Should We Hold Fast to What We Know Is True?

Should we hold fast to what we know is true?

Yes, but with a qualification.

Should we hold fast to what we know?  Should we hold fast to what we have proven?  Should we hold fast to what the Church of God has taught for a long time?

What do you mean by "hold fast"?  Does that mean you cannot defend what you know against contrary arguments?  Does that mean your mind is closed to any correction from God's word, the Bible?

Let's look at these questions in a little detail.

Should we hold fast to what we know is true?

Yes, as long as we can honestly defend what we think we know against contrary arguments.  We should understand why we know what we know and be able to defend what we know.  And we must always realize we are fallible - we can make mistakes - and therefore what we think we know may be wrong.

In other words, we must always be willing to examine and test what we think we know against new information and reasoning, information and reasoning that may show that we made a mistake, that what we thought we knew is not, in fact, the truth.

We can make mistakes.  History and experience prove that and the Bible proves that.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part" (1 Corinthians 13:9).  

We must always be able and willing to correct our errors and learn new knowledge.

"but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18).

"Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning" (Proverbs 9:9).

"And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26).

"Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more" (Ecclesiastes 4:13).   

Mr. Armstrong taught that it is harder to unlearn false knowledge than to learn new knowledge.  It is hard to give up what we believe, even in small points, but we must be willing to do so if God's word, the Bible, requires it.

We must always have an attitude of being willing to let the Bible correct us in our beliefs, no matter how sure we are that we "know" something.

Ultimately, it is the Bible we must hold fast to, not what we are sure we "know".

Put yourself in the shoes of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or atheist.  If you are a Catholic or Protestant, you are sure you "know" that Sunday is the Christian day of rest and worship.  If you are a Jew, you are sure that Jesus is not the Messiah.  If you are an atheist, you are sure that you "know" that there is no God.

Why is this important?

These are the people we are trying to reach with the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.  Our message will have no effect if these people are not willing to re-examine what they think they know and be corrected and change.  They cannot respond to us without being willing to give up what they think they know and submit to God's word, the Bible.

We must be the same way.  The ability to make mistakes in our thinking is the same for us as for them.  We are all human.  The inability or unwillingness to admit error may be a sign of pride, vanity, egotism, and conceit.  It may be rooted in a belief that we cannot be wrong about something, that our thinking is so good and accurate that we cannot make a mistake in something we are sure about.

We must always be willing to sacrifice our attachments to what we think we know in order to let the Bible correct us.  We must acknowledge that God knows better than we do.

This is part of submitting to God and letting him rule our lives and our thoughts.  It is part of loving God with all our being.

" 'For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist,' Says the LORD. 'But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word' " (Isaiah 66:2).

"But He answered and said, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" ' " (Matthew 4:4).

We should hold fast to what we know provided we remain willing to let the Bible correct us in what we know.  I might add that the facts of history and logic can correct us also.  As long as what we think we know holds up to Bible scrutiny and common sense, yes, we should hold onto it.  But as soon as the Bible shows that we may be wrong, we need to re-examine it and go by the Bible.

Should we hold fast to what we have proven?

We can make mistakes in what we have "proven".  We may not have had all the facts or put those facts together in the right way when we have proved something.

I was raised Catholic, and I attended a Catholic high school for four years.  We had religion class every school day.  One of the things we were taught was five proofs that the Catholic Church is the true church.  Perhaps it was some number other than five, I don't remember, and I don't remember what all those "proofs" were.  My point is, they thought they had proof of what they believed and taught.  Yet, now I know that those proofs were wrong.  Yet, they seemed plausible at the time, at least to the people who taught them.

Many people who have false beliefs think they have proved those beliefs, and we are just as human as they.  We can make mistakes.

Should we hold fast to what we have proven?  Yes, provided we are always willing to listen to correction and re-examine what we have proved.  If we have proved something, if it is true, if our proof is sound and accurate, we should be able to prove it again in the light of new information and reasoning.  If we cannot do so, then something is wrong.

I was in Worldwide when Mr. Tkach began making changes in doctrine.  I had been in the Church for several years.  Before coming into the Church of God I had proved the doctrines of the Church very thoroughly.

