All posts by RickeyD

About RickeyD

Experience: (1) United States Marine Corps 1/1 - 0311 - NCO (2) 31-year retired veteran of the Houston Police Department (3) Education: Master's Degree/University of Houston at Clear Lake

Civil War 2.0 in America?

America is dying in apostasy; unfortunately, Civil War is possibly the only viable option to restore America’s historical foundations! Following, is a proposed list of demands to be made by Patriots to the leadership in Washington, D.C. ……

1) Abortion via Roe v. Wade (1973) is unconstitutional and is fetal homicide, an unconscionable violation of the aborted child’s 5th and 14th Amendment “due process” protections; therefore, the United States Government must be extricated from participation in this vile and demonically based procedure immediately!

2) Legislated Sexual Perversion via Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) must be repealed. Homosexuality/LGBTQ is sodomy and will destroy America’s posterity; therefore, this perversion must not be celebrated publicly. Legislated sexual perversion is shameful to the honor and dignity of America.

3) United States Borders are to be meticulously secured by barriers, manpower, technology and illegal immigrants deported.

4) Islam is an enemy of the United States; therefore, Islamic Mosques will be closed and ultimately destroyed Nationwide. Those men and women espousing an Islamic ideology will be prohibited to serve at any level of Government.

5) Progressive Socialism/Communism is treasonous and must be eradicated from all levels of Government.

6) Darwinian Evolution/Socialism/historical revisionism will be removed from all public educational curriculum and Federal funding prohibited for institutions failing to adhere to this edict.

7) Constitutional Originalism restored and the Globalist ideology will give-way to a Nationalist framework of America First.

8) The Democratic Party and the Republican Party of the United States put on notice that subversive unconstitutional behavior will not be tolerated.

9) Special Interests will be strictly prohibited from influencing our elected officials at all levels of Government and any elected official caught politically prostituting themselves with Special Interests will be impeached, removed from office for graft.

Meetings with US Military Staff and Law Enforcement Leadership must be forthcoming to establish protocol and alliances if demands are not met by our elected officials in D.C.

I’m willing to stand and fight, I’m disheartened by those who refuse to do the same; after all, it is our posterity and America’s survival that weigh in the balance! If there are Patriot organizations in the United States willing to coalesce and initiate demands upon the elected leadership in Washington D.C.; if these organizations are willing to enter into negotiations concerning the health and welfare and future of the United States of America, please contact me at @RickeyDale07 on Twitter or

Thank you,

Rick Holtsclaw  @RickeyDale07 (Twitter) or for as long as these sites remain active.

baby in arms REPEAL ROE 2


Atheist’s Questions for the Christian

  1. If it’s the case that heaven and hell are the only two options in the end, and someone desires neither, do they still ultimately have free will?

Yes. Free will exists when more than one option is available. The eternal concept of free will for mankind and the angels is focused upon one’s option to choose life or death, obedience or rebellion, love or hate, good or evil, God’s way or Satan’s way. Though an individual might desire to neither serve God or serve Satan, this option is not available but…this does not negate “free will” because the option to “choose” still exists even though a person may not approve of or find the options available fair or attractive. God’s ways are not our ways and God owes mankind nothing but He has chosen to provide us an option to experience Eternal Life by trusting in Jesus Christ as our personal LORD and Savior for the forgiveness of sin.

  1. Why take a position on abortion if it could be Jesus’ will in the same way it was Jesus’ will in Noah’s flood to drown toddlers, babies, and the unborn?

Caveat: I want every woman or man who has been involved in the sin of abortion to know that forgiveness is available for anyone who repents of their sin and diligently, honesty, seeks Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior over their life. Abortion is not an unforgivable sin and there is mercy and grace in Jesus Christ as Mediator for your sin. Please, humble yourself, apologize to our Creator for your offensive behavior and trust in Jesus as LORD…there is forgiveness, peace, mercy, grace and an amazing new life awaiting you in Jesus Christ.

