May Roundup: Sound Doctrine (Part 1 + 2), and Radical Faith
What is “Sound Doctrine”? (Part One)
I’ve been teaching a Sunday morning adult Bible class at our church on Paul’s letter to Titus. What a great piece of inspired writing that is! I’ve enjoyed immensely my study of this letter and am learning so much as I ponder Paul’s words. You know what they say: “The teacher always learns more than the students.” It’s true.
Early one week, in preparation for class the following Sunday, I began a study of Titus 2:1-10. There’s a lot in that passage, but that was the ground I planned to cover in class a few days later.
(By the way, why do we feel we need to cover so much ground in a Bible class? I know there are good reasons for limiting the length of a Bible class series, but more and more I’m thinking teachers should slow down and take their time when working their way through God’s holy word. It’s just so rich!)
I didn’t get very far in my study of Titus 2:1-10 before I was confronted by a question that I suppose I have been thinking about for years. I was looking at Titus 2:1 where Paul commands his younger colleague to “teach what is consistent with sound doctrine” (NRSV).
Here was the question that yet again came to mind:
What is “sound doctrine?”
Over the years I’ve heard that adjective, “sound,” used in connection not only with “doctrine,” but also to describe churches and preachers. I’ve heard it said: “That’s a sound church,” or “He’s a sound gospel preacher.” I myself have made statements such as these.
In fact, I still hear “sound” being used to describe preachers and churches. Just recently I came across several classified ads published by churches looking for a pulpit minister. One ad read the church was “searching for someone with a strong biblical foundation and sound doctrine” (italics mine). Another read that a candidate for their job opening “must be knowledgeable of the scriptures” and “sound in his sermons and Bible classes.” A third noted that their congregation was looking for a good man with sound education in biblical studies, and knowledge of the Scriptures.” The ad continued: “He needs to have the ability to minister from the pulpit and to evangelize (thus being sound in his sermons).”
After reading those ads, I wondered: What comprises a “sound education in biblical studies”? What are churches looking for in a preacher who is “sound in his sermons”? What would be the content of “sound sermons”?
What, after all, does it mean that someone or something is “sound”? In particular, what is “sound doctrine”?
To begin my probe into this question, I first went to my Greek New Testament and Greek lexicon. Sometimes, the Greek can bring something out of the text that our English translations don’t. That doesn’t mean we can’t trust our English translations; it only means that studying the New Testament in the language in which it was written sometimes uncovers gems that are not so visible in our translations.
The transliterated Greek word Paul used in Titus 2:1, which is translated, “sound,” is hugiainouse. The definition of this word? According to the third edition of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker and based on Walter Bauer’s work, the Greek word that is translated “sound” in our English translations means: “to be sound or free from error, be correct.”
Alright. So, “sound doctrine,” or “sound teaching”—the words “doctrine” and “teaching” may be used interchangeably—refers to teaching that is correct and free from error.
This is what I imagine most church leaders mean when they talk about “sound doctrine” or “sound preachers.”
They are referring to teaching that is correct and preachers who preach what is true. Well, of course, this is good. We don’t want to embrace teaching that is incorrect or hear preachers who preach what is untrue.
Another thing I learned from going to the Greek is that the word, “sound," is the Greek word from which we get the word “hygiene.” Paul was using a medical metaphor when he used the word. If something is “sound” it is healthful or wholesome. Sound doctrine, then, is not only correct doctrine, but it is teaching that is beneficial and good for us. It is healthy teaching.
But what is wholesome doctrine?
What my Greek lexicon failed to identify is what constitutes wholesome teaching. It didn’t reveal what Paul considered to be the content of teaching that is sound.
To try to get to the bottom of that, I knew I needed to examine the passages in the New Testament where that phrase is found, hoping that the context of those passages would shed some light on my study. I was hoping that by cross-referencing other passages where this phrase was used, I could better understand what comprises sound doctrine.