So how did I react to the changes?  Did I say, "I've already proved these things, so I know the changes must be wrong".  No.  I said, "If the changes are wrong, I should be able to prove once again, even in the light of new information or new arguments, what I believe, and if I cannot do that, then maybe I made a mistake - maybe I am wrong".

So I examined the arguments and new information from Mr. Tkach with an open mind, and I went to the Bible for answers.  And the Bible gave me the proof I needed, and I was able to prove, again, the truth of the doctrines of the Church.

While I was doing this, I did not change my practices.  While examining and researching the issues of the weekly Sabbath, and annual holy days, tithing, and clean and unclean meats with an open mind, I continued to keep the Sabbath and holy days, I continued to tithe, I continued to avoid unclean meats, etc.  I resolved to continue these things which I had already proved.  But I proved them a second time.

Look, I left the Catholic Church and came into the Church of God by examining all doctrinal issues with an open mind and believing what God says in the Bible.  If going to the Bible for answers with an open mind was the right approach when coming into the Church, why would it not be the right approach when dealing with the changes taught by Mr. Tkach?  If going to the Bible worked the first time, it should work again.  So that is what I did.

Should we hold fast to what the Church of God has taught for a long time?

We should only hold fast to what we can prove in the Bible.  How long the Church has taught it has nothing to do with it.  The Catholic Church has taught its doctrines for centuries, but that does not make those doctrines true.  The Church of God Seventh Day taught that God's annual holy days do not need to be observed, and they taught that for a long time, but that did not make it true.  Yet, they were part of the true Church of God.

It is the Bible we must hold fast to.


As I think about these things, it occurs to me that there may be three categories of Church members today:

a)  Those who were not raised in the Church but came in from other belief systems or other churches.  They heard Mr. Armstrong or the Church say, don't believe me, don't believe us, don't believe any man or church, believe God, believe your Bible.  They followed that advice, checked their Bibles, submitted to God's word, and gave up their former beliefs - the things they thought they "knew".  They let the Bible correct them, and they were willing to change.  They did not believe Mr. Armstrong or take his word for anything - they checked up as he said they should.  Only after proving the truth in the Bible did they accept and believe it.

b)  Those who were not raised in the Church but came in from other belief systems or other churches.  They heard Mr. Armstrong or the Church say, don't believe me, don't believe us, don't believe any man or church, believe God, believe your Bible.  But they did not do that.  They believed Mr. Armstrong, even though he said they should not do that.  They did not prove what is true in the Bible.  They may have referenced certain scriptures, but they never really proved the truth in a thorough way.  They just took Mr. Armstrong's word for it.  What he said sounded good, so they just accepted it.  They thought they found a shortcut and did not do the hard work of proving what is true in the Bible.  They trusted their "instincts", and their instincts, their feelings, told them Mr. Armstrong was true.  They also came into the Church.

c)  Those who grew up in the Church.  They were taught to prove what they believe in the Bible, and most of them tried and to some extent succeeded.  But how have they been tested?  It is easy to continue in the beliefs you were raised in.  Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims do it all the time.  That is how religions continue from generation to generation.  And most of these other religions teach their children "proofs" or reasons or evidence for their beliefs.

I have proved the truth of what I believe twice, once coming out of the Catholic Church and into the Church of God, and later in rejecting the changes taught by Mr. Tkach.  I am willing, if challenged, to do it a third and a fourth and a fifth time - to go to the Bible with an open mind and believe what God says.

I have often thought that there are advantages and disadvantages to growing up in the Church.  The disadvantage is the difficulty in really proving the truth in the Bible with an open mind and knowing you have proved it.  The advantage, of course, is living in and learning a right moral outlook and environment and being able to avoid the sins and consequences of sin that people who grow up in bad environments often do not avoid.


We do not always know things as much as we think we know them.  We think we know things, but we can make mistakes, and some of the things we think we know are not really true.  I am speaking of us in the general human sense, and it applies both in and out of the Church.  There is even a saying, "to err is human".

We should hold fast to the Bible more than we hold fast to the things we think we know.  We should let the Bible teach us new things and correct us when we are wrong.  And that process never stops.  We can never say, "I know everything perfectly now, so I don't need to be corrected or learn anything new".

"Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more" (Ecclesiastes 4:13).

Should we allow ourselves to be enticed by men with their own ideas that contradict common doctrine in the Church of God?

If "enticed" means tempted to do wrong, no.  But keep in mind that thousands of radio listeners who heard Mr. Armstrong on radio and TV and read his writings could have looked at him as enticing them with his own ideas contrary to their Catholic or Protestant doctrines, doctrines long established in their churches.  But they kept an open mind and checked their Bibles and believed what God said.  If not for those thousands who had an open mind and who were willing to consider someone else's ideas, we would not be here.

The Jews and Gentiles in Paul's day had to learn new things, things which may have seemed very different from what they had believed.  But they set the example of how to deal with it by checking the scriptures.

"Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men" (Acts 17:10-12).

Let's make it part of our character and way of life to always look to the Bible for answers to doctrinal questions and let God teach us continually.  That is what we should hold fast to.

If we do that, we can preach to the public to believe God, believe the Bible, not any man or church or tradition, and to do so without hypocrisy.  Then God can give us a wide-open door for preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning with great power and effectiveness.  Then we can get the warning out to hundreds of millions of people who need it.  Then we can glorify God's name by demonstrating His fairness in warning people while they have time to repent and escape.

We will be able to do these things because we will be asking the public to do the same thing we are willing to do - put the Bible first even when it means giving up what we thought we knew.

Let's do it.

What Is Sound Doctrine?

At the end of this post I will comment on the election results.


We must respect our leaders - those God has put into office, under Christ, to teach us and rule us in the Church regarding matters of the Church.  We should respect the man, when possible, but if that is difficult because of faults a man has (and we all have faults) we must still respect the office.  We should obey those who rule over us, with the exception that we cannot obey a man if it means disobeying God.  We must obey God rather than man (Hebrews 13:17, Acts 5:29).

When someone teaches us, I think we need to be able to understand what they are saying without contradiction.  If their message seems to be filled with self-contradiction, if all the things they say are not consistent, we may need to ask questions.  It is sometimes possible we are misunderstanding something, and this can be clarified.  It may also be a warning sign that the person speaking or writing is hiding something and cannot give a consistent message.

Inconsistencies may need to be addressed.

A minister might say that we are to hold to a body of sound doctrine.  That sounds good, and I agree with it.  But you have to know what sound doctrine is.

There are some fellowships, more than one, that hold to the doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught at end of his life.  I say, at the end of his life, because he changed doctrine during his ministry.  For example, once he taught that Pentecost was on Monday.  When he realized his error, he corrected it.  No one counts a Monday Pentecost as a doctrine of HWA that we need to hold to.  We all realize that he made changes and corrected errors during his entire ministry.

One of the reasons some feel we should hold fast to Mr. Armstrong's teachings at the end of his life is that they view him, I think correctly, as the Elijah to come to restore all things, that is, to restore lost knowledge.  So they figure, he must have completed that by the end of his life, so his doctrines at the end of his life are complete and correct.  I agree that Mr. Armstrong was probably the Elijah to come to restore lost knowledge, but where I differ is that I believe his work of restoring knowledge and correcting error continues after his death, as I think the Bible shows.

So though I agree Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to come, I think his Elijah work continues today, and all the doctrine he taught at the end of his life was not necessarily complete and correct.  Christ will show us, primarily through the Bible, what changes or additions still need to be made.

Some fellowships therefore say that Mr. Armstrong's teachings are the body of sound doctrine we should hold fast to.

But this is where the inconsistencies come into play, inconsistencies that should be clarified or explained, if possible.  It may not be possible.

The problem is, no fellowship holds fast to everything Mr. Armstrong taught.  They cherry-pick what they hold to and what they reject.

Suppose you have a fellowship that wants to hold fast to everything Mr. Armstrong taught.  The leader might say, "I am not smart enough to discover new knowledge".  Actually, Mr. Armstrong was not "smart enough" either, but God by His Holy Spirit guided him to discover truth in the Bible.  None of us are "smart" in that sense.  We need God to open our minds to His truth.

