Mr. Jason Fritts

I don't have any new solid information about Mr. Fritts.  There are more questions than answers at this point.  But I hsve a few thoughts I will share.

It is apparent that he does not want to raise up a new Church of God fellowship.  That actually says something good about his character, that he is humbled by the responsibility of leading a new group and that he does not want to create more division than already exists in the whole Church of God.  I can empathize with him on that.

But God has ways of moving us in directions we do not want to go.  

When Mr. Fritts separated from Church of God Assembly (regardless of whether he was fired or quit), he may have thought he could join an existing group.  He has, after all, a lot to offer in terms of ability and experience.

Yet, his very experience and ability may make other groups hesitant to hire him.  There may be a fear he will leave after a while taking brethren with him.

How often do any of us set out to do something, assuming things will be a certain way, and finding they are not, whether or not we know the reason?

And if God is involved, He can easily block Mr. Fritts from being hired by any existing Church of God fellowship, if that is His will.  He may want Mr. Fritts to raise up a new group even if that is not Mr. Fritts's first choice.

I am curious about what Mr. Fritts has been doing the last several Sabbaths.  Does he attend someplace?  Does he tune in to live services someplace on the Internet (there are many available)?  Does he preach a sermon to a small group of his family and friends and a few Church of God members he knows, but without broadcasting services on the Internet?  Or does he broadcast to a few people but does not otherwise make himself known to everyone at this time?

I cannot imagine him only praying, reading the Bible, and sleeping on the Sabbath.

I would love to hear or read him explain in his own words what he believes the true gospel is.  If I am wrong in my views of what the true gospel is, maybe I could learn from him and be corrected.

He probably needs more time for God to work things out for him.  But the Feast is approaching, and there may be a lot of members whose plans are up in the air because of this.  And Oh, what a wide spectrum of views various ministers and members or former members of Church of God Assembly may have!

Is it safe to say this whole situation can be complicated?


On the world scene, the whole world, allies and enemies alike, is seeing the divisions and the weakness of the United States.  They also see our reluctance to be fully committed to defending their interests and their safety.  At the same time there are signs of weakness in the leadership of Russia and China.  Russia may have a new leader soon, and the same is possible for China.

Everything is in flux.  The world is fast-changing.  AI is growing.  

Europe, especially Germany, feels the need to become stronger militarily, independent of the United States.  They are rearming.  Things may take time, maybe several years, to work out.  But things are definitely moving in the direction that Bible prophecy predicts.

More on Salvation through Christ Being Part of the True Gospel

I have written on this in the last two posts, but I have something to add.  I want to give an analogy to show that information and details about good news is part of the good news itself.

The true gospel is the good news of the kingdom of God.  The kingdom of God is the family of God ruling the earth and the universe as the government of God.  Christ will return to set up His kingdom on this earth and with the resurrected saints as the family of God will rule the nations of the earth and bring happiness to all mankind.  That is good news.

I have said and maintained that any information and details about that kingdom is part of the good news and therefore part of the true gospel, provided the core teaching of God's kingdom being set up on this earth is included.  Without that core teaching about the kingdom, any information or details about salvation become a false gospel if presented as the gospel.  But with the core teaching of God's kingdom being set up on this earth, information about that kingdom, including how to enter that kingdom through salvation through Christ, becomes part of the good news and is part of the true gospel.

Here is the analogy.

Suppose you have an eighteen year old daughter living in your house.  She is a good driver and has always wanted a car but cannot afford one.  So you say to her, "I have good news.  I am going to give you a car".  

She is overjoyed.

Then you tell her some specifics.  "I have already purchased the car and it will be delivered sometime next week.  You like convertibles, so I got you a Cadillac convertible.  It is brand new.  I know red is your favorite color, so I ordered a red convertible.  Also, since you do not have a lot of money, I am paying for the insurance and gas for a full year".  You also tell her about all the features and accessories of the car.

Are those details not part of the good news that you are giving your daughter a car?  Of course they are.  They enhance the good news and are part of the good news.  Your daughter is happy she is getting a car - any car - but she is delighted that it is new, a convertible, and her favorite color, red.  She is even more happy when you tell her you are paying for the gas and insurance.  All of that is part of the good news.

But without the core message that she is getting a car, what good are the details?  Telling her you are giving her something red is not good news - it could be an apple!  It could be a radish and she doesn't like radishes.

Likewise, the main part of the true gospel is that God will set up His kingdom on the earth that will bring happiness to the earth.  For the establishment and the authority of that kingdom see Daniel 2:37-45.  For the happiness that will exist all over the earth, see Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 35:5-7, Psalm 98:4-9, and many other passages you can find in the Old Testament.  With that as the core and focus of the message, all the details and information about that kingdom - how to enter that ruling family of God through salvation made possible by Christ's sacrifice, the law of God that will be practiced in the kingdom, the happiness that will spread all over the earth - all that becomes part of the good news of that kingdom and part of the true gospel.

Paul and others often focused on the sacrifice of Christ and salvation through Christ because the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles already knew about the government aspect and other aspects of the kingdom of God from the Old Testament.

They knew that God would set up a kingdom to rule this earth from the account in Daniel about Nebuchadnezzar's dream.  They knew that the earth would be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the oceans are full of water (Isaiah 11:9).  They knew that men would beat the swords into plowshares and would learn war no more (Isaiah 2:4). They knew that the wolf would dwell with the lamb and the lion would eat straw like the ox and no one would hurt or destroy (Isaiah 11:6-9).  They knew of the happiness that people all over the earth would enjoy because of God's rule.  Paul must have reminded them of those things from time to time, no doubt, but he concentrated on the parts they did not know - the sacrifice of Christ and salvation through Christ.  And the things he taught them about Christ and salvation through faith, not works, were definitely part of the true gospel because they included the good news of how men could be forgiven and enter that kingdom.

For someone to say that the kingdom is good news but information about that kingdom and why and how it will be happy is not part of the good news is, frankly, a little bit nuts.

Common sense should tell you that if something is good news, details and information about that thing is also part of the good news.

Now, this raises a question.  What should the Church of God focus on in preaching the true gospel?  What should we spend most of our time and money on, salvation through Christ or the family of God ruling the earth?

That is not a matter of doctrine but of policy.  What should our policy be?  How should we do the work?  How should we organize and present our material?

That is a judgment call the leaders and ministers of the Church must make.

I will offer my thoughts on that.

In Paul's day, most people knew about the government aspect of God's kingdom ruling the earth, but they didn't know about Christ.  Today, it is the opposite.  Most people in our western nations who believe in God know teachings about Christ but not about the government of God ruling the earth.

Paul often concentrated his teaching on Christ because that was the part they did not know.  Today, we can concentrate on God having a family and ruling the earth as the government of God because that is the part most people do not know.

Yet, there may be occasions when it is best and most effective to lead with the truth about salvation through Christ.  This would be for the purpose of establishing common ground with our audience.  You first talk about what you agree about, then from there lead your readers and listeners to new knowledge they do not have.  Paul sometimes used this approach.  "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:19-22).  Also see Acts 17:22-23.

When to use what approach is a judgment call, but neither approach is wrong when used under the right circumstances.  It is all God's truth.