I was interested to find out that “sound doctrine” is a phrase found exclusively in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy). Paul used the phrase four times. What did “sound teaching” mean for Paul? I wondered. And, friends, isn’t this what matters? What did “sound teaching” mean for Paul? What constituted “sound doctrine” for him?
Over time, we may have acquired a certain understanding of what we mean when we use that phrase. But, what we really want to know is not how in our usage that phrase may have evolved over the centuries. Nor do we really care how that phrase is used today, but rather, how it should be used. What we want to know is what Paul, the author, meant when he wrote of “sound doctrine.”
So, what did Paul mean?
Let’s come back to this question later. In the next post in this series I want to begin to share with you my study of the four passages where that phrase is found. In case you want to do a little study on your own before we explore them together, here are those four references: 1 Timothy 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; and the one that began this post, Titus 2:1.
👉 Let me say here how much I would appreciate your thinking about this matter with me. If you have thoughts you would be willing to share after you open your Bible to these references, thoughts which you think would help me/us to understand better what sound doctrine is, I would be pleased to hear them! Hit reply, or send me an email.
What is “Sound Doctrine”? (Part Two)
In this post I want to begin to share my study of and reflections on the four passages where Paul wrote about “sound doctrine.” Readers of the first post in this series know that I’m trying to identify what the Apostle Paul meant when he used that phrase. Specifically, I’m trying to understand what constituted “sound doctrine” for Paul.
His first reference to “sound doctrine” is found in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Let’s consider the context of that verse. As we Bible students know, the context of a particular verse—the paragraph, chapter, book, etc., in which it is found—often helps us to understand the verse, so let’s take a look at the larger context of 1 Timothy 1:10.
After the salutation, Paul begins his letter to Timothy by reminding him why he left him in Ephesus. It was “so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith” (1:3,4).
Paul makes it plain that Timothy’s first order of business is to oppose “certain people” who were teaching a “different doctrine.”
Who were these people and what were they teaching?
Some have argued that they were Gnostics and the heresy to which he referred was an early form of Gnosticism, a movement that flourished in the second century after Christ. But, as James Thompson asserts, “Our information is inadequate for making such a determination” (Equipped for Change: Studies in the Pastoral Epistles, 9).
Unfortunately, the truth is that we have little clarity regarding these false teachers and what they taught. However, all of the commentaries I read affirm that the ones Paul has in mind were likely Jewish. Why so?
Because they desired to be “teachers of the law”(1:7), likely a reference to the Law of Moses, and;
Because the reference to myths and genealogies in 1:4 may be an allusion to what R.C.H. Lenski calls “fanciful Jewish fictional tales” (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 500).
I think we should note that whoever these false teachers were, Paul seems to contrast them with himself in 1 Timothy 1. They want to teach the law (1:7); he’s been entrusted with the gospel (1:11,12).
That the errorists—this is the label Lenski gives the false teachers in his commentary—wanted to be teachers of the law, did not mean that Paul was averse to the law (1:8). “The law is good,” he affirmed, “if one uses it legitimately.” Why is it good? One reason is that it identifies sinful behavior, according to Paul. The law was laid down for “the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, and perjurers” (1:9,10).
We should note that Paul closes verse 10 with an et cetera. Besides the immoral conduct he lists in verses 9 and 10, the law condemns whatever other conduct “is contrary to sound teaching” (1:10). OK, there’s our phrase. And, what is Paul trying to say about sound teaching in the context of verses 8-10? What I take from this verse in its context is that sound teaching or doctrine leads to moral behavior. On the other hand, unsound teaching results in immoral behavior.
But, once again I’m a bit disappointed because verse 10 does not identify what constitutes “sound teaching.”
It only informs us that certain behavior is contrary to sound teaching. I want to know what comprised sound teaching for Paul. Are you with me?
