In order for a church to have maximum success in preaching the gospel, it must have the right gospel and it should understand the need.  It should be motivated by love towards God and man, understanding that preaching the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning glorifies God's name, helps Israel understand their future trial and come to repentance, and helps to forward God's plan for mankind.  Also, since it is God that blesses and empowers the work of preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning, any church that preaches the gospel must have God's help and blessing to be successful. 

It is God who opens doors and opportunities.  It is God who gives us the wisdom and resources to go through those open doors.  Even though we may have the desire to preach the gospel to the world, without God's help our efforts will not go very far (John 15:5).  It is only with God's help that we will succeed, and any church that seeks God's help should strive to make sure their ways are pleasing to Him.

The same principle is true for an individual member of the Church that wants to support the preaching of the gospel.  Such a person should know what the true gospel and Ezekiel warning are, and such a person should be motivated by love.  But even with an individual, God's help and blessing are needed for that individual member to be able to make the right decisions to be effective in supporting the gospel.  At this time when the whole Church of God is scattered into a number of organizations, members who wish to support the preaching of the gospel must choose which organization to support in order to be effective.  God commands tithes and offerings, but the Bible does not tell us the name of the church to write on the check or the post office box number and city to write on the envelope.  This is a choice individual members have a responsibility of making.  It is a judgment call that must be made based on the principles in God's Word and based on available information about the Churches of God.  To make such a judgment accurately and effectively requires spiritual discernment and wisdom.  But this kind of discernment and wisdom must be a gift from God (James 1:5, 1 Corinthians 2:11).  Also, individual members can contribute and support the gospel in various ways including financial contributions, fervent prayers, and in some cases volunteer work such as distributing mail-in cards or magazines to various outlets.  But even this requires God's help and blessing to be successful.  It is God who blesses us with financial prosperity so we can make contributions.  It is God who opens up opportunities.  It is God who answers our prayers.

Without God's help, no individual or group can accomplish much in preaching the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning to Israel and the rest of the world.  God says in Zechariah 4:6, "So he answered and said to me: 'This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel:  not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the Lord of hosts."  In addition to the specific prophetic application this has to Zerubbabel, this also illustrates the principle that it is God that blesses and empowers His work.  Jesus taught the same principle when He said "without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

Does God bless and empower everyone that tries to preach the truth?  Revelation 3:7-8 says, "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens": "I know your works.  See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name." ' "  See 1 Corinthians 16:8-9, 2 Corinthians 2:12, and Colossians 4:2-4 for the meaning of "open door".  Christ does not make that same promise of an open door to Sardis or to Laodicea.

We can also look at recent Church history to see that God blessed and empowered the preaching of the gospel to the world much more during the Philadelphia era of the Church than so far during the Laodicea era. 

If we want God's blessings and power so that we can more effectively preach the gospel, our works must be pleasing to Him.

It is part of God's way that those who teach should teach by example as well as word.  Jesus not only taught by word, but by example, living a perfect life.  Therefore, to make sure our ways are pleasing to God, we need to strive to practice what we teach others to do.

An application of this principle is that those who preach the gospel to the public should strive to practice what they preach.  Whatever we ask our listening audience or magazine readership to do, we should be willing to strive to do the same things.

Anyone who reads through the gospel accounts can notice that Jesus' harshest criticism was directed towards the Pharisees because they did not do what they taught others to do.  "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.  For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers' " (Matthew 23:1-4).

This illustrates the principle that one must practice what he preaches.  This principle is still valid today and applies to the Church and to individual members who want to support the preaching of the gospel.  If our hearts are in doing the work of preaching the gospel to the world, we should also be striving to live godly lives and to live by every word of God.  God can bless the work of the Church and answer the prayers of individual members for the preaching of the gospel when He sees that we are striving to be obedient to His word in every aspect of our lives, and when He sees we are doing the things we are teaching the members of public to do.

There are many obvious applications of this principle.  We must be striving to overcome and to be obedient to the ten commandments.  We must be striving to love God with all our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves.  We must be striving to learn to trust God and believe His promises.  But there is one aspect of this that I have not heard much about, yet it may be one of the most vital points in the principle of practicing what we preach.  And, indirectly, it has something to do with the Elijah question.

I have noticed on the Internet that a number of Church of God groups are concerned about the Elijah question.  The question itself is fairly simply to state.  "Was Herbert W. Armstrong the Elijah to come?"  A number of groups say emphatically, "Yes".  Not only do they say that Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to come, several of them emphasize the importance of knowing and believing that he was the Elijah.  I believe I heard one minister on an audio recording say that knowing that Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to come is the most important thing for a Philadelphian to know.  That is a heavy statement.  I have also heard a leader of another group harshly criticize those who do not take a position one way or another.  He seemed to feel they were "fence sitters" or cowards for not taking a definite position on this question.  What struck me was that he raised his voice in anger when he spoke about this in a way that he did not do in any other part of his sermon.  I got the impression he was more emotionally "charged up" about the Elijah issue than any other issue he talked about (his sermon was not about Elijah or about Mr. Armstrong).  I think one minister has said that rejecting Mr. Armstrong's Elijah role was the cause for division in the Church.  He didn't explain why several groups that accept Mr. Armstrong as the Elijah to come are themselves divided between themselves.

Why is this important, and what does the Bible say about the Elijah to come?  And what does this have to do with the subject of practicing what we preach?

I will cover certain key scriptures about the Elijah to come, but this is not intended to be an exhaustive study of the subject.  The reader can do his own study if he wants further detail.  But I want to give an overview, then cover a particular point that I think is relevant.

Malachi 4:5-6 states:  "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.  And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."  These are the last two verses of the Old Testament, and they show that God will send someone He calls "Elijah" before the Day of the Lord.

The angel Gabriel told Zacharias that John the Baptist would fulfill an Elijah role.  "But the angel said to him, 'Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.  And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth.  For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink.  He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.  And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.  He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, "to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children," and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord' " (Luke 1:13-17).

When John the Baptist was fulfilling his ministry, the priests and Levites asked him if he was Elijah.  "Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who are you?'  He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.' And they asked him, 'What then?  Are you Elijah?'  He said, 'I am not.'  'Are you the Prophet?'  And he answered, 'No' " (John 1:19-21).  Verse 24 adds that the priests and Levites who questioned John were sent by the Pharisees.

Later Jesus spoke to the crowds about John the Baptist.  "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.  And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.  For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.  And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come" (Matthew 11:11-14).

Also, after the transfiguration, Jesus' disciples asked Him about Elijah.  "Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, 'Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.'  And His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things.  But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished.  Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.'  Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:9-13).  See also Mark 9:9-13.

Since Jesus said that Elijah is yet to restore all things, we know there was to be a future fulfillment of the Elijah role after John the Baptist.  Many believe, because of all the truths that Mr. Armstrong restored, that he was the Elijah to come.  I think Mr. Armstrong himself believed this and implied it in his speaking and writing, though I have not heard him directly state it.

Was Mr. Armstrong the Elijah to come and restore all things?

I think that he was.  However, that is not the key question.  I think the key question is, is it really vital that we know this one way or another?   In other words, is it true, as one minister put it, that recognizing Mr. Armstrong as the Elijah is the most important thing for a Philadelphian to know?

Let's take another look at the verses that cover the Elijah to come with this question in mind.

Malachi 4 shows the importance of the Elijah to come.  The work that Elijah does, the work God does in sending him, is vitally important, because unless Elijah turns the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, God would strike the earth with a curse.  The Church has understood this curse to mean utter destruction.  So what God does in sending Elijah, and the work that Elijah himself does, are both vitally important.  But does this verse say that it is vitally important that God's people recognize that this man holds the title of the Elijah?  Is there a special command here to follow the Elijah?  Is there any emphasis on the importance of recognizing him as the Elijah?  If there is, I don't see it.  Where is the emphasis in the Old Testament?  Compare these two verses with the other things emphasized in the Old Testament, such as fearing God, obeying every commandment of God, putting our trust in God, not following other gods, keeping the Sabbath, being faithful in tithes and offerings, blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, etc. 

Is there any emphasis in the New Testament on recognizing the Elijah to come?  Is there any instruction or commandment from Christ or the apostles to the Church regarding this issue, either on the importance of recognizing and obeying the Elijah, or instructions in how to recognize him when he comes?

Let's look at the four occasions when the subject of Elijah came up in the gospel accounts:

1.  The angel Gabriel told Zacharias that John would come in the spirit and power of Elijah.  This specifically refers to John, not Mr. Armstrong.  In any case, although this information was revealed to Zacharias and to us, it did not seem that recognition that John fulfilled that role was essential for John's ministry.  The fact that the Jews asked John about it and John denied that he was the Elijah shows that the Jews and the people John preached to did not recognize him as Elijah, yet that did not prevent John the Baptist from being 100 percent successful in his mission.  He got the job done whether anyone knew he was the Elijah or not.  He succeeded in preparing the way for the Lord at His first coming.  (Luke 1:5-20).

2.  The priests and Levites sent by the Pharisees asked John if he was Elijah and John said he was not.  I do not know if John himself did not recognize that he was fulfilling that role, because of his humility perhaps, or if John was thinking in terms of the yet future Elijah in our time to restore all things.  He must have at least known that he was one that would come in the spirit and power of Elijah because his father Zacharias must have told him what Gabriel said.  In any case, I want to point something else out.  Who raised the subject?  Who was concerned about it?  It wasn't John.  It wasn't the crowds.  It wasn't even John's disciples and those who repented and were baptized at his teaching.  It was the Pharisees or the priests and Levites.  It was the ruling authorities, the religious leaders of the day, who were concerned about what title John held.  (John 1:19-28).

3.  In the account of the occasion when John sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if He was the Messiah to come, afterwards Jesus spoke to the crowds and said that John was the Elijah.  But there is no mention here of a future Elijah to come in our time.  (Luke 7:18-28, Matthew 11:2-15, especially verses 14-15).