A word about Jason Fritts.  So far, I have not yet heard or read any information about what he is doing.  He may be very busy getting organized and setting things up.

But it occurred to me that he is better prepared to raise up a new fellowship than most leaders who have done so.  

He is young, energetic, and intelligent.  He has had recent experience working closely with Mr. Sheldon Monson setting up Church of God Assembly when that group came out of Living Church of God.  So he must know how these things work.  He probably has a todo list built into his brain with "how to" instructions for each item.  Most leaders who set up a new group were doing it for the first time.  This is a second time for him.  He has that advantage.

We will see.

More Evidence that Salvation through Christ Is Part of the True Gospel

Last post I talked about what is the true gospel.  I said that the heart and core of the true gospel is the family of God ruling as the government of God over the earth and the universe forever.  God is reproducing Himself, and it is His family made up of the saints made immortal as His children that will be that kingdom, and that kingdom will rule over the earth and the universe for eternity.  Christ will return and establish His kingdom over the earth and will, with the saints made immortal children of God, rule over the nations of this earth for one thousand years, and after that the white throne judgment, and after that the universe forever.

Salvation through Christ and everything about Christ is part of that true gospel as long as the family of God ruling as the government of God is maintained as the central theme of the gospel.  Without the message of the family and government of God - the kingdom of God - salvation through Christ becomes, by itself, a false gospel.  But with the message of the family and government of God as the kingdom of God, salvation through Christ becomes an important part of that gospel for two reasons.  It shows us how we can enter and be part of that kingdom, that ruling family of God, and that makes it good news for us.  But also, everything about Christ is part of the gospel of the kingdom of God because Christ will be king of that kingdom.  It adds necessary detail and information about that kingdom because it tells us about the king of that kingdom.

Since that post I remembered something else in the Bible that is evidence that salvation through Christ is part of the true gospel of the kingdom of God.

Study the book of Galatians.

It starts out, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:6-9).

This letter starts out by warning against a false gospel.  This sets an important theme of the whole letter.  This is not about some false teaching that is not a part of the gospel.  Whatever this pertains to, it involves the true gospel or a part of that true gospel.  It is not outside the gospel.  Someone is teaching something contrary to the true gospel of the kingdom of God, and Paul is warning the Galatians that by perverting the gospel of the kingdom of God they are in effect preaching a different and a false gospel.

So what does Paul talk about?  And what were the false teachers saying?  Were they denying the millennial rule of Christ?  Were they denying Christ returning to the earth to set up His kingdom?  Were they denying the family of God?

They were teaching circumcision and salvation through works.

After recounting how he learned about the gospel, Paul states, "Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised" (Galatians 2:3).

Notice, this is about circumcision.

Then Paul says, "And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Galatians 2:4-5).

Ok, what has this to do with the millennial rule of Christ over the earth when He returns, the government aspect of the kingdom of God?  Or what has this to do with the family aspect of the kingdom of God, that God is reproducing Himself in mankind and that His family will be that kingdom?

Nothing.  Paul is talking about circumcision and liberty vs. bondage - right now in this life.  He is talking about the liberty we have in Christ.  That is a salvation issue, an issue regarding how we are justified and saved through Christ.  Yet he said he opposed this false teaching so that the truth of the gospel might continue in the Galatians.  So this is about salvation through Christ, but also about the true gospel.  Does that not show that salvation through Christ is part of the gospel?

A little later, Paul continues, "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Galatians 2:15-16).

Paul is saying that salvation comes through faith in Christ not the works of the law.  This is a salvation issue.  Yet, it is apparently part of the gospel because Paul is refuting a false gospel - that is the theme of the whole letter!

Paul continues by stating the importance of obeying God's law and not sinning in verses 17 through 19.

Then Paul writes, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain" (Galatians 2:20-21).

This is still on the theme of the letter, the true gospel vs. a false gospel.  And still in this theme, Paul talks about the grace of God, righteousness not coming through the law, and Christ dying not in vain.

This is about salvation through Christ and His death, not about the millennium and the kingdom of God ruling the earth.  Yet it is about the gospel.  This is evidence that the gospel includes salvation through Christ.

Then, continuing in the theme of the true gospel vs. a false gospel, Paul says, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? - Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain - if indeed it was in vain? Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Galatians 3:1-5).  Paul is talking about the crucifixion of Christ and about the works of the law vs. hearing of faith.  These things are not about the millennial rule of Christ and the saints over the earth.  These things are about the sacrifice of Christ, his suffering and death, and the importance of faith.  These are matters of salvation not government.  Yet it is about the gospel.

Paul did not switch subjects when he said, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth" after starting his letter with "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ".

Paul is on the same theme.  There were false teachers who were teaching a form of salvation by works, and Paul calls that a false gospel.  Yet they were not denying God setting up a kingdom on the earth.  So the government aspect of the kingdom of God is not the only thing that is the true gospel.  Salvation through Christ is part of the true gospel, otherwise denying salvation through Christ would not be a false gospel.

Later Paul writes, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.  You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.  And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" (Galatians 5:1-12).

You can sense the emotion Paul feels as he makes his case.  This is all about salvation through Christ, faith, we are not justified by the works of the law, we do not have to be circumcised, etc.  

Yet, Paul starts his letter by talking about a false gospel vs. the true gospel.  And Paul spends nearly the whole letter persuading his readers of what the true gospel is!

And there is not a word in this epistle about Christ returning to rule the earth, about God reproducing himself in mankind, or about the millennial rule of Christ over the earth, all key aspects of the gospel of the kingdom of God.  But what Paul talks about is PART of the true gospel.  It ties in with the rule of Christ over the earth.  But salvation through Christ is a definite part of the true gospel.  And it is important, or else Paul would not call its perversion a false gospel.

So not only is salvation through Christ a part of the true gospel, it is a vital part, so vital that Paul calls its perversion a false gospel!

So, suppose someone came along today and preached that Christ would return and rule the earth with the saints.  That would be the true gospel of the kingdom of God, right?  Now, suppose they also taught that salvation is by works not faith.  Suppose they denied the sacrifice of Christ to pay for our sins.  Paul says that that false teaching is so serious it makes their message a false gospel.  And that could only be true if the truth about salvation through Christ were part of the true gospel.

The good news of the kingdom of God includes salvation through Christ.

Some might wonder why Paul's epistles do not contain more about Christ's return to rule the earth - the government aspect of the good news of the kingdom of God.

The answer may be that that was already known.  The Jews and those Gentiles that feared God and believed the scriptures already knew that God would establish His kingdom over the earth.  They knew that from the book of Daniel and many prophecies.  Paul emphasized that which they had to learn - salvation through Christ and all that that means.

And God did not need to inspire Paul to write about things that are made abundantly clear in other parts of the Bible, but God inspired Paul to write about other necessary parts of the gospel, namely, salvation through Christ and how we should be living today.

We can all agree, I think, that the millennial rule of Christ with the saints over the nations of the earth and the family of God into which we can enter are important parts of the good news of the kingdom of God, and I hope we can agree that they are the core parts, the focus of the message.  But to say that details of that message, information about how we can be saved through Christ and enter that kingdom, information about the king of that kingdom Jesus Christ, information about the law of God and way of life to be lived in that kingdom - and many other areas of knowledge about that kingdom - are not part of the true gospel is ludicrous.  

