06/14/2026
A Modern Example of Modernism
To many, to be called a modernist is not offensive. No one wants to be considered behind the times, or even to be called old fashioned. But to be called a modernist and at the same time be called a Christian, well, that is not good at all. That would be the same as being called a heretic.
Let’s start off by getting a working definition of modernism. Bible Hub defines it this way: “Christian Modernism generally refers to a theological and cultural approach that seeks to reshape traditional Christian doctrines and practices in light of contemporary thought and societal changes. Tracing roots to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it often emphasizes intellectual engagement with current philosophical trends, science, and historical-critical scholarship.” (https://biblehub.com/q/what_defines_christian_modernism.htm)
Have you ever read anything on the Fundamentalist v. Modernist controversy at the turn of the 20th century? One of the main issues between these two groups was the doctrine of the inspiration of Scriptures. One source sums it up this way: “What Was the Controversy About? The controversy centered on two opposing approaches to Christian faith: Fundamentalism and Modernism. Fundamentalists insisted on the inerrancy of Scripture and rejected modern scientific and cultural developments that contradicted traditional biblical interpretations. In contrast, Modernists sought to reconcile Christianity with contemporary science, historical criticism, and social change, promoting a more liberal and progressive interpretation of faith.” (https://historyofchristianitypodcast.com/2025/05/07/the-fundamentalist-modernist-controversy/)
The face of Modernism today: When a preacher teaches that when it comes to today’s modern Bible versions, no major doctrine is affected or denied by these versions when it comes to their preferred manuscript text choice or the words that are used in their translation (which is not translation but interpretation/commentary), this a statement that supports Modernism. Let me explain why this is so.
The Christian church has for years and years held to the doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures, as stated in two well-known Bible passages, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. The orthodox statement of inspiration is described as verbal, plenary inspiration. Consider what Got Questions writes about these words: “…inspiration, the quality of being “God-breathed,” refers to the fact that God supernaturally guided the authors of the Bible to write exactly what He wanted to communicate. Everything in Scripture is there because that’s what God desired to say to humanity. The extent of that inspiration is defined by the dual terms verbal and plenary. Verbal means that every word of Scripture is God-breathed. Every single word, not just the ideas behind the words, is in the Bible because God wanted it there. The word plenary means “complete or full”; when used to describe the inspiration of God’s Word, plenary means that all parts of the Bible are equally of divine origin and equally authoritative” (https://www.gotquestions.org/verbal-plenary-inspiration.html).
Let me highlight part of the definition that Got Questions gives: “Every single word, not just the ideas behind the words, is in the Bible because God wanted it there.” In Bible translation, not only does the manuscript matter—Received Text or the Critical Text—but also the method of translation. Today one basic form of “translation” method used in almost all modern versions is called dynamic equivalency. So instead of translating every literal word, they are “translating” ideas or commentaries, i.e.. paraphrasing. However, the inspired writers of the Old and New Testaments, by the Holy Spirit’s enablement, wrote what God wanted to communicate in the original Hebrew and Greek words, not in ideas or thought commentary.
Let’s go back to my original statement. The face of Modernism today: When a preacher teaches that when it comes to today’s modern Bible versions, no major doctrine is affected or denied by these versions when it comes to their preferred manuscript text choice or the words that are used in their “translation”, this a statement that supports Modernism.
Modernism denies verbal plenary inspiration. Bible doctrines are not inspired, but every single word of the inspired text upon which the foundation of formulating sound doctrine is laid and established was. So to say “no major doctrine is denied or affected” when one uses dynamic equivalency as the method of translation is speaking falsely. Such a person could be misinformed or, worse yet, is propagating a lie.
Modern Bible versions are not translations at all. If based upon dynamic equivalency, then these versions of the Bible are just the translator’s interpretation and commentary. It is what we call in literary terms paraphrasing. Along with their interpretation and commentary on the text comes their biases, false theology, unbelief, and lies. A few good example of the use of paraphrasing in our day would be the N.I.V. and the Living Bible.
To verify the above statement I quote one part of the Preface to the N.I.V.: “The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-preface.html) (emphasis mine).
Modernism! Are you guilty of it?
Rev. Thomas J. Newton 06/14/2026