4.  After the transfiguration, when Jesus' disciples asked Him about Elijah to come, Jesus says that Elijah will come and will, future tense, restore all things.  Then He affirms again that John was a fulfillment of Elijah.  So here we have a clear indication that there is yet another fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy after John the Baptist, before the Day of the Lord, in our time.  Yet even here, who raised the subject?  Did Jesus teach this to His disciples because of its importance?  No.  His disciples asked the question and Jesus answered their question.  Why were the disciples curious?  They heard the scribes say that Elijah must come first.  Again, it was the religious authorities, the scribes and Pharisees, that seemed the most concerned about the issue.  (Matthew 17:9-13, Mark 9:7-13).

Where is the emphasis in the New Testament on recognizing who the Elijah is and following him?  The only time Jesus spoke about a future fulfillment of the Elijah role after John the Baptist was when His disciples asked him about the teachings of the scribes.  Jesus didn't bring the subject up.  He didn't talk about it in the sermon on the mount or the Olivet prophecy or any of his parables or teachings to His disciples, except to answer that one question.  If this is so vital to the Church today, wouldn't God place more emphasis on it in the Bible?  Mr. Armstrong himself said he thought the Bible was primarily written for the Philadelphia era of the Church.  Until the printing press, the Bible was never widely available as it is in our day.  During most of the first century, it was not even complete.  The Bible is for us today, and if recognizing the identity of the Elijah in our time is of such vital importance for God's people, I would think that God would teach us the importance of doing so and give us instructions for recognizing who it is.

I don't find the Elijah to come mentioned by name in Acts, or any of the epistles, or in Revelation.  Even in the messages to the seven churches, even in the messages to Philadelphia and Laodicea, Christ says nothing about the Elijah to come.  How can recognizing who holds the title of "the Elijah" be the most important thing for a Philadelphian to know?

The impression is clear that the Elijah issue was more important to the priests, Levites, scribes, and Pharisees than it was to Jesus Christ or John the Baptist.

Let's look at this from a practical point of view.  Did the work God did through Mr. Armstrong ever depend for its success on whether or not Mr. Armstrong's readers and listeners knew he fulfilled the role of Elijah as described in the last two verses of Malachi and as described by Jesus's answer to his disciples question?  Obviously not.  Mr. Armstrong's work of restoring truth to the Church of God and the raising up of the Philadelphia era of the Church was well under way and going strong long before even Mr. Armstrong thought of himself as a possible fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy. 

Mr. Armstrong believed God's word and God opened his mind to understand the Bible, and as Mr. Armstrong learned new truths he powerfully preached those truths to the public over radio and in print.  Those God was calling listened, checked up in the Bible, and believed God's word, and God added them to the Church.  They became members of the Church of God during the Philadelphia era of the Church, and they in turn sacrificed to support the preaching of the truth to others who had not heard it yet.  The Philadelphia era of the Church was growing and doing a powerful work BEFORE anyone thought of Mr. Armstrong as the Elijah.  Mr. Armstrong himself was a true Philadelphian and a leader of the Philadelphian era of the Church for many years without knowing the identity of the Elijah to come.  So how can this be the most important truth a Philadelphian can know?

Yet with some in the Church, it seems like an important issue today.  Why?  And what does this have to do with practicing what we preach when we preach the gospel to the world?

The idea that it is vitally important that we recognize that Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to restore all things does not stand in isolation.  It is part of much bigger issue.  That issue is, can the Church of God lawfully change any of Mr. Armstrong's doctrines?

Those who emphasize that Herbert W. Armstrong was the Elijah to come usually use this doctrine to support their position that the Church of God and its ministers and evangelists should never change any doctrine or policy that Mr. Armstrong held and taught at the time of his death.  Actually, not everyone who says we should not change Mr. Armstrong's doctrines actually practices this in every detail.  Some who teach that we should not change Mr. Armstrong's doctrines sometimes make exceptions to this rule.  They might say that their change is not really a change because they are only changing policy or a judgment or a prophetic interpretation based on new information about current events, or that it is okay to change minor points of doctrines but not major ones.  But that is beside the point.

Those who teach that we should not change Mr. Armstrong's doctrines reason that since Mr. Armstrong was prophesied to restore all things, his doctrines were 100% accurate by the time of his death.  Sometimes their position that we should not change doctrine is also supported by the view that only an apostle can change or add doctrine in the Church of God, and since Mr. Armstrong was an apostle but we have no living apostle today, there is no one who is authorized to change doctrine or introduce new doctrine.

I think there are a number of flaws in this reasoning.

Actually, this is one of the most vital issues facing the Church of God, its leadership, and individual members.  It not only involves preaching the gospel, but faith itself.  The real issue is, what do we believe?  Not only what do we believe, but WHY do we believe what we believe?  Ultimately, it also comes down to, WHO do we believe?

Mr. Armstrong said, after completing Mystery of the Ages, that he thought it may be the most important book written since the Bible.  Many in the Church of God today consider it to be a vital book.  I have even heard or read that some teach that members of the Church should be "grounded" in Mystery of the Ages. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Mystery of the Ages is one of Mr. Armstrong's most important books.  It is an excellent summary of the truth of God.  I think it is the most important book in terms of being a summary of the body of teachings that God restored through Mr. Armstrong.  But hearing others talk about its importance made me think about Mr. Armstrong's other books.  How would I rate their relative importance compared with each other?

I have often thought that for a brand new person first coming into contact with the truth of God, the most important book for that person to read, especially if that person is living in an English speaking country, is The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, the larger edition published around 1969 or later (about 200 pages).  This book is not just about prophecy.  It gives a person a foundation in the law of God including the Sabbath, and shows why God will soon put Israel through the tribulation.  Anyone who reads this book, whether they come into the Church or not, has received the Ezekiel warning and a good portion of the gospel.  But more that that, I think this book does a better job of proving the authenticity of the Bible than any other book published in Mr. Armstrong's lifetime.

How important is it that prospective members prove that the Bible is God's word?  I think the question almost answers itself.  In the Church of God, the Bible should be the foundation for everything we believe.  We must know it is God's word.  The prophecies about the lost tribes of Israel, especially the tribes of Joseph, when compared with history, enable one to objectively and logically prove that the Bible is indeed inspired by a creator God that is able to know the future in advance.  Once a person knows that the Bible is God speaking, that person can then make the decision to believe what God says, to believe that God is telling the truth, to trust His word, and to obey what God commands in the Bible. 

For a member already in the Church, Mystery of the Ages is certainly very valuable for a review of basic doctrines, but I think a book that is even more valuable, especially in the condition the Church of God is in now, is Mr. Armstrong's autobiography volume one and the first half of volume two (up to and not including the letters).  Mr. Armstrong covers some important points of faith, trusting God, and Christian living in his autobiography that are not covered as well in any of his other books, including Mystery of the Ages.  For example, there are lessons we can learn from his autobiography that can help us to understand whether or not Mr. Armstrong's doctrines can be changed.  God was able to use Mr. Armstrong in a powerful way, but God was only able to use Mr. Armstrong because of what Mr. Armstrong was willing to do.  It was a way of thinking and acting that made Mr. Armstrong a tool in God's hands that He could use to preach the gospel powerfully and to raise up and supervise the Philadelphia era of God's Church.  No doubt God worked with Mr. Armstrong both before and after his conversion to prepare him for the work he was to do.  In the autobiography are the lessons of the examples of Mr. Armstrong's thinking and behavior that enabled God to use him, and we can learn from them.

After Mr. Armstrong was converted, he found himself looking for the one true Church Jesus Christ founded.  He knew that it would be a Sabbath keeping Church that had the name "Church of God".  At that time, he was considering a small Church called Church of God Seventh Day.  Here are some excerpts from the autobiography.  As you read the following, keep in mind the parallel between Mr. Armstrong searching for the true Church of God and a member searching for a Church of God that God is working through today:

"The only Church I had so far found which 'kept the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ,' and at the same time bore the name of the original true Church, was this almost unknown little Church of God with its small publishing house in Stanberry, Missouri.

"But this left me quite confused. For this was a little Church, especially compared to the Roman Catholic, the Methodist, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Lutheran, or other large churches numbering millions of members.  Then I saw where Jesus called His Church the 'little flock.'

"But still I was not completely satisfied.  I was deeply concerned.  I prayed a great deal over it.  For here was a church, which, compared to the large-scale activities of the Catholic and big Protestant bodies, was ineffective.  I could see that it was imperfect.  It wielded no great power.  Jesus had said: 'All power is given unto me, in heaven and earth' (Matt. 28:18).  I read how Jesus Christ was to be IN His Church!  He guides it!  He directs it!  He empowers it!  He said His Church was to receive power (Acts 1:8).

"No person is even a member of the true Church unless he has received, and is filled and led by, the Holy Spirit -- and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of power!  This little church seemed to be powerless -- comparatively impotent!  I failed to see where it was bearing much if any fruit!  Could a fruitless church be the one and only true Church of God on earth?

"I was deeply perplexed.  Here was a little church, with scattered members probably numbering less than 2,000 -- mostly in rural areas.  Apparently, as nearly as I could learn, it had only a very limited number of local churches, none as large as 100 members.  As I began to come in contact with some of its leaders, they seemed to be men of little education -- no college degrees -- its ministry could hardly be described as an educated ministry.  Their preaching had a certain fire, yet seemed totally to lack the power that attracts sizable audiences, that moves people, stirs hearts, and changes lives.  I could see no visible results.

"Could this be God's one and only true Church on earth?  The very question seemed preposterous!

"....But, Where Else?

"And yet--

"Yes, and yet, small, powerless, resultless, impotent though it appeared to be, here was a church with the right name, 'keeping the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ,' and closer, in its doctrines and teachings, to what God had been opening my eyes to see plainly in His Word than any other church of which I knew!  Small and impotent though it appeared, it had more Bible TRUTH than any church I could find!