If the true gospel is the good news of the kingdom of God, than any information about that kingdom is also part of the true gospel.

In the broadest sense, that can include the whole Bible.

Jason Fritts No Longer Employed by CGA, and What Is the True Gospel?

As the title indicates, this is a two-part post.



Jason Fritts


Jason Fritts is no longer an employed minister with Church of God Assembly (CGA).  He has been removed from the list of ministers in the CGA website, along with Mr. Larry Alvario.  I have no information about Mr. Alvario.

Some time ago, Mr. Randy Wayne had also been removed from that list and Mr. Monson indicated he was no longer a minister with CGA.

The separation of Mr. Fritts apparently happened a few days before Pentecost.  It is not clear to me at this time if he was fired or quit.  But there was some difference between him and Mr. Monson.  This difference may be on the subject of what is the true gospel - I will address that question in this post.  What exactly Mr. Fritts believes on this subject and how it may differ from what Mr. Monson believes, I do not know.

I do not know of any website Mr. Fritts has at this time.

The separation of Mr. Fritts differs from that of Mr. Randy Wayne in that Mr. Wayne was not employed by CGA.  He was not a full-time minister.  He had his own work and income and was not a full-time employed minister dependent on a paycheck from the Church.  He was not put out of a job.  He can attend wherever he finds the best opportunity to attend God's Church.

As I understand it, that is not the case with Mr. Fritts.  He was employed full-time by CGA.  So he needs an income.

Being a young ordained minister and having been employed full-time by the Church, I do not expect him to retire or to seek employment outside the Church.  I think he will feel an obligation to God to continue to serve God as a minister, somewhere.

His options seem to be to try to find employment with another Church of God fellowship or to raise up a new Church of God fellowship.

If he raises up a new Church of God, I hope he will teach that Church and lead them to follow what I regard as three essential principles of Philadelphia.  

Those principles are:

1.  Top-down government.  The leader reports to Christ directly and is not elected by a board of men.  God shows He is using the man by the fruits over time.  No voting or "balloting" to elect leaders.

2.  Zeal for getting the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning message out to Israel and the world before the great tribulation begins.  This should be based on love for our neighbors who need the gospel and the warning message to prepare them for the tribulation to come.

3.  Willingness to believe and teach the Bible more than any man or tradition.  This means willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible, to correct past mistakes, including mistakes by Mr. Armstrong (if there are any), and to examine proposed changes with an open mind.  This would mark a departure from the policy of CGA.  In effect, this would hold fast to the example and way of life of Mr. Armstrong rather than to a list of his doctrines.  But it also means that members should be taught to believe what they see in their Bibles more than what the leaders and ministers of any Church of God fellowship teach.  Members should not look to the ministry to interpret the Bible for them but to help them see for themselves how the Bible interprets the Bible.  Along with this must be the necessary teaching that the ministry has the authority to set official doctrine taught by the Church and any member who disagrees because he sees something different in the Bible should disagree quietly, not discussing the matter or contradicting the ministry in conversation with other members.

I hope that Mr. Fritts will soon set up a website and communicate where he stands on things and what his intentions are.  I look forward to hearing him.

I also pray for him that God will guide him and hear his prayers and help him in this time.  I also have prayed and will continue to pray that God will use him effectively in doing God's work.

I also hope and pray that, whatever Mr. Fritts decides to do, whatever Christ will lead him to do, there will be peace, and even cooperation to some degree, between Mr. Fritts and Mr. Monson.



What Is the True Gospel?


The true gospel is the good news of the coming kingdom of God, which will be established on this earth to rule the nations.  One of the best descriptions of this good news is given in the Old Testament, in the book of Daniel.

After describing several earthly kingdoms that would arise, this passage says: "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold - the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure" (Daniel 2:44-45).

That is the heart and core of the gospel message.  And God setting up a kingdom to rule this earth must be in the message for it to be the true gospel.  Exclude this, and you have a false gospel.

But is that the whole gospel?  Is salvation through Jesus Christ part of the gospel?

The true gospel is a massive subject.  The core is God ruling over the earth.  That is like the trunk of the tree.  But a healthy tree has many branches and twigs that are part of the tree too.  You can take away some of the branches and you still have a tree, but if you take away the trunk you have no tree, just a pile of deadwood and kindling made up of dead and dried twigs and branches.

If all you taught was that God would establish His kingdom ruling over the earth, that would technically be the true gospel, but it would not be very complete.  More details would be needed to complete the picture.

For one thing, God's kingdom will not just rule over the earth for one thousand years.  It will rule for eternity, and after the millennium and white throne judgment period it will rule over the universe forever.

Also, people need to be taught the difference between the kingdom of God and the nations ruled by the kingdom of God.  They are not the same, though it would be natural for people to confuse the two.  I used to get those confused.  But Mr. Armstrong correctly understood and taught the difference, and I learned from his writings.

When Christ returns, He and the saints will rule over all nations - all peoples.  We will rule over the Russian people, the Chinese people, the Japanese people - all peoples on earth.  And even after the great tribulation and the Day of the Lord, there will be millions of human beings living on the earth.

But will they be IN the kingdom of God?  Will they be part of the kingdom of God?  No.  They will be ruled by the kingdom of God.  They will be under the kingdom of God.  They themselves will not be part of that kingdom.  They will be ruled by the kingdom but not be in the kingdom.

Who will be in that kingdom?  Christ and the resurrected saints made immortal.  They will BE that kingdom.  Not the humans on earth that they rule over.

That is why the Bible teaches that flesh and blood cannot enter, or see, the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50, John 3:3-8).

In other words, the kingdom of God itself will be the family of God, Christ and His bride the Church resurrected and changed to immortal spirit life.  And that is also part of the good news of the kingdom of God.

God is reproducing Himself in man and that is part of the gospel.  Mr. Armstrong taught, in Mystery of the Ages or The Incredible Human Potential that to do away with this truth is to do away with the gospel.  

In a sense, as Mr. Armstrong taught, the gospel of the kingdom of God is two-fold.  The kingdom of God is the government of God ruling over the earth and later the universe, and it is also the ruling family of God into which Christians can be born.  That ruling family of God will rule over all creation, so both aspects are tied together.  Both are good news.  Both are about the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God will be the family of God into which Christians can be born.  God is reproducing Himself in mankind.  And that family of God will rule over the earth and the universe.  And it will bring peace and happiness to the earth.  Both aspects - the family of God and the government of God - are good news and both are about the kingdom.

But there is more.

Once you establish the core of the gospel message, that God through His family will rule the earth and the universe, there is much more information that will enrich that message and is properly part of it.  There is a lot of detail to add, just as a beautiful tree needs more than just a trunk to be healthy and beautiful.

To enter the kingdom of God, to be part of the ruling family of God, we have to be saved.  The salvation God offers us is the only way we can avoid the death penalty.  It is the only way we can enter that kingdom and be part of it.

And the opportunity for that salvation is part of why the message is good news!

Imagine Christ telling you, 2,000 years ago, "Someday after you are dead, God will establish His kingdom ruling over the nations and there will be great happiness over the whole earth.  But you won't be there and you will die forever because you have sinned and there will never be any opportunity for you to be saved".