Abortion is the taking of human life in the womb without “due process” of law and is considered in the purity of American Jurisprudence as premeditated, conspiratorial murder. Though the SCOTUS has unwittingly provided Roe v. Wade (1973) as a buttress or defense to prosecution to the “charge of murder,” recent scientific discoveries verify life as beginning at conception; therefore, Roe is blatantly unconstitutional (violates the 5th/14th Amendments due process protections) and should be amended or better yet, repealed. Abortion is conspiratorial, premeditated murder i.e. fetal homicide, a violation of God’s moral law and a sin against our Creator and His will for our life.

It is also important to differentiate the spurious translations of the Ten-Commandments, #6, You shall not “murder” from the incorrect translation, You shall not “kill.” Two completely different meanings and outcome concerning sin and judgment. Please see the following for clarification:

For the Atheist, pro-choice advocates who insists that God’s Word advocates abortion via Numbers 5, please see an exegesis on Numbers 5 and the “Test for an Unfaithful Wife” as per the NIV Bible version:

Concerning the Noahic Flood and the eradication of the human race save eight, Noah and his family aboard the Ark. One must first analyze why the Noahic Flood was necessary and what is the impetus for The Flood? Though our Creator is often incorrectly targeted as the culprit for The Flood, remember it is the sin and wretchedness of mankind that brought the wrath of God to bear in Noah’s day. The Holy Spirit describes the generation of Noah…

“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved [e]in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the [f]sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” Genesis 6:5-8

The actual culprit for the Noahic Flood is none other than Satan himself who is the impetus for evil, sin, deception, death. Note the Words of Jesus Christ concerning Satan…

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks [n]a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of [o]lies.” Gospel of John 8:44

The most relevant question at this point would be, why did our Creator find it necessary to destroy mankind in The Flood? Remember, the focal point or prevailing theme of the entire Bible is Jesus Christ and the redemption of mankind, the forgiveness of sin through Jesus’ faithfulness at the Crucifixion. Also, remember that God’s Plan for redeeming mankind through the forgiveness of sin required the presence of His Messiah at a specific time in history through a specific genealogy as prophesied. Before the creation of Time, Jesus was destined to be our Messiah and before God spoke the Universe into existence, a Plan to bring our Messiah through the seed of the woman was already in play (2 Timothy 2:8-10).

Subsequent to The Fall of Adam, mankind inherited a sin-nature that naturally rebels against the authority/dominion of our Creator and prior to The Flood there was also the presence of the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-4) in the land and scholars debate the influence of these wicked beings upon Noah’s generation; nevertheless, Noah’s generation had become so vile and wicked that our Creator refused to set-apart a Holy and Chosen people through whom He would bring forth Messiah-Jesus Christ.

It is for this reason that our Creator destroyed the genome of wickedness in Noah’s day and began afresh with righteous Noah and Noah’s family. Later, the Scriptures articulate the setting apart of a people group through Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob who would be called the Hebrew Nation, the Jewish People who would be God’s Chosen People to represent Him to the World. The Jewish people were given the responsibility to…

  1. Chronicle/Record God’s Word.
  2. To be an object lesson of God’s blessing for obedience/cursing for disobedience.
  3. The Jews are God’s eschatological time-clock indicating to the World where our LORD is at in World History by observing the Jewish Nation of Israel.
  4. Through the Jewish People, the Tribe of Judah, our God brought forth Messiah-Jesus Christ through the seed of Mary through the Power of the Holy Spirit as the Savior of the World.

Speaking of the Jewish Nation, God proclaims…

“Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.” Leviticus 20:26

And to Abraham, God proclaims a Covenant…

And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who [a]curses you I will [b]curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” Genesis 12:3

Jesus said…

22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. Gospel of John 4:22

Therefore, Jesus does not condone abortion on demand nor is our Creator a capricious and retaliatory God but a God who is slow to anger and provided Noah’s Generation ample opportunity to repent and turn to Him in obedience but they refused; therefore, The Flood. Another Judgment on the World, similar to The Flood, is coming, this time…by fire.

And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 [r]It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and [s]brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be [t]just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:27-30

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 [b]its works will be [c]burned up.11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:11-13

  1. How can an ‘all good’ deity be ALL good if sin is a byproduct of his creation?

God desires relationship. Relationship, one that is manifest in purity and authenticity, mandates volition, free-will, the ability to choose to love or to hate; otherwise, relationship is robotic and impotent. Our Creator has provided His created beings, both Angelic and Human, with free-will, the ability to choose Jesus Christ as LORD or reject Jesus Christ and serve Satan by default. Sin, evil, death, have entered our World through the exercise of “free will.” Sin is the unfortunate default or “byproduct” of free will which is necessary for perfect love and enduring relationships to manifest in authenticity as well as the privilege to chose our own Eternal destiny.