"At this time, God was opening my understanding to some Biblical truths which this church did not accept; and also to some errors, even though minor, which it did embrace.  Plainly, it was not perfect.  It merely appeared to be more nearly so, and less imperfect, in its beliefs and practice, than any other.

"Could such a church -- imperfect, fruitless, feeble, lacking in any sizable accomplishment, be the true Church of God?  Could this be Christ's instrument through whom He worked, in carrying on God's Work on earth?  Jesus said, 'By their fruits ye shall know them.'  Its fruits were not evil -- it simply did not seem to produce fruit!

"I was bewildered. I was unable to come to the answer then -- or until many years later.  The real answer to this perplexing question will come out in this Autobiography later, at the account of the time when I myself found the true answer.  I will state here, however, that I did learn later that it was merely the remnant of a church that had been more alive many years before." -- pages 356-358.

Mr. Armstrong later believed and taught that the Church of God Seventh Day was part of the Sardis era of the Church, which Christ describes in Revelation as having a name that they are alive, but in fact are dead.

Mr. Armstrong decided to TEST this Church to try to determine if it was indeed the one true Church that Jesus Christ built.  I find this interesting, especially when I try to imagine the reaction of ministers if a member tries to do today what Mr. Armstrong did then.

Imagine that a lay member of the Church of God today wants to prove if a particular Church of God organization is really a church God is working in and if the leadership is really following God.  This lay member wants to find a place to attend and send his tithes and offerings to.  Or maybe the member already attends a church and wants to know if he should stay or look elsewhere.  He wants to know, does this group really follow and obey God?  He finds truth in the Bible that this group does not have.  So he performs an experiment to TEST this church.  He writes up a couple of doctrinal study papers that teach from the Bible doctrines different from the beliefs of this organization.  One of them is a correction to their existing doctrine.  Another is a "new truth" they don't have.  The lay member reasons, if they accept the truth of my papers, this shows they are willing to obey God, but if they don't accept my conclusions and cannot show from Scripture that I am wrong, then they are not fully following God.  What would be the reaction of the typical minister or evangelist to this lay member's thinking?  Would he say that the member was being presumptuous for testing or judging the Church?  Would he say that God always corrects from the top down?  Would he say that the member was vain in thinking he knew more than the Church?  Would he say that we need to recognize that Christ is the head of the Church and to believe the teachings of the Church in faith that Christ is leading the Church?  Would he say that Christ would never put new doctrine into the Church by revealing it to a lay member because that would be destructive to God's own hierarchical government in the Church?  I have heard ministers say these things or similar things in various words in reaction to members who submit suggestions, questions, feedback, or study papers to their pastor or to headquarters of their church.

Could or would God ever introduce new truth to the Church of God or correct errors in church doctrine through an ordinary lay member?  Could Jesus Christ take an ordinary lay member, not an apostle, not a minister, not even a deacon, not even a long-time member but a recently baptized "babe-in-Christ", and then open that person's mind as he reads the Bible to understand brand new knowledge from the Bible that the Church doesn't have, even a major new doctrine or a correction to existing doctrine where the Church is wrong?  And then, is it possible that Christ might use that lay member to correct or test the Church's leadership by letting him submit the doctrinal correction to the headquarters of that Church?  And if headquarters rejects the new doctrine but not on biblical grounds, might Jesus Christ reject that church leadership from doing a powerful work and instead take the lay member and use that person and develop him to teach new doctrine to the Church and to eventually do a powerful work?  

God has already done exactly that!

Let's continue the story in Mr. Armstrong's autobiography:

"Early in this three-and-a-half-year period, between 1927 and 1930, I decided to try a dual test to help settle the question of whether this was, in actual fact, the true Church of God.

"The Church is merely the sum total of its members.  By the one Spirit of God we are each baptized, or put into, the true Church (I Corinthians 12:13).  Jesus promised that when we receive the Holy Spirit, His Spirit shall guide us into all truth -- not merely part of it (John 16:13).

"But no person can receive all truth instantaneously.  The human mind receives knowledge gradually.  The child of God must grow in the knowledge of our Lord (II Peter 3:18).  Also he must have the spirit of repentance, always ready and willing to acknowledge error and to turn from it.  The Scriptures are profitable for reproof and correction, as well as instruction in knowledge new to us.  And God corrects every son He loves (Heb. 12:6).

"Now it was a simple truism that if each individual member of the Church must be growing in the knowledge of God, constantly overcoming, being corrected, and eliminating error, then all the members together, which form the church, must also be constantly willing to confess error and eliminate it, and to accept that which is 'new light' from God's Word to the Church.

"I knew of no church or sect or denomination that had ever publicly confessed error or embraced new truth.  Yet, plainly, this would be a test of the true Church.

"So, as the first step in this test, I wrote up an exposition of some 16 typewritten pages proving clearly, plainly, and beyond contradiction that a certain minor point of doctrine proclaimed by this church, based on an erroneous interpretation of a certain verse of Scripture, was in error.  This was mailed to the Stanberry, Missouri, headquarters to see whether their leaders would confess error and change.

"The answer came back from their head man, editor of their paper and president of their 'General Conference.'  He was forced to admit, in plain words, that their teaching on this point was false and in error.  But, he explained, he feared that if any attempt was made to correct this false doctrine and publicly confess the truth, many of their members, especially those of older standing and heavy tithe payers, would be unable to accept it.  He feared they would lose confidence in the Church if they found it had been in error on any point.  He said he feared many would withdraw their financial support, and it might divide the Church.  And therefore he felt the Church could do nothing but continue to teach and preach this doctrine which he admitted in writing to be false.

"Naturally, this shook my confidence considerably. This church leader, if not the church itself, was looking to people as the source of belief, instead of to God!  Yet, here was the only Church holding to the one greatest basic truth of the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, kept in the name of God, and in spite of this and a few other erroneous teachings, nevertheless being closer to the whole truth than any church I had found.

"If this was not the true Church of God, then where was it?

"The Second Test

"A little later I tried the second test.  After exhaustive study and research, I had found it proved that the so-called 'Lost Ten Tribes' of Israel had migrated to western Europe, the British Isles, and later the United States -- that the British were the descendants of Ephraim, younger son of Joseph, and the United States modern-day Manasseh, elder son of Joseph -- and that we possessed the national wealth and resources of the Birthright which God had promised to Abraham through Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

"This truth was written in a lengthy manuscript of close to 300 typed pages, and mailed to this editor and leader of this church.  I explained that although this new truth seemed to be proved beyond doubt, yet I was still comparatively new in Christ and Scriptural knowledge, and wished the judgment of one more mature and experienced in things Biblical.

"I think it was some six months before the reply came.  It was written on a train late at night.  This church leader stated in his letter (which I still have) that I was most certainly right -- that this was a wonderful new truth revealed by God, and that God surely had a special reason for revealing this new truth to me.  However, he stated he did not know what use, if any, he could make of it at that time, but was sure I would hear more of it later.

"Did this Church accept and proclaim this vital new truth -- the key that unlocks the doors to all prophecy?  Here was the key to understanding of one third of the whole Bible.  But this Church refused then to accept it or preach it or publish it though their leader frankly confessed it was truth and a revelation from GOD!" -- pages 359-362.

These quotes are from the edition of Mr. Armstrong's autobiography that was published in a two-volume set after his death.

I have recently heard one minister in one of the major organizations in the Church say that maybe God doesn't want doctrinal changes now because what the members need now is stability.  I am reminded of this when I read the paragraph in Mr. Armstrong's autobiography where he says that the president of the general conference of the Church of God Seventh Day did not want to admit error because he was afraid some members might lose confidence in the Church if they found it had been in error.  The leadership of the Church looked to the effect on the members rather than to the Bible to decide whether or not to make a doctrinal change.

According to the sequence of events as Mr. Armstrong relates them in the autobiography, he was not an apostle when these events occurred.  He was not even ordained as a minister yet.  He was a lay member when he submitted doctrinal changes to the leadership of the Church of God Seventh Day.

Consider what has happened.

God used a member of the Church to bring the truth about the Sabbath day to Loma Armstrong.  Mrs. Armstrong accepted this truth, even though it was different from her traditions.  She believed the Bible over her traditions.  In a way, this was a test for her.  But she passed the test.  God then tested Mr. Armstrong.  Mrs. Armstrong brought this new truth to her husband.  He did NOT want to accept it.  Mr. Armstrong was challenged by his wife on the Sabbath question.  He set out to prove she was wrong, but ended up proving the opposite, that she was right and he was wrong.  But he had the honesty to admit it and to accept the truth, even truth contrary to what he wanted to believe, contrary to what he was taught, contrary to the teachings and traditions of most churches and their ministers.  He was willing to put the Bible first as the source of his beliefs over everything else.  I have no doubt that God tested him in this.  If he had failed the test, if Mr. Armstrong refused to believe the Bible and instead went along with the traditions he grew up in, could God have used him?  Of course not.  In a way, it seems that this was a much tougher test for Herbert Armstrong than for Loma.  But Mr. Armstrong passed the test.  He believed God.  He not only believed God, but acted on that belief and began to put this new knowledge into practice. 

God then used Mr. Armstrong, while he was still only a lay member of the Church, not an apostle or ordained minister, to test the leadership of the Church of God Seventh Day.  He opened Mr. Armstrong's mind to new truth from the Bible that the Church did not have.  Mr. Armstrong submitted this new truth to the leadership.  They did not accept it.  They gave priority to their tradition over the truth of the Bible.  Could God use this Church and its leadership to do the powerful work of preaching the gospel to the world as a witness before the end comes?  No.  God used Mr. Armstrong to raise up a new organization, which became separate from Church of God Seventh Day.  The Church that rejected the new truth was rejected by God from doing a powerful work of preaching the gospel to the world.  See also Hosea 4:6.

Why?

Maybe the answer seems obvious, but I think there is more to it than most people in the Church of God have thought about.