Would you call that, "good news"?  I don't think so.  

Salvation is part of the true gospel.  It helps make it, "good news".  Salvation is not the trunk of the tree.  It is not the core of the gospel of the kingdom of God.  By itself, it is not the gospel, any more than a branch is a tree without the trunk.  But it adds important detail to the true gospel of the coming kingdom because it shows how we can be part of that kingdom.  That makes it part of the true gospel when combined with the government and family aspects of the kingdom of God.

And that salvation is made possible by the sacrifice and saving work of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ paid the penalty (or penalties, because there is more than one penalty for sin, not just the death penalty) for our sins so we can be forgiven and saved.  Is that part of the true gospel?  Yes, definitely, provided it is combined with the core message of the family of God ruling over the earth and the universe forever.  Salvation through Jesus Christ cannot stand alone.  If traditional churches teach that alone as the gospel, they are wrong.  

By itself, salvation through Christ is a false gospel.  But when combined with the core of the gospel, the family of God ruling as the government of God over the earth and the universe, it becomes a part of the true gospel.  It adds important detail and enriches the gospel message and becomes part of it.

What else is part of the gospel of the kingdom of God?  What about the law of God?  What about the two great commandments, the three weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), and the ten commandments?  Is teaching about the law of God part of the gospel?

Yes, because it adds detail to the good news of the kingdom of God.  It teaches us the way of life that will be practiced in the kingdom of God that will make it joyous and happy.  It teaches us the way of life we should learn and practice so that we can be in that kingdom.  That is all part of the gospel.

What about repentance?  Is a call for repentance part of the true gospel of the kingdom of God?  Yes.  Repentance teaches us about the law of God and our need to obey it.  Consider this passage:  "Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel' " (Mark 1:14-15).  Notice that repentance is preached as part of the gospel Jesus preached, for in preaching the gospel, Jesus said, repent.  At least that is how I understand this passage.  It was one message, the gospel, and it included repentance as part of the message.

Repentance is part of the good news of the kingdom of God because we have to repent to be in that kingdom, and because repentance teaches the way of life that will be practiced in the kingdom of God that will make it happy forever.

In its broadest sense everything in the Bible becomes part of the gospel!

Do you think that is an extreme statement?

History in the Bible teaches us what God has done in the past to prepare for the kingdom of God.  The law of God and all of God's instructions in Proverbs, in the epistles, in the gospel accounts, and everywhere in the Bible teach us the way of life we will live in the kingdom of God.  Salvation through Jesus Christ and all that includes - the suffering and death of Christ, faith, repentance, baptism, laying on of hands, receiving the Holy Spirit, and the resurrection at the return of Christ - is part of the good news of the kingdom because it shows us how we can enter the kingdom of God.  

Prophecy in the Bible - all prophecy - is part of the gospel because prophecy teaches us the steps God will take to prepare for and bring about that kingdom.

Everything about Jesus Christ is part of the good news of the kingdom of God because Jesus Christ will be the king of that kingdom.

What part of the Bible is not about history, prophecy, God's law and way of life, Jesus Christ the king of the kingdom, or salvation?  Show me, and I'll agree that that part of the Bible is not part of the gospel.

The whole Bible is about the kingdom of God one way or another.

But everything about Christ, everything about salvation, everything about God's way of life, everything about what God has done in the past or will do in the future to bring about the kingdom of God, everything about how we can enter the kingdom of God - is part of the true gospel IF THE CORE OF THE MESSAGE IS THE FAMILY OF GOD RULING AS THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD OVER THE EARTH AND THE UNIVERSE.

If you make the kingdom of God - the family of God as the government of God ruling the earth and the universe - the focus and core of the gospel message, then you can add all other knowledge and detail about that kingdom, and those details become part of the true gospel of the kingdom of God.

But if you neglect the family of God ruling as the government over the earth and the universe forever, then none of the other things is part of the true gospel.  They become part of this world's false gospel.

With the trunk of the tree, the attached branches and twigs are part of the tree and make it fruitful and beautiful.  But without the trunk, the branches and twigs are not a tree.  They are kindling and firewood, dead, dried up, rotting on the ground.

Do you disagree with that?

This world's Christianity preaches a false gospel.  They teach salvation through Christ.  They teach that He suffered and died so we can be saved.  Some of what they teach is true.  But even if everything they taught about salvation through Christ was true, it would still be a false gospel because they leave out the kingdom.  They don't talk about Christ returning to rule the earth with the saints.

But the Church of God is different.  We teach, as the core of our gospel message, the kingdom of God.  We teach that Christ will return and He, with the resurrected saints, will rule the earth and also the universe forever.  And with that as the core and focus of our gospel message, we also teach about Jesus Christ and many details from the Bible about that kingdom and how we can enter it, and all that becomes part of the gospel.

You can find places in the Bible where someone will preach the gospel of the kingdom and the things concerning Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12).  Does that word "and" mean that Jesus Christ is not part of the gospel of the kingdom?  No.  I do not think that is the intent of the writer.  He is simply saying that he taught the core of the good news of the kingdom and he included knowledge of Christ.  That is how he tells us the completeness of the message.

If the writer only said someone preached the gospel of the kingdom, the reader might wonder, but did he preach about Christ?  Was that included in the gospel he preached?  The writer makes it clear by saying, "and" the things concerning Christ.  In this context, the word "and" can mean "including".  Christ is still part of the gospel.  He will be king of the kingdom of God.  

Suppose I say, "I visited California and all the states of the United States".  You might not like the way I say that, but does that mean California is not part of the United States?

If you want an example of how broad the gospel can be - how all-inclusive - consider this passage.  After talking about how ancient Israel coming out of Egypt was unable to enter the promised land because of unbelief, the writer says,  "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it" (Hebrews 4:2).  Now, did Moses tell Israel that God would set up a kingdom to rule over all the earth?  Did he teach them God was reproducing Himself in mankind?  I don't think so.  Yet, God calls what Moses taught them "the gospel", the same gospel that was preached to us.

But Moses taught them the law of God, the ten commandments, and that is part of the gospel because it teaches us the way of life that will be lived in the kingdom of God that will make life happy and joyous and make it truly good news.



Terminology vs. Substance


In any doctrinal question or dispute, it is useful to understand what is substance and what is terminology.

I am not sure how much of the controversy in the Church of God about what is the true gospel is substance and how much is terminology.  But we should think about it.

The substance is, what should we preach?  What should we teach?  We can agree that we should teach the core message about the kingdom of God.  We can agree that we should also teach about salvation through Jesus Christ.  So we agree on those things.  That is substance.

Do we call the part about salvation through Christ part of the "gospel"?  That is terminology.

And in this case, substance is more important than terminology.

What should we emphasize?  What should we put priority on?  Now we are getting into substance again.  Our teaching should emphasize the good news of the coming kingdom of God, Christ and the saints ruling over the nations of the world.  We should teach that and salvation through Christ - both.  But the greater emphasis should be on the government aspect.