  1. What is the best way to demonstrate to oneself that they are open to being wrong about a religious belief held as deeply as yours?

I am always prepared to accept rebuttal to my understanding of Scripture but this rebuttal must be supported with irrefutable Truth using the Word of God…NOT man’s opinion.

It is better to take refuge in the Lord
Than to trust in man. Psalm 118:8

5. If you learned that the pastor you met on the plane was no longer a Christian, would this concern you, not concern for him, but in terms of the path you went on in your life?

I would hazard to say that there are a number of “Pastors” who are not truly children of the Living God, in other words, they have never entered into a personal relationship with God the Father by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. A number of Atheists I have debated insist that they too were “former Christians” but finally “freed” themselves from what they believe is “religious deception.” Far too many of these Atheists had been involved in religions of paganism or cults, but the truth is born-out in the fact that they were never truly “born again” by the Holy Spirit of God for had they known the love of Jesus Christ and the assurance, security, wisdom, discernment, only available by the indwelling Holy Spirit given to the redeemed in Jesus Christ, these men and women would have NEVER walked away from Jesus as LORD. Why? Because our God has promised His faithful children that “no one” will be able to snatch God’s children out of the hand of Jesus or the hand of our Heavenly Father. Those who love and adore Jesus Christ as LORD are secure in that love and they will endure to the end and find grace and mercy and life in Eternity.

Jesus said…

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 [d]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are [e]one.” Gospel of John 10:28-30

18 “Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the [i]word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. 20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the [j]word, immediately he [k]falls away. 22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the [l]world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”  Matthew 13:18-23

Unfortunately, “many” who “think” themselves to be saved or put up a facade of salvation will be in for a rude awakening at Judgment.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21-23

6. IF it’s the case that people who don’t hear the good word go to heaven on merit, and those that hear, but reject the word, go to hell, wouldn’t it be preferable to wipe out all records of Christianity?

In the New Covenant, there is no other way to find righteousness (a right standing) with God the Father except by grace (unmerited favor) through faith (trusting) (believing) that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who entered Time and suffered/died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected for our justification leading to Eternal LIFE.

Jesus said…

Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Gospel of John 14:6

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not [a]obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Gospel of John 3:36

Though God has clearly told us that where there is no law there is no sin or culpability, this truism, though relevant for children and the cognitively disabled, is not relevant for the cognitively aware/acute, discerning, adult in the New Covenant because our Creator has written His laws on our heart and we intuitively know that our Creator exists through what He has made; therefore, every man and woman is “without excuse” if they deny our Creator (Romans 1:18-32).  With that said, if a person in the Congo, for example, never hears of Jesus and never has the opportunity to acknowledge Jesus Christ as LORD, this is NOT our Creator’s problem for our LORD has clearly commanded the faithful to go into all the World and tell of Jesus Christ and teach them in the ways of righteousness.

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [f]always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20

With that said, will there be grace and mercy shown to those who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I don’t know…that is God’s purview.

  1. Would you prefer that everyone on earth converts to Christianity and the level of human suffering stays the same or that everyone on earth becomes an atheist and the level of human suffering falls 90%?

Your question negates itself because the suffering on this Earth will not be diminished but increase with the absence of Christianity along with the absence of the restraining power of the Holy Spirit to constrain the evil in man’s heart. It is the god of Atheism i.e. Satan (yes, Satan is the foundation for Atheism) that is the impetus for the horrors in our World and removing the ONLY restraining Force, the Holy Spirit, from our World would only exacerbate suffering and hopelessness.

 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:7

8. How did you eliminate (if you did) infinite regress as an option?

I would need clarification concerning this question and its particular relevance to theology.  If your question concerns the origin of matter, the Universe and purpose, relevancy, please see my article on this subject at:

9. Why do you think Hindu’s are unconvinced of Quranic prophecy?

To understand why the Quran must be approached with caution and discernment, one must understand the origin of Islam, its purpose in Time and the genesis of the Quran. Please see Part II of my article for an overview of Islam, Allah, Ishmael, Muhammad, the Quran.

