That Goes Against Theology

My father-in-law saw a footnote (he thought regarding II Pet 1:10 in the first edition of the NET Bible) that said in essence that the NET didn’t translate the verse the way it should be translated because that would “go against theology.” (if you can help us locate that footnote, please contact me; Papa can’t find it again)

All true Christians should recognize how backwards this is. Our “theology” should be driven by scripture, not the other way around. But sadly, many take this “reverse of what it should be” tack …

Salvation By Faith Only?

Many believers insist we are justified by “faith only” even though James 2:24 says just the opposite – “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Why aren’t James 2:24 and the many other passages (like Heb 5:9, Matt 7:21, and I Pet 1:22a) that teach obedience is necessary to salvation accepted? I suggest because it goes against their theology? Isn’t that the very reason Martin Luther felt the need to add the word “only” to Rom 5:1 and call James 2:24 an “epistle of straw,” because James 2:24 (as it read) went against his theology?

Baptism Is Necessary To Salvation

In connection with “faith only” salvation, many teach one doesn’t have to be baptized to be saved. Those on my side of this debate wonder what is so hard to understand about Mark 16:16a – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” What Jesus said is not difficult; it just goes against common denominational theology; true?

Jesus Died For Every Man

Why is it Calvinists can’t see the last part of Heb 2:9 (“that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man”) teaches Jesus died for all? It is so simple and obvious. Is it because the verse is hard to understand as written, or is it because if they admit even one point of Calvinism is proven false, then their whole system of theology falls? No, there is nothing hard to understand about Heb 2:9, but it does go against overall Calvinistic theology, doesn’t it?

Perpetual Virginity Of Mary?

Why do Catholics insist upon asserting the perpetual virginity of Mary, when passages like Matt 1:24-25 and 13:55-56 so clearly say Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born? I think it is because they can’t bear to break with their theology on Mary; what do you think?

Women Preachers?

Why does the gay church argue in public debates with me that Paul’s statements in I Cor 14:34-35 and I Tim 2:11-12 forbidding women preachers are “bigoted”? Is there something in the verses themselves that indicates Paul’s was speaking outside of inspiration in this case? Or do what the verses plainly say go against their practice and theology?

Deity Of Christ

The Watchtower Witnesses went so far as to change the translation of John 1:1 to “a God” because it (and many other texts like John 20:28, Acts 20:28, Matt 1:23, Heb 1:8, etc.) contradicted their theology that Jesus was not deity. I mean why do you think their New World Translation has “discovered” where the standard translations say the earth will be “burned up” in II Pet 3:10?

Mental Divorce?

Many gospel preachers insist the wife whose husband has unscripturally divorced her and married another woman has the right to remarry now, even though Luke 16:18 specifically forbids remarriage in that exact scenario. But does Luke 16:18 run against theology (their sense of fair play)?

Jesus Was Made To Be Sin

My longtime friend Bob Myhan wrote on Facebook on 3-31-14 “In a recent Facebook post, a certain woman preacher was called a heretic for teaching that Jesus became sin. And so she is!” Hopefully you wonder how a gospel preacher could write something so directly contradictory to II Cor 5:21a (“For he hath made him to be sin for us”). Could it be because what the verse and what this “woman preacher” said goes against Bob’s theology? Actually, II Cor 5:21 doesn’t really go against Bob’s theology; he only thinks it does. Many like Bob have swallowed the Calvinistic lie that if this verse means what it says, that if Jesus became sin (if “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” – Isa 53:6c), that would mean Jesus became guilty of our sins. But the word guilt is nowhere found in the verse. Instead, the verse does mean what it says, but it means Jesus took the penalty for our sins (Isa 53:5c) – a concept Bob agrees with. Many in Bob’s camp want to add the word “offering” to the translation of II Cor 5:21 even though no standard translation does so. Is that any worse than the JWs adding the word “a” to John 1:1 to make it say Jesus was “a God”?

Our Sins Were Laid Upon Jesus

Speaking of Isa 53:6c, Maurice Barnett said “It is said that Jesus took every sin of mankind into Himself on the cross … I deny that any … scripture says such a thing but to the contrary the scriptures deny it.” (Gospel Truths, July 2010). Doesn’t Isa 53:6c “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” say the exact thing our brother Barnett denies? What motive could a Christian possibly have for contradicting the scriptures in such an obvious way? I am thinking it could be because Maurice thought Isa 53:6c contradicted his theology. It didn’t really contradict his theology; he just thought it did. Because he misunderstood what the verse was actually saying, because he didn’t know how to respond to the Calvinistic argument on the verse, instead of asking for help from others who did, he decided to deny the verse itself. Just look for the correct explanation in the verse previous friend and brother Maurice! The verse is not talking about the transfer of guilt (which is impossible – Heb 6:18), but the transfer of punishment.

Jesus Was Forsaken

Doy Moyer wrote “In the psalm (22:1), the … phrase does not intend to express the idea that God has literally and actually forsaken anyone. The forsaking is in appearance, not in reality” (The Auburn Beacon, 2010). Is it possible that position is taken by Doy and others because to take Psa 22:1 (and Matt 27:46) at face value goes against their theology? Why else would they feel the need to insert their “in appearance” idea into what the scriptures say really happened?

(BTW, if you want to listen to my debate with Bob Myhan on these last three points click this link – http://www.bibledebates.info/DebatesAudio/SubstitutionaryDeath-MyhanDonahueDebate20141211/index.htm )

Conclusion

Why is it okay for brethren to do exactly what they criticize denominational preachers for doing – letting their theology drive what the scripture says instead of letting the scripture determine their theology? Truly “the legs of the lame are not equal” (Prov 26:7a). Me thinks many are deciding what they believe by “watching which way the wind blows” first.

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleDebates.info