Why could God not use the Church of God Seventh Day to preach the gospel to the world in a powerful way after they rejected new doctrine from the Bible that Mr. Armstrong showed them in favor of their traditions? 

Part of the reason is that God wanted the message to the public to contain the truths that needed to be restored.  God wanted the gospel that the world would hear to include all the many truths that the Church of God Seventh Day did not have.  Therefore they would have to accept those truths in order to teach them to the public.  Since they would not accept those truths themselves, they could not be used to teach them to the world.

But there is still more to it than that.  We are now, finally, getting to the whole point of this chapter.

Do you remember the earlier quote of Jesus Christ saying that the Pharisees laid heavy burdens on men's shoulders which they were not willing to lift with one finger?  They did not practice what they preached.  They were not willing to do what they told others they should do.

When the Church of God preaches the truth of God to the world, what are we really asking people to do?  Are we not teaching people that they should give up everything they have believed if necessary in order to believe and live by every word of God?

In effect, we are telling people, "Give up the traditions you were raised in.  They are all wrong.  God is not a trinity.  Man does not have an immortal soul.  You are not going to go to heaven when you die.  Sunday is not the day you should rest and attend church services.

"Give up Christmas and Easter.  Stop attending church on Sunday.  Start keeping the Sabbath even if you lose your job.  Trust God to provide for you.  Start tithing to God.  Pay your first tithe.  Save your second tithe, and every third year in a seven year cycle pay a third tithe for the poor in the Church.  If it doesn't look like you have enough money, step out in faith and trust God that He will provide for you.  Start keeping the holy days and the Feast of Tabernacles.  Stop eating pork.

"Be willing to lose your job if necessary, to give up your family and friends if necessary, to give up everything to live by every word of God.  Put God and the Bible first, over what your church teaches, over the traditional beliefs and practices you were raised in, over what your minister tells you, even over what you yourself want to believe.  Put the Bible first and believe and obey God no matter what the cost, even if you lose your job, friends, husband, or wife."

And if a prospective member requests a visit from a minister, and when the minister comes to his house, the person says, "I know that the Bible says I should start tithing and keeping the Sabbath, but this isn't the right time for me right now.  My boss will fire me if I don't work on Saturday, and the kids have been sick and the bills piling up, and I can't afford to tithe right now.  What I need now is stability, but later I will do these things," what will the minister reply?  Will he say, "I agree, what you need is stability, you don't need to make these changes right now, God understands"?  Or will he say, "With the knowledge comes responsibility, and you are being judged now for what you do with what you know"?

Then what happens if a new truth or correction from the Bible is submitted to the minister and to the Church leadership, perhaps on a very tiny matter, but the minister or the leadership will not accept any doctrinal changes because "the members need stability" or "we cannot change Mr. Armstrong's doctrines"?

Does that not put the Church of God in the position of asking the public to do what we are no longer willing to do?  Does that not make the Church of God like the Pharisees, who laid heavy burdens on men's shoulders, hard to bear, but were not willing to help lift them with one finger? 

How can we teach members of the general public that they should make changes in their belief systems so great that it would seem to them that their whole lives are being turned upside down if we ourselves have become so comfortable and attached to our Church of God traditions that we are not willing to make the tiniest changes and corrections to our doctrines?  Would that be practicing what we preach?  Would God use a group like that to do a powerful work of preaching the gospel to the world when He has already rejected the leadership of the Church of God Seventh Day during Mr. Armstrong's early years from doing a powerful work because they would not accept new doctrine from the Bible?

Why do we believe what we believe?  I am not asking WHAT we believe.  I am asking WHY.

Is it possible to believe the right things for the wrong reasons?  Can someone believe the truth, the real truth, yet for the wrong reasons?

Why do Catholics believe what they believe, Baptists believe what they believe, Jehovah Witnesses believe what they believe, Jews believe what they believe, Moslems believe what they believe?  In most cases, they believe their traditions.  They believe what they were taught as children, the doctrines and customs they were raised in.  People also sometimes believe what they want to believe, either what is convenient to believe or what fits their own opinions.  People who are religious also often tend to believe what their religious authorities have taught them or what a religious leader teaches them, because they trust him.  Usually, they are comfortable in their beliefs and traditions and they do not want to change. 

Are we in the Church of God today any different?  Are we really different? 

I am writing this June 2005.  It has been 78 years since Mr. Armstrong's conversion, 71 years since the start of the Plain Truth Magazine, and 19 years since Mr. Armstrong's death.  Many members of the Church of God were born and raised in the Church.  They grew up attending Sabbath services and hearing the truth of God.  Many others, while not having been raised in the Church, came into the Church when they were young, and now they are old.  Have we become so comfortable in our beliefs and traditions that we, like many members of the Church of God Seventh Day, or even like many members of the Roman Catholic Church, are unwilling to learn new truth from the Bible if it conflicts with what we already believe?

When Mr. Tkach began making doctrinal changes in Worldwide, over a period of time, many members began to leave.  They rejected the changes.  The changes were wrong, and it was right to reject them, but why did members reject them?  The reason may be important.  We did not all reject those changes for the same reason.

Those who left Worldwide and fellowshipped with Church of God groups that hold to the basic body of doctrine taught by Mr. Armstrong did not all do so for the same reason.  Members in any of the major Church of God organizations are not all there for the same reason.

Along with the doctrinal changes came a number of articles in the Worldwide News explaining those changes and trying to justify them by Scripture.  The attempt failed.  There were logical flaws and inconsistencies in their arguments.  If one looked at the changes with an open mind, compared the changes and the original teachings with the Bible and looked up all the relevant scriptures on the subject, one could prove, from the Bible, that the changes were incorrect and that the original teachings of Mr. Armstrong are right.  But how many really did that?  I think that some accepted the changes because they believed church authority more than the Bible, and some people made an idol out of a church organization.  But I also believe many rejected the changes simply because they were changes and they did not want to consider that the Church may have been in error and needed to be corrected.  They didn't check up in the Bible.  They just left.

I asked before if we are any different in why we believe what we believe than Catholics or Protestants who follow their traditions.  Let me ask the question a different way.

In light of Mr. Armstrong's experiences with the Church of God Seventh Day, as related in his autobiography, were most members of that Church any different than Catholics and Protestants in WHY they believed what they believed?  Didn't they believe what they were taught as children, the same as most Catholics and Protestants?  Didn't they believe, accept, and practice the traditions they grew up with, just like most Catholics and Protestants?  And didn't they reject the new truths Mr. Armstrong learned from the Bible because they conflicted with their traditions, just as most Catholics and Protestants reject those same doctrines?

Mr. Armstrong said in his book Mystery of the Ages that God had restored at least eighteen truths to the Church of God through him.  Look at a list of eighteen major truths restored to the Philadelphia era of the Church.  Show any of these doctrines to a typical Catholic or Protestant, and prove it from the Bible.  What would be the typical reaction?  The average Catholic or Protestant would reject it because it differs from what he already believes.  Now show it to a member of the Church of God Seventh Day.  What would be the typical reaction?  EXACTLY THE SAME.  The average Church of God Seventh Day member would reject that doctrine because it differs from what he already believes.  Same reaction.  Same reason. 

In a sense, the failure of the Church of God Seventh Day leadership to accept new truth in Mr. Armstrong's early years was greater than the failure of most Catholics and Protestants to accept the truth of God from the Bible.  That is because the test was easier for the Church of God leadership.  They already had some truth.  The change would not be as great for them as for those raised in traditional mainstream Christianity.  Nevertheless, they still were not able and willing to be corrected and learn new truth from the Bible.

Now I will ask, how different are we in our attitudes towards the authority of the Bible and our church traditions and church authority than the Church of God Seventh Day seventy years ago?  If someone came along, like Mr. Armstrong, with changes as great as the changes he proposed, but proved from the Bible, would the Church of God today be any more open minded and willing to be corrected by the Bible and learn new truth than the Church of God 70 or 80 years ago?  And if the answer is that we might NOT be that different, would God not test us before empowering us to do a great work of preaching the gospel to all Israel, just as He used Mr. Armstrong to test the Church of God Seventh Day more than 70 years ago?  And if we fail the test, if we reject Bible revelation in favor of tradition, would not God reject us from doing a powerful work?  Would God judge us by a lesser standard than he judged the Church in Mr. Armstrong's early years?

I think WHY we believe what we believe is just as important as WHAT we believe.  We need to believe the right things for the right reason.  We need to believe the truth of God because it is what the Bible teaches and we must believe the Bible more than anything else.

I remember an occasion in Worldwide, sometime in 1995 I think, when the biggest changes in doctrine were being taught, when a speaker described in a sermonette how he was struggling to understand the changes, but at first he couldn't.  He would read the epistles of Paul and try to understand what he read in the light of the new teachings, but it didn't make sense to him at first.  Then he prayed and asked God to help him understand the changes.  When he studied the Bible again, the changes began to make sense to him.  He felt God answered his prayer.  Now he understood and accepted the new teaching.  After services, I talked with the man and asked him, "When you prayed for help to understand the doctrinal changes, did you ask God to help you know WHETHER the changes were true or not, or did you assume that the changes were true and asked God to help you understand HOW they were true, how they fit with the Bible?"  He said, "I assumed that the changes were true, and I asked God to help me understand how they were true."  This man was not looking to the Bible for answers about what is truth.  He looked to the Church for that and only wanted God to help him to believe the Church.

On another occasion, one of the men in giving the opening or closing prayer asked God to help us accept and believe the new doctrines.  But I could not say "amen" to that prayer.  I wasn't trying to either believe or disbelieve the changes.  I already made a commitment years ago to believe the Bible.  I knew that God allows His ministers to make mistakes sometimes.  I wanted to learn from God's Word whether or not these changes were true just as I tried to examine God's Word years ago to see if the things Mr. Armstrong was saying were true.  I never assumed that the things Mr. Armstrong said were true, and I didn't want to assume that the things Mr. Tkach was saying were true.  I could not pray for God's help to believe something that could be in error.