10. How could I tell the difference between someone who actually knows their purpose in life according to god and someone who just believes they know their purpose from god?

In order to make this differentiation, you must possess knowledge of God’s Word from the Genesis to the Revelation.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15

Thank you,

R.D. Holtsclaw  @RickeyDale07 (Twitter)

Related article…

In the Beginning, God…Why?





Athanasius on the Canon

Athanasius on the Canon

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. His list of canonical books was published as part of his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. After the list he declares, “these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away.”

2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.


The Cult of Catholicism

Editing in progress….

Catholic Mass (Salvation by Works – Biblical Heresy)

John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, has helped Roman Catholics to understand the importance of the Mass.  He has written a book called “The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion.”  It is a classic work.  This is what he writes, John O’Brien, a very popular work. 

“When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration,” [this is the Mass] “he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.  It is a power exercised by the priest greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim.  Indeed, it is a power greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim.” [You wonder why you always see a crucifix and not an empty cross?] “The priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times.” 

Of the seven Sacraments, The Mass is the main one.

Catholic Catechism.  “The Mass is the source of and summit of the Christian life.”

Cardinal Ratzinger i.e. Pope Benedict, “The Mass is the sum and substance of our faith.” 

Mass is Not Scriptural:

For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;  not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.  And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,  so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:24-29 (NKJV)

There are no more sacrifices, tabernacles, priesthood; therefore, Catholic Mass is false sacrifice on a false altar by a false priest. There is no more temple in which God dwells, no more tabernacle, and there is no more priesthood. 

Catholic Mass is essentially a reinstitution/a facade of the Levitical Law and altar sacrifices as the Eucharist becomes a blood-less reality of the Body of Christ who is sacrificed repetitively over and over again as a perpetual sacrifice for sin.  In the practice of the mass, the Roman Catholic Church has reinstituted an unbiblical system of repeated sacrifices, blaspheming Christ and perverting His work on the cross. The Mass is a pagan cult of “works” denying the Biblical doctrine of Salvation by grace through faith alone.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,  not of works, lest anyone should boast.  For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.  Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV)

Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law),  then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.  By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Christ’s Death Perfects the Sanctified

[Concerning blood sacrifices under The Law] And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.  Hebrews 10:8-18 (NKJV)

Salvation is granted by God through HIS Grace (unmerited favor) by Faith (trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation). The Church, no Church, can provide salvation. No one ascends into Heaven to bring Christ down for sacrifice on any altar.

For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  Romans 10:5-13 (NKJV)

Council of Trent in the 16th-Century

Reacting to the Reformation and therefore the need to emphasize the Mass…

The 13th session met in October of 1551 and promulgated the decree: “The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist: the Mass.” At the end of the decree was a list of canons, or laws, and these laws provide anathemas or damnation for anyone who denied or rejected the Council’s teachings or doctrines. Following are the anathemas relevant to the Mass concerning the Eucharist.

Canon number One

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign or figure or force, let him be anathema.  Damnation is pronounced on anybody who says that Christ is not actually there, body, blood, soul, divinity, in the wine, and the wafer.

Canon number Two

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.  That is, they’re both there.  And denies that wonder and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which changed the Catholic Church most apply calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.  In other words, if you say the body and blood, as well as the soul and divinity of Christ are not there in the wine and the bread, you’re anathematized.  If you say He’s only there along with the bread and the wine, you’re also damned.  What you have to say is: He’s there, and the bread and the wine are not there, although they appear to be there. 

Canon number Eight

If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema.  That is, if you say that in taking the bread in, taking the host, as they call it, which the bread is the only thing given to the communicant; if you say that Christ is only there spiritually and not sacramentally and really, you’re damned.

Year-1562, 22nd session was held of the Council of Trent

Decree promulgated: “Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass.”

“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an un-bloody manner, the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy Council teaches, that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect: that if we, contrite and penitent with sincere heart, and upright faith, with fear and reverence draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid.” 