This makes sense because the general public already knows a great deal about salvation through Christ, not perfectly, but they know.  We don't have to tell people Christ died for their sins.  But fewer people have heard the truth that Christ will return to rule the earth.  So it is fitting that we spend more time emphasizing the part they do not know.

And the people need this knowledge to have hope during the great tribulation and Day of the Lord that their suffering will end when Christ returns to bring peace and joy to the earth.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

 

What Does "Christ Is the Head of the Church" Mean?

Consider the following passages.  "And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18).  "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23).

Some leaders and ministers like to quote this as a way of bolstering faith and confidence of the members in the leadership of the Church and the ministry and their policies, doctrines, and decisions.

I heard one leader say, in reference to these passages, something like, who is the head of media operations?  Who is the head of church administration?  He mentioned various departments.  His implication was, since Christ is the head of the whole Church He is also the head of all these departments.  His further implication seemed to be, if you criticize those departments or their administrators, you are criticizing Christ.  Since Christ is the head of the Church, He is also the head of all those departments, and He leads their decisions.  If you disagree with their decisions, you are disagreeing with Christ.  

Is that what these passages mean?

Who is the head of church administration in a fellowship?  Who is the head of media operations in a fellowship?  Christ because He is head of the whole Church?  No.  Those are different offices.  The head of church administration is a man, not Christ.  It is a different office, a delegated office, an office that is delegated to a man who can sin or make mistakes and thus make bad decisions.  Christ may or may not allow those bad decisions for a time.  But to criticize bad decisions or bad policies or false doctrines that come from that office is not criticizing Christ.

The Bible says, in a multitude of counselors there is safety (Proverbs 11:14, Proverbs 24:6).  A leader should seek advice.  But how can those who give him advice tell him he is wrong if telling him he is wrong is criticizing Christ?

When Mr. Armstrong taught that Pentecost was on Monday, how could his advisers tell him he was wrong if disagreeing with Mr. Armstrong was disagreeing with Christ?

This may illustrate why saying Christ is head of the Church does not mean He is head of every department in the Church.  Who is the king of the universe?  Who has all authority over everything in heaven and earth?  God the father is king over the universe, and He has delegated all authority and power to Christ.  "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth' " (Matthew 28:18).

So you can say that God the Father is king over the universe, and you can also say that Christ is king over the universe since the Father delegates all authority to Christ.

Now, who is king over the earth right now?  Who is ruler of this evil world?  

"Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.  And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.  Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours' " (Luke 4:5-7).  

"I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me" (John 14:30).

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-2).

"So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12:9).

Satan is still on the throne of the earth and will be until Christ returns.

Does the fact that Christ rules the universe mean that everything Satan does as ruler of this world is right and above criticism?  Of course not.  Christ allows Satan to make bad choices and decisions for now.

King of the earth is a delegated position, delegated to Satan.  Christ will take over that office in the future, but not yet.

Likewise, in the Church of God, there are delegated positions, offices that men hold, and Christ sometimes allows those men to make bad decisions.  It is not right to say or imply that Christ is head of those positions.  He is head over the whole Church, not each department.  Those are separate offices.  To disagree with the decision of a man is not necessarily disagreeing with Christ.

Yet some leaders of fellowships and ministers may use the argument that, since Christ is the head of the Church, to disagree with a man who holds an office in the Church is to disagree with Christ.  They may say, "Do you believe that Christ is the head of the Church or not?"

This is a false argument.

Look at recent Church history.  When the Church of God fell away from the truth after the death of Mr. Armstrong, Christ still was head of the Church, yet men holding offices in the Church made bad decisions and taught false doctrines.  To disagree with those doctrines and decisions was not disagreeing with Christ.  Christ allowed men to make those bad decisions, but those decisions were not from Christ.

The Bible also shows that God's servants make mistakes.

Consider this passage.  "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.  Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season?  Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.  Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.  But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:44-51).  

Note, the one who sins in this passage is called a servant.  He is a servant of God and God is his master, but he is also called evil and will be condemned.  So even servants of God can sin.

Take it to the individual member level.  Who is the head of every man in the Church?  "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3).  Does that mean that every man always makes right decisions?  Does that mean that to criticize or disagree with any man in the Church is disagreeing with Christ because Christ is his head?

Is Christ your head?  If He is, does that mean that everything you do and say is above criticism because for someone to disagree with you means they are disagreeing with Christ?  Not always.

Also, note that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church (Ephesians 5:22-24).  Now, does the fact that the husband is the head of the wife mean that the wife always obeys?  You men can answer that.  Likewise, because Christ is our head does not mean we always obey.

The important thing is, just because Christ leads us in a right way does not mean we follow Christ perfectly in that right way.  Christ leads, but we don't always follow where He leads.  We are imperfect.  We make mistakes.  We sin.

This goes for every rank in the Church, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, local elders, and lay members.  None of us in this physical life can be trusted to always follow Christ perfectly.

Don't fall for the argument that every decision a leader in the Church makes is right because Christ is the head of the Church.  That is a false argument.

If you hear a leader of a fellowship or a minister say, "Do you believe that Christ is the head of the Church, or not?", that should be a red flag.  It should set off alarm bells in your mind.  What other cliches or metaphors can I use?

There is another problem here, and that is the use of the word, "church".

What do you mean?  Do you mean the whole Church of God, what some people call the greater Church of God?  It don't like that word "greater" in regard to all the divided Church of God fellowships.  Greater can mean bigger but it can also mean better, and I do not think all the scattered and divided fellowships are "better" than any one fellowship.  So I use the term, "whole Church of God".  What does that include?

I do not say that it includes every fellowship that calls itself "Church of God", or every member that counts himself a member of the Church of God.  It includes everyone, minister or member, who has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him or her (Romans 8:9).

So when a speaker or writer refers to Christ being the head of the Church, does he mean the whole Church of God?  Or does he mean only the one fellowship that speaker is part of?  That is not clarified.

When a leader of a fellowships says, Christ is the head of the Church, as a way of trying to get members to accept that leader's doctrines, does He mean Christ is the head of the whole Church of God including any members or leaders in other fellowships that have God's Holy Spirit, or does he mean just the one fellowship he leads?  This ambiguity is a rhetorical trick, I think.  If he means the whole Church of God, he is technically correct, but it can be said in a way that implies, in the minds of the listeners or readers, that it means just the one fellowship.

And notice, some of the very same leaders or ministers who like to say, Christ is the head of the Church, do not hesitate to criticize other Church of God fellowships or their doctrines.  Are they criticizing Christ?  Or do they think only their fellowship is the true Church?  They won't say that openly, but that may be what they imply.

It is like when a speaker says, we have wonderful unity in the Church.  What?  The whole Church of God is scattered into competing and divided fellowships.  That is not unity.  But he is talking about his own fellowship.  Yet, he calls it, "the Church", implying only his fellowship is the Church.

Another phrase ministers like to use is, "where Christ is working", as if Christ is only working in one place and with one fellowship.  That is nonsense.  They will say that we need to find out where Christ is working, or they will say we should have confidence in the decisions of the Church once we know where Christ is working.

There is no question that some fellowships and some people follow Christ more faithfully and more accurately than others.  Certainly we should try our best to seek out and support a fellowship that is more faithful than others.  But to say, "where Christ is working" implies that He only works in one place or through one man at a time.