I have noticed that people can have a number of sources for their beliefs:

1)  I think those who are converted in the Church who put the Bible first as a source of belief study the Bible to be corrected and look to the Bible as the final authority for any doctrine or issue.  I think most of these people know that the Holy Spirit gives them understanding of the Bible, but they don't trust their own thoughts and opinions apart from the Bible if their opinions are contrary to the Bible, and they don't attribute those opinions to the Holy Spirit.  They realize that the Holy Spirit will not guide them into knowledge that is contrary to the Bible.  I am sure Mr. Armstrong was in this category, and this is how God wants us to set our beliefs.

2)  Those who use a church as their authority believe the teachings of their church and use those teachings to interpret what the Bible means.  They will fit Bible scriptures together the way their church teaches them to, and they believe that they are being properly submissive to God's government and authority the way God wants them to be.  They put human church leadership first and the Bible second.  I think most of those who stayed in Worldwide would fall into this category, as well as many people in the Catholic Church.

3)  Those that use their own traditions and customary beliefs and practices as their authority for what they believe are following the traditions they grew up with as a child or adopted by choice in their youth as a teenager or young adult.  In some ways, beliefs we were raised in are harder to give up because it is all we have known, but in another way, the beliefs we adopted in our youth are harder to give up because they come as a result of our choice and we identify with them more.  In other words, it may be harder to admit we have been wrong than to admit that our parents were wrong.  In any case, those who hold to their traditions this way, whether they be traditions they were raised in by their parents or beliefs they adopted by choice in their youth that have become their traditions over time, will often fit Bible scriptures together and interpret their meaning in a way that is consistent with the framework of the traditions and the beliefs they have held for a long time.  When an idea is suggested to them that is contrary to what they have believed and held for a long time, they often reject it without looking at it in the Bible with an open mind.  They may think they are obeying God's instruction to turn away from those who bring a false gospel.  But they will not first prove from the scriptures that it is false.  I think some who left Worldwide as soon as the changes started without even examining them may fall into this category.

4)  Those who believe their own ideas and opinions more than other sources will often think that the Holy Spirit is putting those thoughts into their mind and that they are exercising faith by believing that those ideas and doctrines are true.  One person I spoke to said she believed what she believed because she had faith those things she believed were true, and she believed that the faith she had was a gift from God.  In other words, she knew what she knew.  She thought God miraculously put the belief in her mind and she trusted that God put it there and that it was true.  And anything in the Bible that seemed to contradict it in plain language she would interpret to mean something that would be consistent with whatever she already believed.  This matter of believing one's own opinions can sometimes be closely associated with believing the traditions one grew up with or held for a long time.

I find it interesting that among many Catholics, three of these sources of belief may work together.  Most Catholics have been raised Catholic and they have held their Catholic teachings a long time, so they have the influence of tradition on their belief system.  The Catholic Church claims authority to establish doctrine and to interpret the Bible, so church authority is also a source of belief.  And some Catholics may feel strongly that God is leading their belief system and working in their minds to give them faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church, and they feel they are exercising faith by trusting in those beliefs.

In the Church of God, when we were all together under Mr. Armstrong's stewardship, for those of us who were in the Church a long time, the influences of tradition, church authority, and the Bible worked in the same doctrinal direction.  Those who trusted in their own opinions tended to leave.  But Mr. Armstrong trusted the Bible, he set the teachings of the Church to be the same as the Bible, and as we practiced and believed those teachings they became our traditions.  So a person could remain in the Church at that time even if the Bible was not his primary authority any longer.  His first authority could be the Church or his traditions he had become comfortable with, and he would still stay in the Church.

But when the doctrinal changes came, people in Worldwide Church of God were challenged, and a process of separation began.  People whose primary authority for what they believe was the Church were separated from those whose primary authority was the Bible OR their traditions.  Those whose primary authority was the Bible examined the new teachings, looked up the scriptures given along with other scriptures on the same subject, examined the matter with an open mind, and rejected the new teachings because they were contrary to the Bible.  They left Worldwide and in most cases fellowshipped with and supported new groups that were being raised up and kept the things Mr. Armstrong taught.  Those whose primary authority was tradition rejected the new teachings without serious examination.  They also left Worldwide and joined with some other group.  And in many cases those for whom their tradition had become their primary authority and those whose primary authority is the Bible are now in the same church groups!  In other words, those who have left Worldwide to go with another group have not all done so for the same reasons and not all for the right reason!

So within any one of several Church of God groups today, you can have people who want to follow the Bible and are willing to change to learn new truth from the Bible and be corrected in their beliefs from the Bible, and also those who only want to remain the same, keep the traditions they are comfortable with, and not accept new knowledge from or have their beliefs corrected by the Bible.

And in such a case, the ministry of that Church, even if they are willing to accept new knowledge and make changes, are faced with the fact that among their members are many people who do not want to change.  In fact, they might even be the majority.  And if the leadership knows this, they might also know that many would leave if they made changes.  So in order to keep their group intact and prevent the exodus of those members that do not want to change, they may be tempted to not make changes that would be required by the Bible. 

They may think, "Christ is leading the Church to not make changes because the members need stability at this time.  The benefits of keeping as many people as possible together is that we can do a more powerful work and help more people." 

Such a view seems very practical, but I think it is practical in the same way that Jeroboam's decision to change the times and places of worship in Israel out of fear of the people deserting him to follow the king of Judah was practical.  It was very logical from a human point of view but it left God out of the picture (1 Kings 12:26-33).  This would be an example of a way that seems right to a man but is the way of death (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25).

God is the one who opens or closes doors to preaching the gospel.  He can empower a small group as well as a large one.  But we are required by God to believe Him and to live by every word of God (Luke 4:4, Galatians 3:6, Hebrews 3:12, Matthew 23:23).  God also requires that we speak only the truth according to what we know (Luke 18:19, Colossians 3:9-11, Exodus 20:16, Revelation 21:8).  If we see some new knowledge revealed in the Bible, or if it is pointed out to us, we are required by God to believe it, if it is truly what the Bible teaches.  If we believe new knowledge, whether it is from the Bible or a combination of the Bible and history or science or whatever, if ministers teach what they know is not true, are they not bearing false witness?  Is God going to bless that? 

Also, we must make sure our ways are pleasing to God by practicing what we preach when we ask John Q. Public to change his beliefs to live by every word of God.  We have to make sure we are willing to do that ourselves, even in the small things, if we want to have God's blessing and empowerment to preach the gospel to the world.  That is more important than how big we are.

Concern for the stability of the Church and reasoning that stability is for the greatest benefit of the members may seem right, but such reasoning, even if motivated by love, must take second place to the principles of believing God and not bearing false witness.  The world is full of people who have "love" for others but don't believe God, or have love for others that motivates them to tell "white lies" to not hurt another person's feelings or get them into trouble with the authorities.  I suppose it never occurs to these leaders that if they allowed God to use them to teach new knowledge to the Church from the Bible that God would open their minds to understand new things from the Bible that the members need most at this time.

I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.  Mr. Armstrong pointed out that both Jesus Christ and the Bible are the Word of God.  Jesus Christ is called the Word of God (John 1:1-14).  Referring to Jesus Christ, Revelation 19:13 states:  "He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God."  Mr. Armstrong said that just as the apostle Paul was taught by Jesus Christ, the Word of God in person, so Mr. Armstrong was taught by the Word of God in print.  He said that just as Jesus Christ is the Word of God in person, so the Bible is the Word of God in print, the same Word.  Jesus Christ must be our foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11).  If Jesus is the Word of God in person and the Bible the Word of God in print, the same Word, and if that Word must be our foundation, this seems to indicate that the Bible must be the foundation for everything we believe.  Our faith in the Bible is really faith in Jesus Christ.

I am speculating that at some time, just as God allowed or caused the apostasy to separate out those who follow Church authority more than the Bible or tradition, God will in the future separate those who follow the Bible from those who follow tradition in the Church of God.

This whole subject is really about faith.  Mr. Armstrong taught that faith is not just believing that God exists, but believing what God says.  I remember him making the distinction between believing ON Jesus Christ and believing what Jesus Christ said.  He taught us that false Christianity tries to exalt the person of the messenger, Jesus Christ, while rejecting the message.

In his booklet "What Is Faith?", Mr. Armstrong taught that faith is believing what God says and trusting God to do what He has promised.

Faith is not just a body of doctrine one happens to believe.  True faith has to be based on a relationship with God.

Faith is a choice to believe God.  It is closely tied with the Bible because the Bible is God speaking to us.  It is the Word of God.  Mr. Armstrong explained that Jesus Christ is the Word of God in person, and the Bible is the Word of God in print, but it is the same Word.

Faith means that we believe the Bible because we trust and believe the God who authored it.

Mr. Armstrong also said that he thought the Bible was primarily written for the Philadelphia era of the Church, and by that I think he meant it was written for the Church in our time.

When I hear some members and leaders try to say that we must recognize that Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah, and they exalt his person, and they say we should never change any of his doctrines, this has a familiar ring to it for me.  To me, they are doing with Mr. Armstrong the same thing traditional mainstream Christianity has done with Jesus Christ.  They exalt the person of Christ while rejecting and changing His teachings and message in the Bible. 

Mr. Armstrong always taught us to be willing to be corrected by the Bible and to accept new knowledge from the Bible.  He emphasized that we must always grow in grace and in knowledge.  He rehearsed with us his experiences with the Church of God Seventh Day to remind us that we must not be like them.  Today, it seems to me that if a Church of God organization makes a doctrinal change, typically they try to keep a low profile about it, as if they are ashamed of it or they don't want anyone to notice.  They may say, "This is not a doctrinal change really" even though it is.  But when Mr. Armstrong made a change or introduced new doctrine, he said so, loudly, even with things that were minor.  If I remember correctly, in the sermon in which he taught for the first time that the Church of God was the Kingdom of God in embryo, he first reminded us about the Sardis Church's unwillingness to accept new truth, and then he said, "Here is NEW TRUTH, brethren".  He wanted to keep us in an attitude of being willing to accept new doctrinal truth.

