86 FEMINIST VIEWS THAT UNDERMINE SCRIPTURE
wrath, then it was easy to believe that all people everywhere would be
saved (for God is a “God of love” and not of wrath). After that, it was
also easy to believe that Jesus’ death was not a substitutionary sacrifice
for our sins—that is, he did not bear the wrath of God against our sins—
but rather that his death was somehow merely an example for us. In this
way a vague biblical principle (“God’s love”) was used to deny many
specific passages of Scripture on the wrath of God and on Christ’s death,
and to deny a major doctrine such as substitutionary atonement.
This is similar to the egalitarian claim that the vague general prin-
ciples of equality and fairness (as derived from Galatians 3:28) require
that women have access to the same governing and teaching roles in the
church that men do. Vague general principles (equality, fairness) are also
used to weaken or nullify specific passages of Scripture.
Therefore the positions of R. T. France, Stanley Grenz, and Sarah
Sumner, all of whom claim that our decision in the question of men’s and
women’s roles in home and church just depends on which verses we
choose to give priority to, ultimately assume that there are contradictory
positions taught in different parts of Scripture. They assume that we
should be free to choose verses that support one of those contradictory
positions, and that choice then allows us to decide that the verses that
support the other position are not morally binding on us. We have given
other verses “priority” and therefore we are free to disregard or disobey
these “lower priority” verses.
In this way, the views of France, Grenz, and Sumner, who claim that
our position just depends on which verses we choose to prioritize, under-
mine the authority of Scripture in our lives. And thus they are another
step on the path toward liberalism.