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.