Mr. Armstrong taught us that faith is believing what God said.  He practiced that faith, and was himself willing to learn from the Bible, to accept new truth from the Bible, to be corrected by the Bible in doctrine and policy, and to admit mistakes when he was wrong.  I remember him saying over and over on radio and television, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible".

When I first heard Mr. Armstrong teach that faith is believing what God said, and that the Bible is God speaking to us, I began to think more about faith.  I wondered, over the years, why faith is so important to God.

It is obvious that God places enormous importance on faith.  Faith is a condition for salvation.  It is a condition for answered prayer.  Faith is actually one of the weightier matters of the law, along with justice and mercy (Math 23:23).  And since sin is the transgression of the law, or "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), and faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, disbelieving what God says is a transgression of the law, sin.  But why?  Why did God set it up like that?  Why did God make faith so important?  When Abraham believed what God said, God counted it as righteousness.  Why was it so important to God that Abraham believe Him?

To illustrate the question, contrast faith with love.  Why is it important to God that we love Him and love our neighbor?  The answer to that is a little more obvious.  God wants us to get along with each other and cooperate with each other and with Him.  He wants us to have an outgoing concern for each other and to love God so we will help and serve one another and obey God and do His will for all eternity.  Love is the way of "give" that produces peace and harmony.  It is the opposite of the way of "get", of hostile competition and selfishness that leads to conflict and destruction.  All we have to do is imagine eternity with love versus eternity without love to understand its importance.

But I still asked myself, how does faith fit in?  As long as we have love, what difference does it make if we always believe what God says for all eternity?  Suppose we didn't always believe that God was telling us the truth?  As long as we love God and want to please Him, wouldn't we obey Him anyway even if we sometimes didn't believe what He said?

I am going to indulge in a little speculation here.  I do not know anywhere in the Bible where God specifically talks about why He considers it so important that we believe and trust what He tells us.  We do know from the Bible that angelic beings were created before man.  The Bible also teaches us that Lucifer was perfect in all his ways until iniquity was found in him (Ezekiel 28:15). 

Revelation 12:3-4 seems to indicate that Satan enticed a third of God's angels to join him in rebelling against God.  These angels became demons.  If Satan led them into sin, it may be that Lucifer was the very first angel to sin against God.  Once Lucifer sinned and became Satan, he was able to tempt other angels to sin.  But if Lucifer was the first to sin, there was no other being to tempt him into sinning that first time.

Why did he do it?  I remember one time, a new member or prospective member in the Church asked me that question as we were riding together on a train to Sabbath services.  Why did Lucifer sin?  I didn't know the answer, but it started me thinking about it.

God said Lucifer was perfect in his ways before he sinned.  He must have started on the right track.  It seems logical that God must have thoroughly taught all His angels the right way of life so they would know how to live.  And in love God must have taught them the consequences of sin, that if they went the wrong way it would lead to misery and unhappiness.  Lucifer started on the right way of God's law.  But something happened.  What was the first thing that happened that led to Lucifer's sin?

Ezekiel 28:15 states that Lucifer was perfect in his ways till he sinned.  Verse 16 says he was filled with violence from within by the abundance of his trading, and verse 17 says that his heart was lifted up because of his beauty and he corrupted his wisdom for the sake of his splendor.  So violence and vanity are listed as two sins he committed.  But these were not necessarily the very first sins, or errors, Lucifer committed.

If God taught the angels the consequences of sin, then Lucifer was warned.  And if he was the first to sin, then there was no evil being to tempt or entice him or influence him in an evil direction.  God would not tempt him, and if he was perfect in his ways then there wouldn't be any evil nature within him to tempt him.  There was no temptation to resist.  Yet Lucifer chose the path of sin.  He chose the path of violence and vanity, even after God warned him that that path would lead to misery and frustration.  Apparently, it was a deliberate, thought out choice, not an accidental slipping into sin because of weakness in the face of temptation.  Every influence in the universe was only for good, and there was no evil tendency built inside Lucifer.  Yet he chose sin.  Why?

I don't believe Lucifer would deliberately choose an eternity of unhappiness.  The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that Lucifer did not believe what God told him.  He did not believe that God was telling him the truth when God told him that vanity and violence would lead to Lucifer's utter misery and unhappiness.  He must thought that vanity might lead to greater happiness for himself, and he may have figured that the only way he could find out for sure was to try it.  I think he took a calculated risk, the risk that God was telling the truth versus what he thought would be the pleasures of sin if God was lying to him or was wrong.  He gambled and he lost.  He should have believed God.  But once he began to practice vanity, his mind began to become twisted, and there was no turning back.  As it says in Ezekiel 28:17, his wisdom became corrupted.  The more he sinned, the more perverted his thinking became and the more sinful his nature became.  The more his mind and wisdom became corrupted and perverted, the more he sinned.  And since sin causes suffering, Satan is miserable.  And now he can never repent or go back.  And it may all have started with a decision to doubt God's word and teachings.  

I could be wrong about this.  I said before this is my speculation.  The Bible doesn't say exactly why Lucifer chose to practice vanity and violence, only that he did.  But if he did it because he refused to believe God's word and chose rather to experiment for himself, that might help to explain why it is so important to God that His children learn the lesson now in this life to believe and trust God implicitly in everything God says.  God may have many things to teach us in the eternity to come, and He doesn't want His family doubting or second-guessing his word like Lucifer may have done.

When I was first learning the truth, I had to make a choice whether to believe God or not.  I remember the circumstances clearly.  When I first came into contact with the Plain Truth Magazine, like many new readers I eagerly read each issue and wrote in for all of the booklets mentioned, then read each booklet as soon as it came.  I read the booklet "Does God Exist?".  With the help of that booklet and with the knowledge of science I had (as a hobby only, I am not a scientist), it took me maybe a few hours to prove for myself beyond any doubt that God the Creator must exist.

Then I set about to prove that the Bible was God's word.  This took much longer, several years in fact.  I studied all the prophecies in the Bible and I studied history to see if they came true.  I worked in my spare time and took careful notes so each time I began working on it I could pick up where I left off.  I used whatever books and booklets the Church published on the subject as well as outside sources.  Eventually, I proved to my satisfaction that the Bible is definitely the word of God.

But at the end of this proof I realized that I had not really proved that the Bible was true.  I had proved that the Bible is God speaking, because no human could predict future events thousands of years before they came to pass.  But by itself that did not prove that God always told the truth.  I knew God said in the Bible that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18), but that was not proof. 

I turned it over in my mind for maybe an hour or two.  I realized that no research I could carry out could prove for me whether or not God was infallibly honest and truthful at all times.  I knew God claimed that about Himself, and I knew He required me to believe that if I were to be accepted by Him.  But I didn't think there was any logical way to prove it the way I had proved God's existence or that the Bible is God's word.  I knew it had to be a choice.  I simply made the choice that I would believe God.  I committed myself to believe that God cannot lie and always tells the truth in His Word, the Bible.  I realized that because I am human doubts might come into my mind from time to time and that I would have to try to put those doubts out, but my choice as far as what I willed to believe was to believe God always from that point on, no matter what the cost, and to base all my future actions and decisions on that belief in God's word and in God's truthfulness.  I made the decision to base all my future decisions and actions on trust in what God says in the Bible.

The faith that God requires of us is the kind of belief in God's word and trust in God that leads to obedient action.  It is not an academic, intellectual belief that has nothing to do with how we live our lives.  We obey God because we trust Him and believe what He tells us.  That is why the author of Hebrews equates the disobedience of Israel in the wilderness with their unbelief (Hebrews 3:16-19) and why James says that faith without works is dead (James 2:20-24).  If Lucifer had exercised the right kind of faith in God, trusted God, and believed what God taught him, that faith in God would have led to obedience, and he never would have sinned and disobeyed God and practiced vanity, violence, and rebellion. 

In a sense, believing what God teaches us means that we submit our thoughts to His thoughts and we make His views our views.  We learn to pattern our views and thinking after God's views.  We believe whatever God tells us.  And as we learn to think as God thinks, obedient action will follow.  As we choose to believe what God says in the Bible, we learn to agree with God, and as we agree with God we learn to obey Him because we agree with Him.  And in those cases where we may not understand why God tells us to do something, we obey God in trust, knowing that God has all wisdom, righteousness, and love, and that His will is always right.  We trust God even though we do not know everything God knows.  We trust that what God tells us is right even if we do not understand the reason for whatever it is He tells us.  We trust what God tells us even more than we trust ourselves and our opinions (Proverbs 3:5-6).  So as we believe and trust God, we submit our wills to Him.  This is why godly faith leads to obedient action.

Faith has to be based on a personal relationship with God.  Faith in God is not based on a relationship with a body of doctrine.  It is not just an academic believing of a body of teachings, even if we are obedient to those teachings.  It is based on trust in God, trust in His truthfulness, trust in His righteousness.  We have to trust God that He will never lie to us.  This basic relationship is emphasized in both the old and new testaments.  The Old Testament talks mostly about trusting God.  The New Testament emphasizes faith.  They are actually very similar, and both are based on a relationship with God.

We have a relationship with whatever we have faith in.  If our faith is in our traditions, then we have a relationship with our traditions, not God.  If our faith is in a body of doctrine, then our relationship is with a body of doctrine, not God.  If our faith is in the authority of the Church or of the ministry and leadership, then our relationship is with the Church and the leadership, not God.  If our faith is in our own ideas and opinions apart from the Bible, then we are in love with our own ideas.  If we want our relationship to be with God, then our faith better be in God's Word and we better believe the Bible over everything and everyone else. 