That is a myth.

From the time I entered the Church I have heard members say, God only works through one man at a time.  But that is not what the Bible teaches.  God worked through Jeremiah and Ezekiel at the same time, did He not?  He worked through David and Nathan at the same time, using Nathan to rebuke David for his sin (2 Samuel 12:1-12).  He worked through Peter and Paul at the same time (Galatians 2:7-8).

Christ can work through many people at the same time, and each person has free moral agency to follow Christ fully, partly, or not at all.

Our faith must never be in the human leadership of the Church, but only in God and Christ.  We should follow men only as they follow Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).

Believe God first.  Believe God and His word the Bible more than the Church.  If you disagree with the Church, do not discuss it with other members.  Do not create division.  Disagree quietly and wait for Christ to make the matter clear.  But put God and the Bible first, the Church and its traditions, leadership, and ministry second, in your mind, in your thinking, in your faith.

That is the principle of faith the Bible teaches.

Why Is the Forbidden Tree Called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

I noticed something recently I had not noticed before in my Bible study.

Why is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil named as it is, "knowledge of good and evil"?  Why not just "tree of evil"?

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die' " (Genesis 2:16-17).

Mr. Armstrong correctly taught that Adam had the opportunity to take over the throne of the earth, replacing Satan, if he had conquered Satan by resisting Satan's temptation.  Later in history, Jesus Christ would conquer Satan in the temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13), thus qualifying to take over the throne of the earth in the future (Revelation 11:15-19, Revelation 19:11-16, Revelation 20:1-3).

Adam failed to conquer Satan (Genesis 3:1-24).

What happened then?  God's seven thousand year plan for the salvation of mankind went into effect.  This present evil world, with mankind being led and deceived by Satan, began, and it is destined to last about (or exactly) six thousand years.  We are near the end of that period.  During this six thousand years age of man, man lives his own way under the influence of Satan, without God, which is actually Satan's way.  Mankind is getting a taste of the death, destruction, suffering, and injustice Satan's way brings.  He is getting a bellyful of it.  He is learning the hard lesson that Satan's way brings everything bad.  He is not fully learning that lesson - he will learn it completely later when God teaches him why he has been suffering.  But he is writing a lesson in painful experience, and he will remember later.

At the end of this six thousand year period, Christ will return, the saints will be resurrected, Satan will be put away, and the one thousand year millennium will begin (Revelation 20:4-6).  This will be a period when Christ and the saints will rule and teach mankind God's way of life.  It will be a period of happiness and joy.

Those of this present generation who live into the millennium will see the contrast between the suffering of the first six thousand years and the happiness of the millennium.

Those born in the millennium will know the evil of this present age, not from personal experience, but by the history of this time.  And they will be able to compare that with the happiness they are living in.

The vast majority of the human race to this time, those who live and die before the millennium, will come up in the white throne judgment, the second resurrection, and they, like those in the millennium, will experience the joy and happiness and peace of living God's way of life under the rule of Christ and the saints.  They will be able to compare conditions of their first life with their second physical life, and they will be able to see that God's way which leads to peace and happiness is better than Satan's way which leads to war and death (Ezekiel 37:1-14, Revelation 20:11-15).

So mankind will be able to compare and learn that God's way is better than Satan's way, and much of that learning will be by personal experience.  

In other words, mankind will learn a lesson by experiencing both good and evil.  They will know, by experience, what evil is like and what good is like.  They will be instructed in the causes of good and evil results.  They will learn that God's way is best, and they can choose that way if they wish.

Yet, this whole plan was triggered by Adam's decision to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe none of this is new to you.  Maybe many of you have seen and noticed this before.  But this is the first time I have noticed how the name of the forbidden tree, the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", so exactly matches a description of the seven thousand year plan (or the 7,100 year plan if you want to be precise and include the white throne judgment period assuming it is one hundred years).  This plan could be called, the plan of teaching the human race by the knowledge of good and evil - by experience in other words.

Yet, that plan went into effect with Adam taking of the forbidden tree.  If he had resisted Satan, if he had obeyed God, and if he had taken instead of the tree of life, this past six thousand years of suffering would not have been necessary.

That may be why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is named as it is.  It is not just a descriptive name for the tree itself.  It is a name and a description of the whole plan of God that went into effect when Adam ate of its fruit.  That triggered the plan of God for the human race to learn that God's way is best by experiencing and knowing both good and evil.

And that tree was named, not by Moses, but by God who knew ahead of time what His plan was.  There is no indication in Moses's writings that Moses knew about six thousand years, or about a millennium, or about the white throne judgment.  The name of the tree was not Moses's invention.  It was God naming it what it represented if Adam ate of it.

Mr. Armstrong taught that the tree represented Adam taking to himself the prerogative of deciding what is good and what is evil - taking to himself the right to decide what is wrong and what is right - deciding for himself what is sin rather than believing what God told him is right and wrong.  And the tree can represent that also.  God may have named the tree for both reasons.  It represented Adam deciding for himself what is good and what is evil, and it also represented the plan of God for teaching man by the experience of good and evil, which plan went into effect when Adam ate of the tree.

What Does the Bible Mean When It Says That the Church Is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth?

Consider this passage:  "But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

The Bible calls the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth.  But what does that mean?  God is telling us something, but what exactly?

This verse is often quoted by ministers and leaders of fellowships that teach the members to believe them more than what they see for themselves in the Bible.  They want the members to believe the ministry in matters of doctrine.  Not just refrain from causing division by openly discussing disagreements or promoting different doctrines among the members.  But actual belief, even if the member is quiet and only believes something different in his or her own mind.  The ministry does not want members believing something different from what the Church teaches.

Such ministers and leaders want the members to believe the Church's interpretation of the Bible rather than the members letting the Bible interpret the Bible and believing God, believing what they see with their own eyes in the Bible.  They want the members to assume that the Church is correct about doctrine.  I heard one minister even say this in a sermon or Bible study.  We should assume the Church is right more than we believe what we see for ourselves in the Bible.

They often quote the passage about the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth to support their position.  Also, they love to say, "Christ is the head of the Church", as if that means that whatever the Church teaches is true because it must come from Christ.

Let's examine this in detail.

The first thing to notice is that this is figurative language.  That cannot be denied.  The Church is not literally ground, dirt, the surface of the earth.  Nor is it literally a pillar made to hold up a literal, physical building, a pillar made of bronze, iron, stone, or wood.  As a figure of speech, it must be interpreted by literal passages of the Bible.

There are many passages that affirm the absolute trustworthiness of God's word, the Bible.  These passages are literal, and can be used to interpret figurative passages.  Here are some of them.

"Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began" (Titus 1:1-2).

"Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us" (Hebrews 6:17-18).

Thus we have two literal statements that God cannot lie.  By this we know that His word, the Bible, is absolutely true.

"If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)" (John 10:35).

This is a third statement that the Bible is true.  It is true because scripture cannot be broken.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7).