In other words, the Mass is really Christ.  It is really a sacrifice on a real altar, by a real priest, just like priests in the Old Testament offered an animal on the altar as a sacrifice.  The only difference is: it is an un-bloody one, that Christ is nonetheless immolated, or offered or sacrificed. And as a result of this, propitiation is achieved, actual satisfaction for sin is achieved.

Trent cont…

“The victim is one and the same, in this Mass, the same, that is Christ, now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross.”

That is, Christ is the victim as He was on the cross on Golgotha.

“It is well understood that it is an un-bloody sacrifice, but it is no less a sacrifice.  It is rightly offered for the sins, the punishments, the satisfactions, and the other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ, but not yet fully purified.”

Where are they?  Purgatory.  So this is propitiation for the living and for the dead.  Now, at the end of that decree which came 11 years later, there are more canons, more curses pronounced on those who would deny this. 

Canon number One

“If anyone says that, in the Mass, a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.” 

If you say we’re eating Christ, literally eating His body and blood and spirit and divinity but it’s not a sacrifice, you’re damned.

Canon number Two

“If anyone says that by those words, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,’ Christ did not institute the Apostles’ priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, let him be anathema.” 

If you just say, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” is anything less than the institution of the Roman Catholic priesthood, you are damned.

Canon number Three

“If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory one.” 

That is, it is not efficacious, that it is not a real sacrifice which God accepts so that He can forgive sin. 

“If you say it’s anything less than that, or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead,”

That is, only the person who is there receiving it and not other living people and other dead people who aren’t there.

…“for sins, punishment, satisfactions and other necessities, let him be anathema.” 

If you say that it doesn’t count for the living and the dead who aren’t there, you’re cursed.

Canon number Four

“If anyone says that by the sacrifice of the Mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross, let him be anathema.” 

So, we’re all damned.  If you say that this sacrifice blasphemes the most holy sacrifice of Christ, then you’re blaspheming and you’re damned.

Canon number Five

“If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints, and in order to obtain their intercession with God, let him be anathema.” 

Masses are offered as some kind of offering to dead saints to get dead saints to intercede for us, the living, and dead.  And then just to make sure you can’t escape…

“If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, let him be anathema.” 

You are damned in every possible way.  There is no way out.  Now do you understand why Roman Catholic people are bound to this system?  It is so full of damnation, there is no way out.

The Eucharist and Transubstantiation? (Summary)

As per the Council of Trent…

One, Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the sacrament following the words of consecration.  It doesn’t show up till after the words of consecration. 

Two, transubstantiation.  That simply means to transform the substance.  It started out as wine and bread, the substance, but the transforming of that substance into the actual body and blood of Christ is what transubstantiation means.  Transubstantiation, secondly, involves the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance into the body of Christ, the change of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of the blood of Christ.  It is a real and actual change, although it appears still to be bread and wine. 

Three, since Christ is really present in the Eucharist, the elements themselves are worthy of worship.  They’re worthy of worship.

Why is Catholic Mass not Scriptural

There are no more sacrifices, tabernacles, priesthood; therefore, Catholic Mass is false sacrifice on a false altar by a false priest. There is no more temple in which God dwells, no more tabernacle, and there is no more priesthood. Christ was offered as our Sacrifice once never to be sacrificed again. Hebrews 10:8-18; Romans 10:5-13

The consumption of the Eucharist as the literal body of Christ and the wine as the literal blood of Christ is heresy. Genesis 9:2-4 > Leviticus 17:14,

Catholic misinterpretation of John 6 involves the doctrine of transubstantiation which entails the worship of the Communion elements. The Council of Trent infallibly pronounced that “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (CCC, 1376).” The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds that because the elements are transformed into the body and blood of Christ it is appropriate to engage in the “Worship of the Eucharist” (CCC 1378) which is the “worship of adoration” (CCC 1418). From a biblical and empirical perspective, this is a form of idolatry—the worship of created things (Ex. 20:4-5; Rom. 1:25).