So it comes down to not only WHAT we believe, or even just WHY we believe what we believe, but also WHO we believe.

Faith is also a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11).  But our free moral agency is still involved.  We must still choose to believe God.  There is an aspect of faith that is our free choice, and there is an aspect of faith that is a gift from God.  Repentance is also a gift (Acts 11:18, Acts 5:30-31, 2 Timothy 2:25), yet we have our part to play by exercising our free moral agency to choose to repent.  Likewise, we must choose to believe God.  God does not force anyone to believe Him.  It is our choice.  

Mr. Armstrong identified Church of God Seventh Day in his early years as the Sardis Church.  I believe this is accurate, but I think there is an aspect of the message to the Sardis Church that may apply more fully to some of the Church of God fellowships today that have come out of Worldwide than to the Church of God Seventh Day seventy or eighty years ago.

Revelation 3:1-6:  "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: 'I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.  Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God.  Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent.  Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.  You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.  He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.  He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.' "

Notice the first part of verse 3:  "Remember therefore how you have received and heard...".  Note that Jesus refers to HOW Sardis received and heard, not what they have believed, but HOW they came to believe what they have believed.  He is admonishing them to remember how they came into the truth.

How did Church of God Seventh Day come into the truth?  When Mr. Armstrong came among them, the Church was not growing very much, so most members were taught by their parents as they were growing up.  If the message to Sardis only applies to the Church of God Seventh Day when Mr. Armstrong came among them, it is hard to see how this applies.  Why would Christ be reminding them that they learned the truth by being raised in it as their family tradition?  The Church of God Seventh Day did not have any problem with the truth that they were raised in.  Their problem was that they did not want to accept new truth from the Bible Mr. Armstrong tried to teach them.

But if you apply this verse to some of the Church of God groups today, it fits much better.  It makes perfect sense that Christ would remind us HOW many of us came into the truth.  Many of us learned of the truth by being willing to accept and prove new truth with an open mind.  We needed to be willing to give up our old beliefs and be corrected by the Bible, changing our beliefs as necessary, and adding new knowledge to what we already knew.  And even most of those who grew up in the Church of God have parents who went through this process, and their parents probably related stories of how they first heard Mr. Armstrong on the radio.  It was also through Mr. Armstrong's willingness to change his belief system that God was able to use him to teach us.  That is exactly HOW we have received and heard, and Christ tells us to remember.  We are to remember that we only know the truth because of the willingness of Mr. Armstrong, our parents, and/or ourselves to accept new knowledge and correction, and to believe the Bible more than the traditions of the churches we formerly belonged to.

There is also a point to be made that in remembering HOW we have received and heard, we will also remember that it was through the sacrifices of others to preach the gospel to the public that enabled us to receive and hear the truth of God, and we should consider that we need to do likewise.

Can we apply this message to the Church today considering that this is the Laodicean era, not the Sardis era?  Christ says, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."  As Mr. Armstrong taught, what Christ says to each church can apply to any one of us.  Each individual needs to examine himself in light of all seven of the messages to the seven churches.  Though the Laodicean condition predominates at this time, that does not mean there are not individuals, or even individual groups in the Church of God, that are not in different conditions.  Also, there may not be a lot of difference between the Laodicean condition and the Sardis condition anyway.  The characteristic of Laodicea, "you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' " (Revelation 3:17) also seems to fit those who are self-satisfied with the knowledge they have and are no longer willing to learn anything new or be corrected.

Those that teach that Mr. Armstrong's doctrines can never be changed have a serious problem.  There is a built-in inconsistency in their position, based on Mr. Armstrong's own teachings.

Mr. Armstrong NEVER taught that his teachings could never be changed.  In fact, he taught just the opposite.  He was willing to change his own teachings when he realized he was in error.  Changing the observance of Pentecost from a Monday to a Sunday is just one example.

There are those who claim a spiritual connection with Mr. Armstrong, and they say that he is their spiritual father.  The Jews who wanted to kill Jesus claimed Abraham as their father, but Jesus pointed out that if Abraham were their father they would do the works that Abraham did (John 8:39-40).  Jesus was saying that Abraham was not their spiritual father because they were not following the practices of Abraham.  Likewise, many of those today who claim that Mr. Armstrong is their spiritual father do not do the deeds that Mr. Armstrong did.  They are not willing to admit error and change doctrine as Mr. Armstrong did.  They are not willing to put the Bible first over church tradition or over the teachings of men, even the teachings of Mr. Armstrong himself, as Mr. Armstrong did.  They are not willing to let the Bible interpret the Bible as Mr. Armstrong did, but instead they put their own meaning into verses without scriptural proof from the rest of the Bible that those verses mean what they say they mean.  Someone today can exalt the person of Mr. Armstrong and claim that God is revealing new truth to them as He did to Mr. Armstrong, and yet be twisting scriptures to suit their own purposes.  Mr. Armstrong did not do that. 

Anyone who teaches that Mr. Armstrong's doctrines cannot be changed has already changed the most important doctrine he taught the Church of God.  It is the one doctrine that differentiates God's true Church from all other churches.  It is the doctrine that we must believe God's word, the Bible, over everything else, including tradition, the authority of men, and our own opinions and desires.  This also includes the truth that we must be willing to be corrected by the Bible, to confess and correct error, and to learn new truths from the Bible, and to live by every word of God.  Mr. Armstrong often said, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible."  He taught us by word and by example to not just accept what we are told but to prove doctrine from the Bible.

Mr. Armstrong in the last months of his life reached a point when he knew he might die soon.  He had time to make provision for the Church of God after his death.  I remember hearing him give what may have been his last sermon.  It was obvious that he knew he may die soon.  He spoke of God providing a new pastor general to succeed him.  This close to his death, it would have been a perfect opportunity for Mr. Armstrong to tell the Church, "Don't let anyone change any of the doctrines I have taught you."  But he never said that.  In fact, he implied just the opposite.  He said, "Your faith must not be in me, it must be in Jesus Christ.  He's the head of the Church, I'm not.  And if I were not here, there would be another who would become the pastor general.  And if that should ever happen, if you want into get into God's Kingdom you will follow that pastor general.  And you will remain united and you will remain one.  And your eternity depends on that, every one of you, don't you forget it."  I believe this was in the 1985 Day of Trumpets sermon.  Now, I am sure Mr. Armstrong never expected Mr. Tkach to make all the doctrinal changes that he did.  Mr. Tkach ended up completely reversing just about everything Mr. Armstrong taught that was different from traditional mainstream Christianity.  Much error was introduced into the Church.  I do not say that Mr. Tkach deliberately and knowingly taught error.  He may have thought he was doing the right thing.  Only God can judge his heart.  God allowed all this for a purpose.  I think one of the purposes God had in allowing this was to test the membership and ministry, to see who would follow the Bible more than the Church.  Nevertheless, look at where Mr. Armstrong placed emphasis in the last weeks or months of his life.  Not on becoming fixed on a body of doctrine as it existed at the end of his life.  Not on the fact that Mr. Armstrong was an apostle or that he was the Elijah to restore all things.  But he emphasized willingness to be led and taught.

Here is a suggestion, and a question, for someone who is looking for a Church of God that is following Mr. Armstrong's doctrines 100 percent without change.  When you find a Church of God that claims we should never change Mr. Armstrong's doctrines and that they follow his doctrines 100 percent, get their official statement of beliefs and compare it with the official statement of beliefs for the Church that Mr. Armstrong published that was current at the time of his death, and see how they compare.  That way, any important difference would be apparent, right?  Which Church of God do you think most closely matches Mr. Armstrong when comparing the two statements of beliefs.

It is a trick question.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Armstrong did not publish a statement of beliefs during the latter part of the history of the Worldwide Church of God.  I believe he may have published one in the early years, when the Church was called, "Radio Church of God", but later he did not.  The REASON is important.  One reason may be that a statement of beliefs is a poor way to introduce the public to our teachings because it does not explain why we believe what we believe.  But I think there was another reason also.  I did not know Mr. Armstrong personally, but from what I heard, and this is consistent with everything else I know about Mr. Armstrong from his sermons, broadcasts, and writings, one of the reasons Mr. Armstrong did not publish an official statement of beliefs is that he did not want the Church to get tied into a set of doctrines in a way that would make it hard to change doctrine and learn new doctrine from the Bible.  He saw the way the Church of God Seventh Day was and how they had a culture that resisted doctrinal change from the Bible, and he did not want the Worldwide Church of God to develop that same culture.  Having an official statement of beliefs for the Church would tend to "lock in" those doctrines and would send a wrong message to the members.  He wanted our loyalty to be to the Bible, not a list of beliefs.

Some say that Mr. Armstrong's teachings cannot be changed because he was the Elijah to come who would restore all things.  But this is a misuse of the Elijah doctrine.  Although Mr. Armstrong implied without stating directly that he was fulfilling the role of the Elijah to come by restoring all things to the Church, anyone familiar with his teachings should know that he never intended this to mean that he was somehow infallible or that the Church should never be corrected by or learn new truth from the Bible after his death. 

If indeed Mr. Armstrong did fulfill the role of the Elijah who was to restore all things, which I believe he did, this does not mean that the truth the Church of God had at the time of his death was complete and perfect without error.  Mr. Armstrong primarily restored truth by first pointing us to the Bible as our authority for doctrine.  Mr. Armstrong himself was always willing to learn new truth from the Bible and be corrected by the Bible, and he set the example for us.  It was because of his willingness to put the Bible first that Mr. Armstrong was able to learn the eighteen truths he restored to the Church.  Any new truths the Church learns today or any corrections to doctrine the Church makes, if honestly based on the Bible, are a continuation of the work Mr. Armstrong started in restoring truth to the Church.  In that sense, any new truths or corrections we learn from the Bible today, even if they are changes or additions to the things Mr. Armstrong taught, are a continuation of Mr. Armstrong's Elijah role in restoring lost truth by being willing to believe the Bible first.  Even if more truth is restored today, it is Mr. Armstrong who has done it by restoring and teaching the process of believing the Bible first.  He was the one God used to set all these things in motion.  He was the one Christ used to establish a culture in the Philadelphia era of the Church that is willing to learn new things from the Bible.  We are merely the continuation of the faith and the process and way of life God taught us through Mr. Armstrong.  By establishing faith in the Bible as God's word, Mr. Armstrong has restored all truth that comes from the Bible whether or not he is the particular individual that learns a particular point of doctrine.