And that depends on attitude.  We must have an attitude of being willing to believe what we see in God's word, the Bible, and try to obey it.  We have to believe what God says.  God can work with the individual who does that regardless of their intelligence.  I would rather expect that a "dumb" person (dumb as far as IQ or natural intelligence is concerned) who trusts God and believes the Bible will have more spiritual knowledge than a "smart" person who doesn't follow the Bible.

So to say, I am not smart enough to discover new knowledge, is obviously true but is irrelevant.  God reveals spiritual understanding and knowledge to those who have His Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10-16), and being "smart" has nothing to do with it.

And from a practical point of view, for a leader, if someone submits a proposal for change, the leader should have the spiritual wisdom and discernment to check in the Bible to see if it is true.  If he can't do that, how can he use the Bible to prove that Mr. Armstrong's teachings are true?  He also has the option to consult with other ministers, for in a multitude of counselors there is safety.  So he doesn't have to discover new knowledge for himself - God may reveal it to others who submit suggestions to him.  But he has to be willing to listen.  Loma Armstrong submitted to her husband the knowledge of the Sabbath before he was converted, and he eventually accepted it after research.  Mr. Armstrong submitted suggestions to Church of God Seventh Day, which they rejected but without good cause.

So getting back to my example, you may have a group that wants to hold to Mr. Armstrong's teachings.  But often not all of his teachings.

So the leader may start with a list of all the doctrines (doctrine just means teaching, everything that is taught by word or example, by spoken or by printed word) that Mr. Armstrong taught and held at the end of his life.

Then the leader goes through that list and throws out anything he doesn't like.  For example, Mr. Armstrong taught at the end of his life that it was wrong for a woman in the Church to wear makeup.  Well, if the leader doesn't like that doctrine, he can just throw it out.  Mr. Armstrong taught that we do not cast lots for decisions to know God's will in the Church today because we have God's Spirit to guide us.  If the leader wants to, if he thinks casting of lots is a good idea, he can discard that doctrine of Mr. Armstrong also.

Let's keep going.  This will get interesting.

Mr. Armstrong taught, near the end of his life when he knew he was likely to die soon, that if he died Christ would provide a new pastor general and we better follow him if we want to be in God's kingdom, and we better stay united.  He did not qualify by saying, "as he follows the Bible".  I heard him say this with my own ears.  Mr. Tkach became that pastor general.  So Mr. Armstrong's doctrine was, follow Mr. Tkach and stay in Worldwide - stay united.  Obviously we can't have that doctrine or we will all become Protestant, so throw that doctrine out.

Sometime around the late 1950's Mr. Armstrong published an article for the Church entitled, "Should You Listen to Others?", or maybe, "Should We Listen to Others?".  I don't remember if he used the word "we" or "you" in the title.  You can probably find it online.

I don't have the article in front of me, so I will paraphrase from memory rather than quote word-for-word.

In that article, Mr. Armstrong asks and answers the question, what should you do if you see something in the Bible that contradicts the teachings of the Church?  Should you blind your eyes to it?  No, he answers.  We love truth and hate error.  If we are wrong, we want to know.  Take it to your pastor or write to headquarters.  If you are wrong, we will explain it to you.  If we are wrong, we will make the change for the whole Church.

That was Mr. Armstrong's doctrine:  send corrections and changes to the Church and if the Church is wrong, the Church will change.

Well, a leader who is telling his group that he will not change anything Mr. Armstrong taught probably would not like that particular doctrine, so throw that one out.

Finally, Mr. Armstrong taught his radio listeners, don't believe me, don't believe any man or church, believe God, believe your Bible.

This is the most important doctrine of all, that we should not believe Mr. Armstrong, but rather we should believe what we see in our own Bibles.  It is most important because, from that doctrine comes all other doctrines.

Pick any doctrine of Mr. Armstrong that is in addition to or different from the doctrines of traditional Christianity:  the seventh day is the Christian Sabbath, keep the annual holy days, the plan of God as revealed in the holy days, the identity of the lost tribes of Israel, the soul is not immortal, God is not a trinity, etc.

Every one of them had its origin in the one foundational doctrine, don't believe me, believe your Bible.  This is what Mr. Armstrong practiced and taught to his listeners and this is what many of his listeners did before they came into the Church.

