Mike Parsons
Not seeing the video? Click here.
People often ask doctrinal questions, but it’s important not to answer them with doctrinal answers, because doing so only reaffirms another doctrinal stance. What we really need to do is bring it back to the nature and character of God. Behind every doctrinal question lies an assumption about who God is and how He acts. The person asking the question might no longer resonate with that assumption, or they may be going through a process of having their previous beliefs challenged. For example, when God began challenging my own belief in penal substitutionary atonement—something foundational to my upbringing—it led to a cascade of further questions. Doctrines are interconnected. When one is questioned, others naturally follow, and this often challenges the very foundation of someone’s faith.
Some doctrines may seem less significant, but if someone is asking about them, there’s usually a reason. The real issue is not necessarily the question itself but why they’re asking it. Understanding the motivation behind the question can reveal where they are in their journey. Perhaps God is working in them, nudging them to reconsider something. If they’re asking just to win an argument or prove their own belief right, then engaging in debate is usually fruitless—they’re not really open to listening.
So when someone asks about theology, I try to understand what’s prompting the question. Is God speaking to them? Challenging them? What’s He doing in their life that might explain why they’re now curious about this topic? Once I get a sense of that, I can align with what God is doing in that person’s life. I don’t want to get ahead of where God has them. If I tell them something they’re not ready for, they may react badly and retreat from the journey they’re on. I try not to give people something ten steps ahead when they just need the next step.
I often won’t answer the question they’re literally asking. Instead, I try to give the answer they actually need at that moment. This can be frustrating—some will say, “But you’re not answering my question.” And that’s true, but if God doesn’t want me to answer it right now, then I won’t. I want to share what God is saying to me to say, not just what I think I should say. The goal is always to discern what’s really behind their question, what’s in their spirit and heart, and then respond to that.
Rather than giving them answers, I try to point them to the Father. If they come to know who the Father really is, they’ll be better equipped to receive the answers directly from Him. That’s far more helpful than just believing or disbelieving something I tell them. Often doctrinal misunderstandings come from a distorted view of God, so pointing people to the true nature of God helps correct those distortions more effectively than tackling the doctrine itself.
In a recent Zoom on Patreon, I shared how mistranslations have distorted our view of God—how we see the cross, ourselves, and how God relates to us. These come from reading Scripture through doctrine instead of revelation. Take Isaiah 53:10—most English versions say it pleased the Lord to bruise him, suggesting God took pleasure in punishing Jesus. That paints God as abusive, which pushes people away.
But Jesus used the Septuagint—the Greek Old Testament—written between 300 and 100 BC. It reflects a shift in understanding. Earlier, people had thought everything came from God—good or bad—because they didn’t separate God from Satan. But over time, that changed. The Septuagint shows a growing revelation of who God really is—not a punisher, but a healer.
The Septuagint says the Lord wished to cleanse him of his wound—not bruise or crush him. That word cleanse is the same used when Jesus healed a leper. God didn’t punish Jesus—man did, inspired by the enemy. Jesus took on mankind’s wound so the Father could restore our identity. Penal substitution paints God as an abuser and makes love hard to grasp.
Similarly, Jeremiah 17:9 is mistranslated. It doesn’t say the heart is deceitful and beyond cure, but the heart is deep—who can know it? These distortions fuel a false view of humanity as wicked and unfixable, rather than whole, loved and made in God’s image.
Romans 5:9 is very often translated as saying we’re saved from the wrath of God, but “of God” is added by translators—it’s not in the original. The King James and Young’s Literal just say the wrath. So whose wrath is it? Not God’s—it’s the enemy’s. The one who comes to rob, kill and destroy. Jesus came to give life and to destroy the works of the evil one.
For then the blameless man made haste, and stood forth to defend them; and bringing the shield of his proper ministry, even prayer, and the propitiation of incense, set himself against the wrath, and so brought the calamity to an end, declaring that he was thy servant. So he overcame the destroyer, not with strength of body, nor force of arms, but with a word subdued him that punished, alleging the oaths and covenants made with the fathers. For when the dead were now fallen down by heaps one upon another, standing between, he stayed the wrath, and parted the way to the living. (Wisdom of Solomon 18:21-23 KJV).
So the Wisdom of Solomon, part of the original canon of scripture [and included in the King James Bible until it was removed in 1885] says it is “the destroyer“ who punishes and brings death, and Paul would have known this as scripture. So when he talks about ‘the wrath’, he is referring to the enemy’s destruction, lies and identity theft—not God’s supposed anger.
So, a few mistranslated verses have propped up an entire theology that presents a false view of God’s nature.
{The video continues]
Mike’s latest book, Unconditional Love, is out now as an ebook on our website and is available to pre-order in paperback from your local or online bookseller.
More details at eg.freedomarc.org/books
Related posts
299. PSA Sounds Nothing Like Jesus! (Penal Substitutionary Atonement [1])
Sons of Issachar 