THEOLOGY AND SOUND DOCTRINE vs. THE MODERN CHURCH

That the modern church has forsaken theology and sound doctrine in light of motivational teaching appears to be a fulfillment of prophecy: “For the time will come,” writes the apostle Paul, “when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” (2 Tim. 4:3 NASB).

Regarding “wanting to have their ears tickled,” the People’s New Testament comments: “Ears which seek to be tickled by some new sensation.” John Wesley comments: “Fond of novelty and variety, which the number of new teachers, as well as their empty, soft, or philosophical discourses, pleased. Such teachers, and such hearers, seldom are much concerned with what is strict or to the purpose.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown comments: “Variety delights itching ears. ‘He who despises sound teaching, leaves sound teachers; they seek instructors like themselves’ [Bengel].”

Considering theology and sound doctrine to be dry or boring, modern Christians, wanting to have their ears tickled, wanting to be entertained, have accumulated for themselves teachers who will tell them whatever it is that they want to hear (prosperity — health and wealth — teaching, self-help / self-improvement, motivational and better living teaching, life principles, feel-good messages), which inspires rampant nominal Christianity, rather than the gospel of Christ Jesus or doctrinal teaching on the nature and attributes of our glorious triune God and Savior.

Paul adds: “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3-4 NASB); and also: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” (1 Tim. 4:16 NASB); moreover: “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13 NASB). The signficance which the first-century church placed upon sound doctrine and theology shames the lack of significance which the modern church places upon the same. That must change.

The Belgic Confession, Article 29, states: “We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church — for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of ‘the church.’” Would the average Christian be able to accomplish this, for this assumes that the disciple of Christ Jesus sufficiently knows and understands the tenor of God’s word? The Article continues:

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church — and no one ought to be separated from it.


As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

If these bear the genuine marks of all Christians then I am inclined to think that there are fewer Christians in Christ’s visible church than I had originally assumed. One would naturally conclude that since prosperity — health and wealth — teaching, self-help / self-improvement, motivational and better living teaching, life principles and feel-good messages are not helping the Body of Christ to attain her goal of being sanctified (Heb. 12:14) — the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord — and conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29), then a return to sound teaching and theology proper would be the solution.

Arminius states that the goal of Theology is “the blessedness of man; and that not [carnal] or natural, but spiritual and supernatural” (Works, II:320). The deceitfulness of riches and other material or selfish attributes have distracted many professing Christians (if they actually are Christians) from the blessings attained from sound doctrine. The fruit of theology, admits Arminius, has as its object God, “which is a perfect, chief, and sufficient Good” (Works, II:320). The goal of theology has a two-fold consequence: “(1.) a demonstration of the glorious wisdom, goodness, justice, power, and likewise the universal perfection of God; and (2.) His glorification by the beatified [the sanctified believer]” (Works: II:320).

According to statistics found in Rodney Stark’s latest book, What Christians Really Believe, 10% of Americans claim to be “spiritual but not religious.” I have personally heard many American Christians claim the same, because the word “religious,” at least from their perspective, expresses someone who merely goes through the motions of religious practices without having a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit. James, the Lord’s half-brother, writes: “If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless” (James 1:26 NASB). Thus being “religious” and in the Christian “religion” is a phrase which is praiseworthy and not to be avoided. James continues: “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27 NASB). I fear that suggesting that one is “spiritual but not religious” is actually unbiblical.

But how could a person distinguish between such things without studying God’s word, reading and listening to sound doctrine, and studying theology proper? Arminius comments:

Though this duty [which is the duty of everyone to perform works of righteousness unto God] according to its entire essence and all its parts can scarcely be designated by one name, yet we do not improperly denominate it when we give it the name of RELIGION. This word in its most enlarged acceptation embraces three things, the act itself, the obligation of the act, and the obligation with regard to God, on account of whom that act must be performed. . . .


Religion, then, is that act which our Theology places in order; and it is for this reason justly called “the Object of Theological Doctrine” (Works, II:322).

He continues by adding that the method of Theological Doctrine is “defined by the command of God, and not by human choice; for the word of God is its rule and measure.” We have this word in the Old and New Testaments alone, and we admit that “these Scriptures are the Canon according to which religion is to be conformed” (Works, II:322). He concludes:

The opposites to religion are impiety, that is, the neglect and contempt of God . . . will-worship, or superstition, that is, a mode of religion invented by man. Hypocrisy is not opposed to the whole of religion, but to its integrity or purity; because that in which the entire man ought to be engaged is performed only by his body (Works, II:322).

That hypocrisy is sometimes found in the true Christian does not in itself concede a disingenuousness in the person. Christians are still at war with devils, the world system (or cultural standards and pressure to conform) and their own sinful desires which have yet to be eradicated. At times battles with these forces are won and at other times they are lost. When the battle is lost it does not indicate necessarily that the individual is not a true Christian; it may merely indicate that he or she did not act in accordance with God’s principles. As a matter of fact, this condition has the potential to last for some time in the believer; however, not without the presence of the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11). Yet, if a professing believer can live in sin without any conviction from the Spirit of God, that person’s religion — his or her profession of faith in Christ Jesus — may certainly be questioned by others.

Theology, as defined by Arminius, is

the doctrine or science of the truth which is according to godliness, and which God has revealed to man, that he may know God and divine things, may believe on Him, and may through faith perform to Him the acts of love, fear, honour, worship and obedience, and may in return expect and obtain blessedness from Him through union with Him, to the Divine glory (Works, II:319).

In this sense, then, theology is “not a theoretical science or doctrine, but a practical one, requiring the action of the whole man, according to all and each of its parts” (Works, II:319). All mortals have a duty to know God, and all may know Him, for “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” (Rom. 1:19 NASB). This theology, this study of the nature of God, should excite and amaze, animate and astound the one who claims to know Him through Jesus Christ. What could be more practical for one’s everyday life than knowing the nature of the Creator and to be endowed with the wisdom to live that out in triumph?

James Arminius, “Seventy-Nine Private Disputations,” The Works of Arminius, Vol. II, trans. James and William Nichols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996.