Enter verse 11! I believe it sheds some light on what Paul meant by this phrase. There, he claims that sound teaching “conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
Sound doctrine conforms to the gospel. Isn’t is possible, even likely, that Paul is here equating “sound doctrine” with “the gospel”? This makes good sense, for Paul seems to be contrasting the false teachers who may have been Jewish and who may have wanted to promote some level of continued adherence to the law to himself, who is an advocate of “the gospel.”
So, I’m thinking that Paul is contrasting unsound doctrine, something having to do with what Jewish teachers were saying about a Christian’s relationship to the law of Moses, to sound doctrine, that which he proclaimed when he preached the gospel.
If so, if Paul is using the terms, “sound doctrine” and “the gospel” synonymously, what is “the gospel”?
He seems to define “gospel” in 1 Timothy 1:12-17. In summary, it’s the message “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1:15). It’s the message of “the grace of the Lord” that overflowed for Paul “with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1:14).
What we have in 1 Timothy 1:15 seems to be the central confession of the Christian faith. Further, Paul often refers to this statement and statements that are basically equivalent in other passages in the Pastoral Epistles (James Thompson, Equipped for Change: Studies in the Pastoral Epistles, 11).
For example:
For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all.
—1 Timothy 2:5
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.
—I Timothy 3:16
…who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
—2 Timothy 1:9,10
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
—Titus 2:11-14
While it seems as though Paul never gives a precise definition of “sound doctrine,” 1 Timothy 1:11 and the above passages in the Pastorals seem to give us a good understanding of the meaning of the term. Paul seems to use the term to refer to the central convictions of the Christian faith.
This is from New Testament scholar, James Thompson:
“Sound doctrine involves our central convictions about the saving significance of Christ and his cross! Wherever the church departs from the saving significance of the cross of Christ, it rejects that sound teaching which produces healthy lives” (Equipped for Change: Studies in the Pastoral Epistles, 11).
OK. These are my thoughts after studying 1 Timothy chapter 1.
I have more study to do. More prayerful reflection is called for. But, according to my study of 1 Timothy 1:11, I am of the opinion that in this text at least, and likely in all of 1 Timothy, Paul seems to identify “sound doctrine” with the gospel, which he has received as a trust.
In the next post in this series, we’ll take a look at some of the other passages where this phrase, “sound doctrine,” is found.
👉 Subscribe to our Newsletter—Growing Steady, Together—and get all the latest articles, podcasts, and videos.
Radical Faith
I am so grateful for a wonderful experience we had a few evenings ago.
Our home congregation partners with a sister congregation on the west side of Birmingham. This sister church is celebrating their 92nd anniversary as a body of Christ, and they had a visiting minister from San Antonio preaching for them this week during a time of celebration and revival. The theme for the Roosevelt City Church of Christ’s celebration was “Faith in Action: God has not brought us this far to leave us!”
On the evening we visited, the minister preached through the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. He walked us through Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11 developing understanding and application with each phase of the journey. I have heard many sermons on this passage, read this account many times personally, and have taught many children’s classes about this remarkable man of faith, Abraham. However, the visiting preacher, Brother B.B. Gatson, brought out insights that I had not seen before and identified parallel themes that challenged my faith and dedication.
Recently I was reading through the book of Ephesians. In this book Paul does not appear to be addressing a specific church problem like he does in many of his letters. The focus of his letter was to encourage the new Ephesian Christians and their faith. These early brothers and sisters had chosen to follow a radical leader. They had placed their faith in a revolutionary spiritual leader who flipped the religious world upside down. Paul believed they needed to be emboldened to stand firm.
I went on a long walk this morning and had a heart to heart with God. It began with an apology. I fear my dedication to my Savior has cooled somewhat and that my passion for living a radical life for Jesus has been domesticated.
I am so grateful for a preacher that challenged me to dust off my passion for Jesus and live a life that is more obedient and more passionate and more willing to live a radical spiritual life of dedication, I pray I will, now more than ever.