The sacramental Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is: (a) contrary to the time context in which it was given; (b) contrary to Jesus’ use of figures of speech in John; (c) contrary to the one condition for eternal life being which Jesus gave being belief; (d) contrary to Jesus statement that “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”; (e) contrary to the continual nature of the mystical union with Christ indicated  by abiding (Gk:meno); (f) contrary to the close parallel between “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood” and “everyone …who  believes in him” has eternal life (vv. 40, 55); (g) contrary to the communion formula of “body and blood” (1 Cor. 11:23-26) versus “flesh and blood” in John 6; (h) contrary to the biblical prohibition against eating blood (Lev. 17:14), and contrary to the biblical prohibition against idolatry.

When speaking of this literalistic misinterpretation of Jesus’ words, the great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson declared: “To me that is a violent misrepresentation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ.  It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which the Jews also misunderstood” [So], there is, of course, no reference to the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist), but simply to mystical fellowship with Christ” (Word Pictures, vol. 5, p. 112). It involves an idolatrous violation of God’s command: “You shall worship the Lord your God and him alone shall you serve” (Mt. 4:10). See:

The Lord’s Table was always celebrated with leavened bread [artos].   The leaven in the bread represented OUR SINS which God had laid on Christ to be remitted at the CROSS [Is.53:6].  This is the manner in which the early Church celebrated the Lord’s Table until it was corrupted by the Roman WAFER—-embossed with a sunburst, a tribute to the day of the Sun, i.e.—-Sun worship.  In every passage in the New Testament where “ceremonial bread” was used, it is translated from the Greek word AZUMOS [unleavened bread—-Passover bread].  That word AZUMOS is never used in regard to the Lord’s Table—-NOT ONCE.  We have drifted so far from our beginnings. See:


Progressive Creationism (questions)

Questions for the Progressive Creationist

Hello, SJ

In response to your article:  … when you have the time and motivation, please respond to the following.

Thanks much.

Rick Holtsclaw

You said:

“YECs believe that the six days of creation were 24-hour days, particularly since they note the inclusion of evening and morning on each of the creation days. Evenings and mornings require sunrises and sunsets, yet the sun did not appear until day four.”

  1. Does Nome, Alaska experience an evening and a morning in Winter when there is no Sun?


You said:

“Based on these passages and in conjunction with scientific discoveries concerning the creation of the universe and of the earth, I agree with Biblical interpretations that support an old earth and suggest that yom in the first chapter of Genesis is a longer period of time.”

  1. Is it not true that every time the word “yom” is accompanied by a number or the phrase “evening and morning” throughout the Old Testament (as in Genesis 1), it consistently means an ordinary day i.e. a literal 24-yr period of Time?
  2. If God did not Create in a literal 6-day time-frame and rest on the 7th-day, where did mankind receive the 7-day week and where did the concept of the Sabbath, a “day” of rest, find its origin?

Exodus 20:11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Not them ‘plural’ but “it”)


If the fossil record is millions or billions of years old as in the Progressive Creationist perspective, what is the resultant of Original Sin? In other words, if billions of animals suffered and died before Adam’s rebellion, why did they die, how did they die, if The Curse had not manifest until subsequent the creation of Adam on Day-6?

Moses writes in the Genesis, Chapter 1…

31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. 

  1. Apparently, all that had been created up to that point was “very good”…there was no curse, no death resulting from sin…so why does the geological record reflect billions of fossils that died and some in suffering and horror if death and suffering and the curse did not manifest until subsequent Adam’s rebellion?

In Romans 8, Paul writes…

19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, [i]in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Moses writes in the Genesis, Chapter 3…

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [f]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the [g]plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

  1. So we see a curse on the Earth “subsequent” to Adam’s rebellion…and prior to this we see our Creator exclaiming everything to be “good.” Again, how does the Progressive Creationist reconcile the death evidenced in the fossil record occurring “before” the curse?
  2. If there is to be a restoration of all things in God’s Kingdom exactly as they were before “The Fall” and “The Curse” (very good)….is God suggesting that death’s sting and creation’s curse will remain seeing that the Progressive Creationist perspective and the fossil record assumes billions of lives lost and death and suffering reigning throughout the World before “The Curse” … millions or billions of years of death and suffering before Adam’s rebellion?


In conclusion, you said…

“In conclusion, the Bible provides us with evidence that the six days of creation were not literal 24-hour days and that Jesus’ genealogies were abbreviated to exclude unimportant names. Readers can take comfort that the Bible supports scientific findings in cosmology and geology. Science is not the enemy of Christianity. In contrast, science gives us evidence in its support!”

