It has been in the news in recent days that Taylor Swift, who claims to be a Christian, said that the Bible is outdated. I have not been able to verify that she actually said that, but that claim has been a perennial complaint made by many critics of the Scriptures.

It is not the age of a document or a statement that makes it outdated. The question that should be asked is the document or statement true? Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher born more than five hundred years before Christ.

He said, “No man ever steps into the same river twice.” By stepping into a river the river is changed, however imperceptible that change may be, so that, if one steps into it again it is not the same river. It is a simple way of saying everything is in a constant state of flux, or, the only constant is change. What Heraclitus said circa 2700 years ago was true then and is still true now. Its age has not altered its truth.

The same is true regarding the Christian Scriptures. The Ninth Commandment of the Decalogue says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” Exodus 20:16. I think most people would agree telling the truth is not outdated, although the lack of telling the truth makes it seem the practice is outdated. This is just one example from the Scriptures of the Bible’s eternal truth.

I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation (emphasis is mine).

To be a Christian means to be like Christ, and regarding God’s Word, Jesus said, “Your word is truth,” John 17:17. If Christ does not think the Scriptures are obsolete a Christian should not believe them to be obsolete because truth does not have an expiration date.

“All the paths of the LORD are lovingkindness and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies,” Psalm 25:10.

I recently read an article that appeared in the Christian Post magazine by Dan Delzell titled “Evaluating John MacArthur’s rationale for limited atonement.” I thought Delzell made some compelling arguments and I thought I would take the time to explain why.

After the Reformation began to take hold and a return to the authority of the Scriptures supplanted Catholic tradition, theological differences of opinion regarding the sovereignty of God and man’s will created a division among Bible scholars. Arminians stressed the will of man in salvation and the Calvinists emphasized the sovereignty of God. The division has existed over four hundred years.

The Calvinist position was represented by the TULIP. An acrostic that stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints. I have heard some pastors say I am a two-pointer or three-pointer, meaning they embrace either two or three of the points but not all of them. I had one pastor tell me he was a three-and-a-half-pointer; it made me wonder what theological hair he split to come up with the half-point.

I tell people I am a no-pointer because I do not subscribe to any of the five points. I do believe in Total depravity, but not the one formulated by Calvinists. Typically, the point about which there is the strongest contention is the middle one, Limited atonement the subject of this article.

Calvinists believe the atonement of Christ was limited to the elect. Since they believe God had determined before the foundation of the world who would and would not be saved Christ’s sacrifice was limited to those who would eventually be saved.

If one cites John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” I believe Jesus Christ died for everyone in the “world” so that “whoever believes” could be saved. the Calvinist have argued to me that refers only to the elect. And they view 1 John 2:2 in the same light, “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world,” and that this is a message from the elect only to the elect.

But Dan Delzell makes a compelling point when he says “I do not find so much as one passage in God’s inerrant Word which says Christ died ONLY for his sheep.” Jesus did die for His sheep and the elect, but there is not a single verse in the whole of Scripture that says Jesus died for His sheep alone or only for the elect.

But there are Scriptures that point to the universal provision in the atonement, “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.,” First Timothy 2:3-4, and “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance,” Second Peter 3:9. If the Father wants “all to come to repentance” it would be reasonable to think He has made provision for them to come.

“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers,” First Timothy 4:10. In this verse there is a distinction made between “all men” and “believers.” If God “is the Savior of all men” it means He has made provision sufficient for all to be saved, but it is only efficacious to those who by faith in Christ have been saved.

I believe God in His sovereignty gave man a will to make decisions similar to His in His image. The will is free by definition. I have had some say to me our will is not free from influence, but that is not what I mean by the word “free.” we are certainly influenced by our fallen nature, God’s call and the temptations of our adversary the devil. What I mean by our will being free is that our will is free of coercion. We are not forced to make any decision or take any course of action.

