Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 4
The transcript argues that many scholars preferred “We have peace” for “purely theological reasons,” influenced by Augustine/Luther/Calvin, even calling them “perverse”; what does this accusation suggest about how theology can shape Bible reading, and how should a serious Christian community guard against that in itself?
Another way to ask: If some scholars chose “We have peace” because of their theology, what does that show about how beliefs can shape how we read the Bible? How can a church watch out for doing the same thing?

Direct Answer The accusation suggests theology can become a filter that pressures readers to choose interpretations that “fit” their system—even against strong textual and early-Christian evidence—so communities must practice humility and evidence-based reading.

Support from Transcript:

  • The teacher says some scholars chose “We have peace” “purely for theological reasons.”
  • They were “influenced by the theology of Augustine, Luther and Calvin” and “ignored the textual evidence because it did not agree with their theology.”
  • A.T. Robinson: “Let us have peace with God is the correct text beyond a doubt,” and calls resistance to it “perverse.”
  • Marvin R. Vincent admits “the true reading is ‘let us have peace’” but complains it is “difficult… to explain,” which the teacher calls a “modern” theological difficulty.
  • Metzger/UBS: though “let us have peace has far better external support,” the committee prioritized “internal evidence,” claiming Paul “is not exhorting, but stating facts”—called “purely subjective.”
Discussion Follow-ups What practices help a church notice when it is “protecting” a tradition rather than following the text? Who should be allowed to challenge the community’s default readings?