And yet, some want to believe Mr. Armstrong when he himself told his radio listeners, who became the early members of the Philadelphia era of the Church of God, DON'T believe me.  How do you resolve that contradiction?

In all fairness I have to point out that in the article I mentioned of Mr. Armstrong, he says in the article that it is different now for Church members, implying that the Church should believe Him.  I think that was his inconsistency, and he may have inadvertently sown a seed of the current problem.  You can read the article yourself and judge for yourself.  I don't think God has two standards, one for the Church and one for the world (Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:15-16, Numbers 15:29, Deuteronomy 25:13-16).

In any case, a leader of a group can throw that doctrine out also.  Perhaps he can claim that the doctrine was only for a radio audience but not for Church of God members, if that is what Mr. Armstrong said.  But why should it be different?

And it was never different for Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong.  They always believed God more than any man or authority, even in the Church of God.

One might say, the rules are different for Mr. Armstrong because he was an apostle.

But he was not an apostle when he believed the Bible more than any man.  He was not an apostle, not even ordained as a minister, when he submitted suggestions for change in doctrine to the Church of God Seventh Day when he was attending with them as a lay member.

And Loma Armstrong was never an apostle, yet she brought the Sabbath doctrine to her husband, Herbert Armstrong, when that doctrine was contrary to established Christian tradition of this world, the only mainstream Christian tradition she or Mr. Armstrong knew.

She believed God rather than man.  Mr. Armstrong believed God rather than man.  He taught that to his radio listeners, and they, those who became Philadelphians in the Church, believed God more than man.

Mr. Armstrong was not "smart enough" to discover the Sabbath - his wife brought the doctrine to him.  He checked in the Bible and found out it was true.

So after all that, are we to go back to believing man more than God?

Can you see the inconsistencies of saying that we should hold fast to sound doctrine, yet define sound doctrine as following all the teachings of Mr. Armstrong, when even those who claim that pick and choose which of Mr. Armstrong's doctrines to keep and which ones to discard?

All right.  What is sound doctrine?

Sound doctrine is the doctrine that is taught by God's word, the Bible.  Not Mystery of the Ages.  The Bible.

And to know what that doctrine is requires Bible study and a willingness to always learn, always let God correct us, always let God teach us new things.  Let the Bible interpret the Bible, and let the Bible correct us.

Abraham believed God, and God accounted his faith as righteousness (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, James 2:23, Galatians 3:6).  

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever" (Psalm 111:10).

There is no other way to know sound doctrine.

I am not trying to be overly harsh.  Sometimes, what appears to be inconsistent is really not, once an explanation is given.  But we should seek an explanation.  Even in the Bible are apparent contradictions.  We call them "apparent" contradictions because we know that God's word is true and cannot contradict itself.  We seek explanations and usually find them sooner or later.  The apparent contradictions often disappear once we see where we have misunderstood something.

Thus it is with the speaking and writing of our Church of God leaders and speakers.  There may appear to be contradictions, but we can ask for and receive clarifications that help us understand.

But hiding our eyes from the matter does no good.  If a pastor speaks in a sermon, he is speaking to me, the listener.  But if I hear inconsistencies, then I cannot understand what is being said to me.  Communication breaks down.  If I am to understand what is really said, I must have an explanation.  There must be dialogue.

Trying to resolve things that we fail to understand is not disrespect or rebellion.  Questioning is sometimes necessary in the learning process.


A quick update on the election results.

Donald Trump has won the election.  Republicans will have control of the Senate and probably the House of Representatives.

The United States is a nation in decline, but I think that decline would happen faster if Trump had lost.  God is being merciful.  I think we have more time.

Also, had the Democrats won there would be more chance of a national law to allow women to have abortions in all states, and the United States would be more guilty in God's sight for voting for such an outcome.  The election might be viewed as a rejection of abortion, and that may give us room for more of God's mercy and a little more time.

Things can move forward to give Europe more power.  President Trump and J. D. Vance seem to be more isolationist in regard to protecting Europe from Russian aggression.  They appear reluctant to give the Ukraine the help it needs to win.  This may provoke Europe into increasing its military strength.  All this can fit into the framework of Bible prophecy.