A Modernist Bible theologian was given a run in the media recently (Australia’s Channel 10 and ABC) because she promoted the view of the Left.

Another way of saying it is that the Left and Modernism back each other up. In her article about Bible interpretation which was subtitled “the Bible isn’t meant to be read that literally”, she took every opportunity to reinterpret Scripture with a Modernist bias.

For example, her article says, “Reading the Bible to determine the shape of contemporary marriage is not an easy task.” In other words, she is willingly seeking to redefine the Bible in the light of her present day beliefs. She writes, “Much of the Bible was written 2,500 years ago, when family life was very different.” Really? In 483 BC, the last of the Old Testament was being written, and it says,

(MALACHI CHAPTER 2.)
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Sounds like normal family life was going on. It’s pretty clear God wants husbands and wives to love each other.

But Modernist theologians want to read in their present day values into the past. “Most likely, Jesus’s concern in speaking against divorce was for the vulnerable place in which it left women, given they could not usually earn their own money or inherit.” Pure speculation! It is a contradiction to Scripture to assert something it did not say.

But this leads to an important controversy. A woman theologian attacking a woman pastor. The theologian says, “Indeed, if Ms Court applied the literalism with which she reads Genesis to the whole of the Bible, she’d find herself in hot water, since 1 Timothy 2:12 explicitly forbids women teaching or having any authority over men. This kind of culturally bound ideology is precisely why biblical scholars and mainstream Christian churches do not adhere to a literal interpretation of this ancient and diverse text.”

Notice how the Bible is smeared as an “ancient and diverse text” meaning “irrelevant and inconsistent”.

Actually, 1 Timothy 2:12 does not “literally” explicitly forbid a woman from teaching a (i.e. any) man, it in fact says that a woman shouldn’t be teaching her husband (i.e. domineering her husband). That’s pretty different from what is being interpreted as a supposed “literal” interpretation. Otherwise, we would have to ban lady teachers at colleges and universities. So, obviously the Scripture is to be read literally. And if literally in Paul, then literally in Genesis.

Why deny that the Bible says that God created or that there was a great flood or that Sodom was destroyed? That’s literally what the Bible says. Yet when a person who has the Leftist Modernist interpretation which changes everything to suit the desires of sinners, then they are given a run in the media as if they are right.

“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26).