"It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.  It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in princes" (Psalm 118:8-9).  This has direct application to the issue of believing the Bible or the Church.  When we believe the Bible we are putting our trust in the God who inspired it, the God who speaks to us through His word, the Bible.  But when we believe the Church, we are putting our trust in men.  Are apostles, pastor generals, prophets, evangelists, and pastors men?  Are they human?  Yes.  Do they sometimes sin, some of them?  Yes.  Do some of them sometimes lie or twist the truth?  Yes.  Do they sometimes make mistakes in doctrine and in understanding the Bible?  Yes.  In this passage, God is saying it is better to put our trust in what He says in His word, the Bible, than in human beings, even human beings in the Church.  That is what Mr. Armstrong did and what Loma Armstrong did, and they set a good example for us.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

"The fear of man brings a snare, But whoever trusts in the LORD shall be safe" (Proverbs 29:25).

"Thus says the LORD: 'Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the LORD. For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, And shall not see when good comes, But shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, In a salt land which is not inhabited.  Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, And whose hope is the LORD. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, Which spreads out its roots by the river, And will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, And will not be anxious in the year of drought, Nor will cease from yielding fruit" (Jeremiah 17:5-8).

"The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth" (John 17:17).

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

"So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 8:3).

"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him" (Proverbs 30:5).

"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).  See also Luke 4:4.

Put all this together and the message is clear:  God's word, the Bible, is absolutely true - all of it.

And notice, these statements are not figurative speech.  Statements like "Your word is truth" and "scripture cannot be broken" and "trust in the LORD" are literal statements and absolutely clear.  As such they can be used to interpret figurative statements on the principle of letting the Bible interpret the Bible by using clear scriptures to interpret unclear ones.

Faith means believing God's word, and that is a requirement - we must believe God or we violate God's law, because faith - believing what God says - is a weightier matter of the law.  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone" (Matthew 23:23).

God rejected ancient Israel and would not let them enter the promised land because of unbelief.

Contrast this with Bible passages that warn against trusting in man.

This passage also shows the superiority of trust in God more than trust in man. Breaking into a thought, "Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: 'That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged' " (Romans 3:4).

Where in the Bible does it say that it is OK to trust men in the Church?  They are still men.  They can and do make mistakes.  They can and do tell lies.  They can teach false doctrines and false interpretations of the Bible.  They are not perfect.  Only God and His word, the Bible, are perfect.  God never sins, He never lies, He never makes mistakes.  His word is sure.  But not the word of human apostles, pastor generals, evangelists, or pastors.

Even prophets can lie, and God gives us an example in the Bible of this (1 Kings 13:1-32).

Just because Christ is head of the Church does not mean everyone in the Church follows where Christ leads.  Christ leads through the Bible and the Holy Spirit and sometimes through circumstances, but He does not take away free moral agency, and men can fail to follow where Christ leads.

The Bible shows the sins and mistakes of God's servants in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

And if anyone wants to argue the point, we have modern Church history that shows us our mistakes.  Mr. Armstrong thought Pentecost was on Monday.  Later, just before his death, he said we should stay united and follow the next pastor general.  After Mr. Armstrong died, the next pastor general, Mr. Tkach, led the Church away from the truth and into false doctrine.

Church of God Seventh Day, the Church that Mr. Armstrong attended, made mistakes in doctrine.  Was Christ the head of that Church?  Yes.  But they still made mistakes.  Christ let them make mistakes.

And today, we can often see the mistakes of various COG fellowships in doctrine.

Let's go back to our study passage and ask some questions.  It says,  "But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

So what does it mean to say that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth?

Does it mean that the Church is infallible?  No.

Does it mean that the Church never makes a mistake in doctrine?  No.

Does it mean that no leader or minister in the Church of God will ever sin or tell a lie?  No.

Does it mean that we should believe everything the Church teaches, even if it is a mistake or a lie?  No.

Does it mean we should believe the Church more than God?  No.

Does it mean that if we see something in the Bible that contradicts the Church, we should believe the Church and the Church's interpretation of the Bible more than what we see in the Bible with our own eyes?  No.

Notice this passage.  "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).  

Notice, they did not assume that Paul's teaching was right.  They searched the scriptures to find out whether or not what Paul taught was right.  They believed God more than man.  And God praises them by calling them fair-minded (New King James Version) or noble (King James Version), showing them in a positive light as a good example to follow.  Also, their research into the scriptures to find out whether or not Paul was speaking the truth, rather than just believing him, bore good fruit, for many believed.

Read of the examples of Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong in Mr. Armstrong's autobiography.  They believed God, they believed the Bible, more than religious traditions or men, even believing what they saw in the Bible more than what the Church of God Seventh Day, God's true Church at that time, taught.  They did NOT do what a COG minister said - they did not assume that the Church was right in its interpretation of the Bible.

They did not believe the Church of God Seventh Day that it is no longer necessary to keep God's annual holy days.  They believed the Bible, not the Church.  They kept the holy days.

So what does that passage mean?  In what sense is the Church the pillar and ground of the truth?

This is a job description for the Church.  It is from the Church and the witness of the Church that the world can have access to the truth.  As a plant gets nourishment from the ground and springs forth and grows, so the truth should spring up and grow from the Church and from the work of the Church in preaching the gospel.  And we are to be pillars, upholding the truth the best we can.

But there is nothing in this analogy that says that the Church is perfect and its understanding of the Bible is perfect.

Christ says we are to be perfect (Matthew 5:48).  But that does not mean we will achieve perfection in this life.  We are to strive to be perfect in this life, but final perfection will come in the resurrection.  Likewise, the Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth the best it can, but it will not be perfect in this life.

If this is not what "the pillar and ground of the truth" means, then I do not know what it means.  But it does not mean we should believe the Church more than God.

If we think that we should assume that the Church's interpretation of scripture is truth and always believe the Church, then we are not holding fast to the example and way of life followed by Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong.  They practiced the opposite.  They believed God more than the Church.  And Mr. Armstrong also taught that way of life when he told his radio audience, don't believe me, don't believe any man, believe your Bible, believe God.

And one should keep in mind that members of the Church of God are part of the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, as much as leaders and ministers.  We are all part of the Church.  If God opens the mind of a member to understand some truth, from the Bible, that the Church does not yet have, who knows if God intends the Church to learn that new point of truth, that new knowledge, from the member, just as the Church of God Seventh Day should have learned new knowledge from the members Herbert W. Armstrong and Loma Armstrong.

Incidentally, Christ rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy in binding heavy burdens on the people they were not willing to bear (Matthew 23:1-4).  But that is what some leaders and ministers do when they tell members not to think for themselves to understand the Bible and just accept whatever the ministry teaches them.  Why?

Because they do not follow the same rule.

When a leader is considering a doctrinal change, what does he do?  He discusses it first with his high-ranking ministers.  He gets their opinion.  He has meetings about it.

But how can they give honest opinions if they never think independently of the Church?  How can they assume the Church is right, as they tell the members, and yet be able to honestly advise the leadership that it is wrong?  That is crazy.

The fact is, they do allow themselves to think independently to advise the leadership, but not so the members.  The members are taught that independent thinking is wrong, because "the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth" and "Christ is the head of the Church".  They do not teach what they themselves practice.

Only God and His word the Bible are infallible.  God does not make mistakes and cannot lie.  Scripture cannot be broken.  Faith means believing what God says in the Bible, and faith is an act of worship towards God.