There is an example in the Bible, from the life of Elijah himself, that may illustrate this point.  After Elijah fled from Jezebel, he was on the mountain with God.  "So it was, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave.  Suddenly a voice came to him, and said, 'What are you doing here, Elijah?'  And he said, 'I have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword.  I alone am left; and they seek to take my life.'  Then the Lord said to him: 'Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria.  Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel.  And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place.  It shall be that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill.  Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him' " (I Kings 19:13-18).  Notice that Elijah was to anoint three individuals:  Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha. 

But Elijah did not anoint Jehu.  This was done by one of the sons of the prophets at Elisha's, not Elijah's, instruction.  Elijah was already taken away at this time.  It was Elisha, not Elijah, who had Jehu anointed king of Israel, and even Elisha did not do it directly, but a son of one of the prophets did it at Elisha's command:  "And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to him, 'Get yourself ready, take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead.  Now when you arrive at that place, look there for Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi, and go in and make him rise up from among his associates, and take him to an inner room.  Then take the flask of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, 'Thus says the Lord: "I have anointed you king over Israel." '  Then open the door and flee, and do not delay.' So the young man, the servant of the prophet, went to Ramoth Gilead.  And when he arrived, there were the captains of the army sitting; and he said, 'I have a message for you, Commander.'  Jehu said, 'For which one of us?'  And he said, 'For you, Commander.'  Then he arose and went into the house.  And he poured the oil on his head, and said to him, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel: "I have anointed you king over the people of the Lord, over Israel.  You shall strike down the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel.  For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab all the males in Israel, both bond and free.  So I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah.  The dogs shall eat Jezebel on the plot of ground at Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her." '  And he opened the door and fled.  Then Jehu came out to the servants of his master, and one said to him, 'Is all well?  Why did this madman come to you?' And he said to them, 'You know the man and his babble.'  And they said, 'A lie! Tell us now.'  So he said, 'Thus and thus he spoke to me, saying, "Thus says the Lord: 'I have anointed you king over Israel' " ' " (2 Kings 9:1-12).

God said that Elijah would anoint Jehu, but it was Elisha who commanded one of the sons of the prophets to do it.  The only explanation that I know of for this is that Elijah instructed Elisha, who carried on Elijah's work in his absence.  In other words, Elisha's work was a continuation of Elijah's work, but from God's point of view, it was all done by Elijah.  In the same way, if the Church of God continues to learn and restore new truth from the Bible, even corrections to past doctrines that may be wrong, as a continuation of the work Mr. Armstrong did in learning new truth and accepting doctrinal correction from the Bible, from God's point of view it is still truth restored by Mr. Armstrong because we are following the pattern he taught us, the pattern of putting the Bible first.

So even if Mr. Armstrong is the fulfillment of the end-time Elijah, that does not mean it is wrong to change his doctrines if the Bible shows us errors that need to be corrected.  This is what Mr. Armstrong would want us to do because that is what he would do, and has done.  Mr. Armstrong accomplished the work of restoring truth to the Church, not only by his individual efforts, but by training a Church to carry on his work after his death even today.

Some say only an apostle can make doctrinal changes in the Church, and that we cannot make doctrinal changes because we have no living apostle.  But this is wrong on two counts.  For one thing, we have the example of Mr. Armstrong in his autobiography of proposing doctrinal changes and teaching those doctrines before Mr. Armstrong or anyone else in the Church thought he was an apostle.  In fact, in time sequence as related in the autobiography, he embraced and proposed doctrinal changes before he was ordained as a minister.  He taught and proposed the doctrinal changes to the headquarters leadership while only a lay member, before he was ordained.  Secondly, it is wrong to say we do not have a living apostle.  Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus Christ an apostle.  He is alive today and guides the Church.  If Mr. Armstrong as an apostle had the authority to put doctrine into the Church, Jesus Christ likewise has that same authority today.  This is not just a play on words.  Jesus Christ is able to make doctrinal changes in the Church and He does not need any human apostle to help Him do it.

Some say we should be faithful to the faith once delivered, quoting Jude 3:  "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints", and saying that this faith refers to the body of doctrine taught to us by Mr. Armstrong.  Now while I agree that in this context, Jude may be using the term "faith" to refer to a body of doctrine, this cannot refer to the body of doctrine delivered by Mr. Armstrong to the Church in our time.  The only body of doctrine this can refer to is body of doctrine delivered by Christ to the Church of God in the first century, which He delivered to the Church through the original twelve apostles as well as Paul and those that preached to the gentiles.  Jude cannot be looking to a future fulfillment of this in our day, because then it would be the faith twice delivered, once by the first century apostles to the first century Church, then a second time by the twentieth century apostle to the twentieth century Church.  The fact that Jude says "once delivered" shows that the context of his statement is referring to the doctrines of the first century Church of God as recorded in the Bible.  The "faith once delivered" does not include anything delivered to Mr. Armstrong that had not already been delivered to the first century apostles, otherwise, Jude could not have told his readers in his time to contend earnestly for what they never received.  I think anyone who talks about "the faith once delivered through Mr. Armstrong" either thinks Mr. Armstrong delivered a faith to us that the original twelve apostles and Paul never had, or they have trouble understanding the meaning of the word "once".

Mr. Armstrong often said, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible."  You can't throw that away and claim you are following Mr. Armstrong.

In some cases, the Bible may not seem clear to someone on a point of doctrine that Mr. Armstrong taught.  I am not talking about those situations.  I am not saying we should be quick to make changes where the Bible is not clear.  Mr. Armstrong's teachings carry weight.  We should err on the side of caution and not make any significant change unless the Bible is clear that the change needs to be made.  The more important the doctrine is, the more important it is to require a high standard of proof before changing it.  So there has to be a balance.  But we should not go to the other extreme and refuse to examine proposed changes on principle, the principle that we should never change what the apostle taught, or the principle that for the sake of unity and stability we should not make changes.  We have to have a willingness of mind to make corrections or additions for legitimate reasons according to the Bible just as Mr. Armstrong himself would do and has done.  The principle he taught us, of being corrected by the Bible in matters of doctrine, is a weightier matter of the law than the particular doctrines he taught us because all the other doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught came as a result of his willingness to be corrected by the Bible.

If the Bible isn't clear on a proposed change, then probably a change should not be made until it is clear, or else an official doctrinal position should not be taken on the issue until the matter is clear.  (The Church of God does not have to take a position on every small question and issue.  It is not wrong and we should not lose the respect of others if we sometimes say, "We don't know.")  But if the Bible is clear that a current doctrine is in error and we don't make the correction, how can we claim that we strive to live by every word of God?   

Some may place an over-emphasis on the cause of unity in the Church even at the expense of doctrinal accuracy.  In other words, if they sense that some brethren will leave the Church if a doctrinal change is made, even if the doctrinal change is true according to the Bible, they would rather not make the change for the sake of unity.  God wants unity in the Church, but not at the expense of truth.  Jesus said he did not come to bring peace.  "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth.  I did not come to bring peace but a sword.  For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law' " (Matthew 10:34-35).  I think Jesus is primarily referring to the conflict that occurs between members of His Church and our family members and people in the world, but to the extent that the influence of the world can also be in the Church, and to the extent that church members can still make mistakes, still have human nature, and still have the free moral agency to choose wrong, this can apply to the Church as well.  And it shows that unity between those that follow God and those that do not follow God is not God's priority.

Sometimes it seems that there are ministers and members in the Church of God that want to think like many Catholics.  Mr. Armstrong's doctrines have become their traditions, and they want to live in their traditions just like many Catholics do.  And many of these ministers and members look at Mr. Armstrong the way Catholics look at the pope.  But they are not using the Bible as their ultimate authority as Mr. Armstrong did and as he taught the Church of God to do.  Papal infallibility is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, not the Church of God.  God allows ministers and evangelists to make mistakes.  God allowed Mr. Armstrong to make mistakes.

Some might point out what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to say that we should follow our traditions.  Paul wrote, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."  Also, 1 Corinthians 11:2:  "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."  And finally, 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."

Does this mean we should not change Mr. Armstrong's doctrines because we should hold fast to the traditions we learned from him?

First I want to ask, is this referring to the traditions Paul gave to his congregations or the traditions given to us by Mr. Armstrong?  Or both?  First, and obviously, it refers to the traditions Paul gave the congregations he established because it is those he is most directly addressing.  And we know that these traditions that Paul and the other apostles gave to the Church of God are correct because they received them from Christ directly.  But does it also apply to the traditions and doctrines Mr. Armstrong gave the Church in our time?

Yes, it does apply to the traditions and doctrines given to the Church by Mr. Armstrong, but only to the extent that those traditions and doctrines are the same as the traditions and doctrines received from Christ and given to the early Church by Paul and the other apostles.  God does not have two sets of inconsistent traditions that we are required to hold, one given in the first century and one given in the twentieth century. 

How do we know if any tradition or doctrine is consistent with the traditions Paul is talking about?  By the Bible.  If there is any tradition or doctrine given to us by Mr. Armstrong that is inconsistent with the Bible, then it is also inconsistent with Paul's traditions, because Paul would not give traditions that were at odds with the Bible.  Therefore, if we find in the Bible that a tradition or doctrine of Mr. Armstrong is wrong, that tradition cannot be a tradition Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Some might say that Paul is teaching us a general principle that we should follow the traditions given to us in any a