I believe God takes the decisions and actions of men, both good and evil, and weaves them into the tapestry of human history so that mankind progresses inexorably towards the culmination of God’s perfect will. On that day when the souls of men stand before the real Supreme Court none will be able to say they died and went to hell because Christ did not die for their sin.

Tom Carson said, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” While many have misunderstood and subsequently misapplied this quote, coming from a Gospel minister the meaning is clear, when one wishes to they can make the Bible say anything they want it to say.

It has been several years ago that a columnist, Mark Woods, writing for the Florida Times-Union wrote an article titled “Context is everything with the Bible.” He was making an argument in support of homosexuality based on the context of what is written in Leviticus.

He wrote,“Yes, it says right there that a man should not lie with another man [Leviticus 18:22]. Yes, it calls it an abomination It also says not to eat shellfish. Or to touch the skin of a dead pig. Or to cut hair in certain ways. Or to wear clothes made of two kinds of material. Or to get a tattoo.

“The Bible calls quite a few things, including some dietary no-nos, abominations. And it devotes many more words to mildew growing in houses than it does to gays living in them. Yet these few verses are what keep getting circled, highlighted and pointed to.

“If so, why is homosexuality so different? Is it because there also are a few later references? Or is it because, I can’t help but wonder, for most of us it simply is different? Which is exactly what makes focusing so intensely on these few verses — while ignoring or discarding so many others — seems all too convenient.”

His point is simply this, in the context of Leviticus there are a number of things Christians do not subscribe to today and given what little is said about homosexuality why do we treat it differently than the other prohibitions? What don’t we consider it an obsolete practice as the others?

What Woods and those like him wrote is why I began writing my articles and blog, because those who do not diligently and seriously study the Scriptures will misconstrue and subsequently misapply them creating confusion regarding what they truly say.

Mark Woods does not understand the biblical reason why certain practices required of the Jews where no longer required of Christians, nor the difference between the ceremonial law and the moral law. But I will enlist the interpretive principle of using the context which he misused to make his point.

The eighteenth chapter of Leviticus is devoted to immoral sexual practices such as incest, adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality. And regarding all these practices the Scriptures say, “Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God,” Leviticus 18:30.

This is the immediate biblical context in which homosexuality is mentioned. Incest, adultery and bestiality are just as much an abomination as homosexuality. And if homosexuality is by Woods’ interpretation an obsolete practice and acceptable to God, then the same must be true for incest, adultery and bestiality according to the context.

Why did Woods single out homosexuality and not address the other sexual sins? Is it because he thinks homosexuality deserves special treatment?

Homosexuality is no different than any other sexual sin; it is only those who wish it to be treated differently that deny the Scriptural truth regarding it.

With the advent of the nuclear age some scientists got together and invented a metaphor for the end of civilization as we know it, the Doomsday Clock. It first appeared in 1947 and was set 17 minutes to midnight for the curtain to fall on humanity. It was meant to highlight our proximity to nuclear holocaust. Since its inception the clock has been reset 23 times, each one supposedly moving humanity closer to self-destruction.

The clock in January a year ago was at one hundred seconds til midnight with the new threats of climate change, the proliferation of disinformation, Russia invading the Ukraine, and North Korea declaring itself a nuclear power. The group of Chicken Littles known as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who manage the clock said, “We now have a true emergency.” I suppose the last 22 times the clock was moved were not “true” emergencies.

This January 2023 the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists updated the Doomsday Clock for the 24th time to ninety seconds until midnight, ten seconds closer than last year. Bulletin President Rachel Bronson said, “We are sending a message that the situation is becoming more urgent. Crises are more likely to happen and have broader consequences and longer standing effects.”

Here are some predictions by scientists that never came true:

Climate specialists claimed, “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and the 1970s predicted the global temperatures by 2000 would be “eleven degrees cooler.” Twice what was needed for a modern ice age. Newsweek published an article in 1975 titled “The Cooling World” and Time carried a story in 1974 asking “A New Ice Age?”

Of course, climate specialists are now predicting the opposite; it’s global warming not global cooling that is going to get us.