The Church, its human leadership and ministry, can and do make mistakes.  We must not have faith in the ministry and the Church.  To have faith and trust in human leaders of the Church that only rightly belongs to God is idolatry.  We are putting something before the true God when we believe the ministry more than what we see in the Bible.

If you see something in the Bible that is in contradiction to what your Church of God fellowship teaches, have an open mind.  Do not assume that the Church is right.  Believe God.  But don't cause division.  Don't spread it around, promote it, or discuss it with other members.  Quietly believe God.

If you discuss it with the ministry, be respectful.  And if necessary, wait for Christ to make the correction when He returns.

The "pillar and ground of the truth" does not mean you should believe the Church more than God.

Why is it important that members believe what they see for themselves in the Bible more than they believe the Church?

It is a test of faith.  Just as Abraham's faith in God was tested and it was counted to him as righteousness when He believed God, so it is with members of the Church (Genesis 15:5-6).

There are three reasons why it is wrong to believe the Church more than what you see for yourself in the Bible.

One, it makes no sense logically because the Church can be wrong but the Bible cannot be wrong.

Two, it violates the second commandment, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, because it disqualifies you from getting the gospel and the Ezekiel warning message out to the nations to prepare them for the tribulation that is coming.  They need that preparation.  They need to be warned while there is time to repent so they know God is fair and can be trusted.  Getting that warning message out is an act of love.  But we can't do it if we believe the Church more than God.  Why?  Because to get our message out, we have to be able to say to the public, as Mr. Armstrong did, don't believe us, don't believe any man or church or tradition, believe God, believe your Bible.  But how can we do that if we don't practice that ourselves?  Would we not be hypocrites, telling the public to do someting we are not willing to do ourselves?  And will God let us get the message out through hypocrisy?  I think not.

Believing the Church of God leadership and ministry more than the Bible blocks us from getting God's message to the public, a message they need, and is thus contrary to the law of loving our neighbors.

Three, believing the Church more than God is an act of idolatry.  It violates the spirit of the first and second of the ten commandments.  We are putting the ministry in place of God.  We are putting our faith in men we can see and hear and letting them represent God to us rather than serving the invisible God, just as pagans use visible images to represent the invisible God, contrary to God's law.  The human mind craves to worship images it can see - and with some the ministry in the Church serves that purpose.  

Faith is an act of worship, and we should only have faith towards God, not man.

We should never have faith and trust in the Church of God, the leadership of the Church, its ministry, or its traditions.  We should love and respect the Church and the ministry, but not have the faith and trust in them that belongs only to God.  That is what the world does with its churches, but we must not be like the world.

Faith means believing God, and faith is one of the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23).  Faith - believing God - is thus a matter of the law of God.  Lack of faith, disbelieving what God says, is therefore a violation of the law and is sin.  It was because of unbelief that Israel who came out of Egypt could not enter the promised land (Hebrews 3:12, 19).

Consider the following scenario.

A man (or woman) reads or hears something from his ministry or church.  He reads something in the Bible that seems to contradict it.  Who does he believe?  This is a test of faith.  Does he pass the test by believing the Bible more than his church and traditions, believing God as Abraham did?  Or does he fail the test by failing to believe God's word as ancient Israel failed to believe God?

I didn't give the details in the above scenario, so let me add details now.

The man or woman is Catholic.  The issue is images used in worship.  The Catholic Church teaches that images are OK when used to worship the true God and that the first and second commandment are combined (they split the tenth commandment into two commandments, you shall not covet your neightor's wife and you shall not covet your neighbor's goods, to keep the number of commandments at ten).  But the man reads or hears Mr. Armstrong and the Church teach that God forbids images even in worshipping the true God, and gives the Bible passages to prove it.  He looks it up in the Bible and finds that the Bible does indeed teach against using images in worship.  So who does he believe, the Catholic Church or the Bible?  What should he do?  Who should he believe?

Or, let's change the details.  The man is a member of the Church of God.  He hears some teaching from the leadership and ministry.  But he sees something different in the Bible.  Again, who does he believe?  What should he do?

Spiritually, as far as the law of God is concerned, the situation, in the mind of the person, is EXACTLY the same.  Believe God or believe man.

That is the question.  And is the answer different depending on which church you are talking about?  Of course not.  In the mind of the person who is Catholic, he does not know what is the true church.  He is as loyal to his church as COG members are to God's Church.  The question is, is he willing to believe God first?

There are not two laws of God, one for us in the Church and a different law for outsiders.  God hates a double standard (Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 18:26, Numbers 15:15-16, Leviticus 19:34-36, Deuteronomy 25:13-16).

It is just as wrong to believe the Church of God more than God Himself as to believe the Catholic Church more than God Himself.

Make no mistake.  This is a moral issue.  This is a spiritual matter.  This is a choice a person must make, whether that person is Catholic, Protestant, or Church of God.  Believing God or believing man is a choice between right and wrong, whether the person is uncalled, called but not yet baptized, or converted.  What is sin for one is sin for the other.

Some people have more knowledge than others.  But the choice of believing God or not is the same.  God judges everyone on the basis of the knowledge they have, not the knowledge they do not have.

To deliberately, based on the knowledge one has, choose to believe man more than God is sin.

Amazingly, so many leaders and ministers in the Churches of God just can't see that.  Are they blind?

Consider also the consequences of believing the Church more than the Bible.

Why are we here?  Why do we know the things that we know?

We know the true doctrines because Loma Armstrong and Mr. Armstrong believed the Bible more than any tradition of men even in the true Church.  We are here because hundreds or thousands of radio listeners of Mr. Armstrong checked their Bibles and believed God more than their churches and traditions.  It became a way of life for them.  We enjoy the fruits of that way of life.

But if, while we enjoy the fruits of that way of life practiced by those who came before us, we practice a different way of life, a wrong way of life of believing the Church and our traditions more than God, are we really worthy to continue in the truth?  If we refuse to practice the way of life that led us into that truth, should we continue in that truth?  Will God not take that truth from us if we are unworthy to continue to have it?

Will God not give us the fruits of our ways?  And if we practice a wrong way of holding truth, will not God, at some point, take that truth from us?  For if the Armstrongs and the early radio listeners had believed religious tradition more than their Bibles, we would not have the truth now (not from them, anyway).  So if we disbelieve God, choosing to believe tradition and the Church ministry more than the Bible, will not God give us the results of our ways - continued deception and belief in false doctrine?  Because that is exactly the fruits that Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong would have produced if they made the wrong choice.  If they believed their churches more than the Bible, they would have never known the truth.

When you read or study the Bible, believe God.  Have an open mind.  Love and respect the ministry and the Church.  Pray for them.  Do not cause division.  But believe God first.  Believe what you see in the Bible.  Can you make a mistake?  Of course.  Be willing to consider what the Church says.  But in the end, believe the Bible first, not man.

God says to Sardis, a church that had a name that it was alive and yet was dead, "Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent..." (Revelation 3:3).

Sardis is to remember how they received.  How did the Church of God receive truth?  From the choices of Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong to believe the Bible more than man.

That is what Loma Armstrong did.  That is what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong did.  That is what many radio listeners did when they heard Mr. Armstrong and looked up the scriptures and supported him and his message.

That is God's way.