specific words that are being used now, that only refer to one of the several images. I don't think an Article of Faith should be so specific when the Biblical data are not.

[Dave McClung]

Yes, and the fact that this is the only part of the Articles of Faith that I do not agree with. So what can you do? To ignore is an option, to try to change it is perhaps a better one.



Well, I definitely did not want to do that.



Eric, I actually think that the word perish is a good one because it does justice to the several texts regarding the issue. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a concept that would cover all the various words and images that are used in the Scriptures on this topic. This one, translating "apollumi", which in itself already has several meanings, has a meaning that is a lot broader than the very specific words that are being used now, that only refer to one of the several images. I don't think an Article of Faith should be so specific when the Biblical data are not.

I don't usually get involved in these kind of discussions, but can one of you explain the word "savingly" to me. I don't understand how one "savingly" believes. It is God who saves, not the sinner.

[Randy Wise]

I don't usually get involved in these kind of discussions, but can one of you explain the word "savingly" to me. I don't understand how one "savingly" believes. It is God who saves, not the sinner.


"Saving believes" or a sincere faith? Perhaps a good start on faith is hebrews 11 note: Hebrews 11:6

[Wilson Deaton]

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall perish [suffer eternally in hell].

I guess I should select my campaign manager for, "Deaton for Delegate, GA '13."

If elected, I'll support this move...

Wilson

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't usually get involved in these kind of discussions, but can one of you explain the word "savingly" to me. I don't understand how one "savingly" believes. It is God who saves, not the sinner.



Dave,

I didn't even notice this. We cannot have "saving faith." For our save does not save, it is the Lord God who saves, and God alone. I fear this is left over from our more Pelagian days. (Dr. Mark Quanstrom's book A Century of Holiness Theology covers this pretty well).

Thank you for bringing this up! I think that needs to go!

[Hans Deventer]

I don't usually get involved in these kind of discussions, but can one of you explain the word "savingly" to me. I don't understand how one "savingly" believes. It is God who saves, not the sinner.


Dave, I think (and only think) that the attempt has been made to distinguish between believing in the sense of "thinking something is true" and actually trusting, which presume a relation. Or perhaps it is a reference to the distinction Wesley made in The Scripture Way of Salvation between "the faith of adherence" and "the faith of assurance". I'm offering only guesses.

[Benjamin Burch]

Dave, I think (and only think) that the attempt has been made to distinguish between believing in the sense of "thinking something is true" and actually trusting, which presume a relation. Or perhaps it is a reference to the distinction Wesley made in The Scripture Way of Salvation between "the faith of adherence" and "the faith of assurance". I'm offering only guesses.

I think you're probably right. I still struggle with it because the language is just wrong. I think the focus is solely on the believer, as much of our history was.

[Ryan Scott]

but there are also those hints, where all are saved, and all are redeemed.

Not to chime in too late, but I think we need some distinction between a universal redemption - something I believe is clearly outlined in scripture - and a universal salvation - something which depends on the response of the redeemed.

There are a lot of speculations about the end of things - scripture seems pretty clear that some will not ultimately "make it," however it also seems pretty clear that this failure is not because of God, but in spite of God.

We need to affirm the difficult truth that the result of true freedom is sadly, some who do not choose wisely.

[Benjamin Burch]

Not to chime in too late, but I think we need some distinction between a universal redemption - something I believe is clearly outlined in scripture - and a universal salvation - something which depends on the response of the redeemed.

There are a lot of speculations about the end of things - scripture seems pretty clear that some will not ultimately "make it," however it also seems pretty clear that this failure is not because of God, but in spite of God.

We need to affirm the difficult truth that the result of true freedom is sadly, some who do not choose wisely.

I guess I should clarify that I think there are hints and glimpses of universal salvation in Scripture.

[Thomas Oord]

I like Hans's suggestion, although I have some sympathies with Ben's argument. I do think we need to emphasize strongly the negative consequences of sin, while emphasizing even more strongly the positive consequences of love.

For some time, I've argued that the "eternal life" mentioned in John 3:16 pertains more to a high quality of life that begins here and now, not a massive quantity of life.

Taking that same logic, "perish" in that verse would refer to a low quality of life here and now rather than a long quantity of hellish suffering.

I take it that Paul had perishing here and now in mind when he wrote so eloquently about the death that comes to those who sin: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 3:23).

Tom

[Benjamin Burch]

I like Hans's suggestion, although I have some sympathies with Ben's argument. I do think we need to emphasize strongly the negative consequences of sin, while emphasizing even more strongly the positive consequences of love.

For some time, I've argued that the "eternal life" mentioned in John 3:16 pertains more to a high quality of life that begins here and now, not a massive quantity of life.

Taking that same logic, "perish" in that verse would refer to a low quality of life here and now rather than a long quantity of hellish suffering.

I take it that Paul had perishing here and now in mind when he wrote so eloquently about the death that comes to those who sin: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 3:23).

Tom


Nice to see you back here, Tom! (now, you know I'm only saying that because you said you have sympathies with my argument! :tongue:)

[Hans Deventer]

I like Hans's suggestion, although I have some sympathies with Ben's argument. I do think we need to emphasize strongly the negative consequences of sin, while emphasizing even more strongly the positive consequences of love.

Tom, if you have any suggestions to improve the amendment, I'd be happy to use them. My approach is to use Biblical concepts as much as possible, and purposely allowing for the room they offer in our statements. Your comments about "eternal life" and "perish" would fit, I think.