In the early 1970’s there were forecasts that the earth’s population was growing faster than its ability to produce food, four billion people would starve to death, 65 million in America alone. The earth’s population has continued to boom, and the numbers of those starving have dropped significantly because of an increase rather than a decrease in food production.

In 1970 particle pollution was predicted to become so great that people in urban areas would be forced to use breathing masks and particle clouds would block sunlight to the point that agricultural production would see a significant drop, it didn’t happen. Read the preceding paragraph.

These are a few of the predictions from the 1970s. Each successive generation has had dire predictions from the scientific community that have failed to come true. Scientists do a poor job of seeing into the distant past or the near future, just look at a weather report.

Here is a news flash, Doomsday has not happened yet. This is because it is an inconvenient truth that scientists make poor prophets.

The Bible stands in stark contrast. Scholars say 25% of the Scriptures when originally penned were predictions about the future and approximately 95% of those prophecies have come to pass with the remaining prophecies of the apocalyptic genre yet to be fulfilled. It appears divine prophecy has a better track record than scientific predictions.

That is why I believe what Peter wrote, “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men … But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up,” 2 Peter 3: 7, 10.

I suppose global warming is going to get us in “the day of the Lord,” and that will be Doomsday for some.

This past Wednesday, January 18, 2023, “The Church of England has announced its support for a proposal that will allow congregations to bless same-sex unions but maintain a traditional definition of marriage.” A suggested compromise between those within the church who wish to accommodate same-sex couples and those who oppose same-sex sin.

The statement released by the denomination said there are plans for bishops to propose “prayers of thanksgiving, dedication and for God’s blessing for same-sex couples” and to “urge all congregations in their care to welcome same-sex couples unreservedly and joyfully.”

The announcement came after six years of “listening” by the denomination’s Living in Love and Faith Initiative whose proposals have yet to be ratified by the Church of England’s General Synod which will take up the matter this February.

Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York, apologized for the Church of England’s treatment of LGBT people. “Both personally and on behalf of my fellow bishops I would like to express our deep sorrow and grief at the way [LGBT] people and those they love have been treated by the Church which, most of all, ought to recognize everyone as precious and created in the image of God,” he continued, “We are deeply sorry and ashamed and want to take this opportunity to begin again in the spirit of repentance which our faith teaches us.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is probably destined to go down in Church of England history as Justin the Compromiser. He said, “I am under no illusions that what we are proposing today will appear to go too far for some and not nearly far enough for others, but it is my hope that what we have agreed will be received in a spirit of generosity, seeking the common good.” Having starting down the slippery slope of compromise, I think the Church of England will not recover intact.

Chief executive of Christian Concern and a former lay member of the General Synod, Andrea Williams said the apology and the proposals will prove to be a “turning point” signaling the decline of the Church of England. “Christianity teaches that sexual expression is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman. Any other form of sexual relationships are sexually immoral,” Williams said.

Williams further stated, “The Bible calls it sin. The Church of England is now encouraging the celebration of sexual immorality. Let’s be clear this is a critical moment … unless these proposals can be decisively resisted by the faithful in Synod.”

In 2001 the Presbyterian Church (USA) established a Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity to consider the authority of Scripture and its bearing on the issues of homosexuality. The liberals wanted peace, the moderates wanted unity, and the conservatives wanted purity. The Task Force utterly failed to bring any agreement on peace, unity or purity.

What is happening in the Church of England, in the United Methodist Church here in America, and has happened in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and is stirring in other denominations is a rejection of the authority of the Scriptures to give place to what they clearly decry as sin. Those denominations and churches that have done so have hemorrhaged churches and memberships.

But the chief concern here is not the loss of those churches and church members who have no respect for biblical morality, whose allegiance to God and His word are in question. It is the influence they may have on those new to the faith and who are lost.

When the nation of Israel turned a deaf ear to God’s Word and pursued the worship of Baal, Elijah confronted the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel, and asked the people, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him,” First Kings 18:21.

How long will the Church hesitate between truth and sin?