  1. Even if Luke’s genealogy was missing a person or two or three or four, the 4-k year estimate from Adam to the Christ (YEC) would only be several hundred-years off or maybe even a thousand or two, but NOT many thousands or millions of years; therefore, how do account for this “gap” theology?
  2. You mention cosmology and geology…do you believe in Theistic Evolution/abiogenesis and/or macroevolution?
  3. Do you hold to the Framework Hypothesis? Cosmic Evolution?

Thank you for your time,

Rick Holtsclaw

Excellent article discussing the Six-days of Creation and variant perspectives:

What Is R.C. Sproul’s Position on Creation?


Revisionist Gay Theology

Male and female, together, are the fullest picture of the image of God in creation. That’s why they need each other. Adam wasn’t complete without Eve. In everyday terms, this means that only the difference and the complementary interplay of male and female uniquely reflect the image and likeness of the persons of the Trinity in creation. As a result, sexual love between married man and woman is a life-giving act of mutual giving and receiving that mirrors the Trinity like nothing else on earth.
– Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family
The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism—for that is what the words “one flesh” would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact—just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on a sexual level, but totally combined.
– C.S. Lewis
Because this relationship is so central to creation and humanity, God’s heart for marriage is woven throughout the Old and New Testaments. Marriage is the most important picture in Scripture of our own relationship with God. God is portrayed as a husband, and His wife is the nation of Israel. She is unfaithful, but still His own, and He lovingly pursues her. And the Church is the Bride of Christ, who sacrificed himself for her. 
– Focus on The Family – What does the Bible say about Homosexuality

Revisionist Gay Theology – A Christian Response

The Genesis Account of Male and Female

Genesis 2:20-24
The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Revisionist Argument:
The Genesis account does not forbid homosexuality; it simply does not refer to it.
Christian Response:
While it is true this passage does not forbid homosexual relations, it does provide the model, the standard, for human sexuality. The male-female marriage union, introduced in Genesis, is the only type of sexual behavior consistently praised in both Old and New Testaments. Moses, Jesus and Paul each point to Genesis as the primary text for understanding God’s design in creation.
We must look at all forms of sexual expression through the lens of marriage and the male/female complementarity of God’s design in Genesis. Dr. Robert Gagnon, one of the world’s foremost scholars on homosexuality, writes about how God brings forth the woman from the man, creating a longing within them to reunite through marriage and sexual intercourse. “The woman is not just ‘like himself’ but ‘from himself’ and thereby a complementary fit to himself. She is a complementary sexual ‘other.’”
Gagnon explains how this teaching from Genesis permeates Scripture. All through the Bible, men and women are presented as biologically complementary for the purposes of sexual activity and reproduction. This complementarity is “clear and convincing proof of God’s will for sexual unions.” Echoing Paul in the book of Romans, he continues by saying that even those who don’t believe the Bible should be able to figure out God’s design because of the physical structure of created humanity.

The Destruction of Sodom

Genesis 19:4-9
[T]he men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so
wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.
Revisionist Argument #1:
Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.
Christian Response:
The argument makes no sense in light of Lot’s words and actions. His first response, “Don’t do this wicked thing,” could hardly apply to a simple request to “get to know” his guests. The second thing Lot does is especially telling: He answered the demands of the men of the city by offering his two virgin daughters—another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. Surely the people of the town were acquainted with Lot’s daughters, and Lot’s response makes clear that he and the townsmen are talking about sexual activity.
Revisionist Argument #2:
Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.
Christian Response:
The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old,” homosexuality must have been commonly practiced.
Professor Thomas Schmidt, in his book, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate , cites evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices. The literature says the people of Sodom were “sexually promiscuous” and “departed from the order of nature.” Here “the order of nature” is a reference to male-female complementarity.
Revisionist Argument #3:
The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” These have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Christian Response:
Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was one aspect of its wickedness. But Ezekiel also says of the city: “They were haughty and did an abomination before me” (16:50). When we read 2 Peter 2:6-7 and Jude 7, we learn that this “abomination” included sexual immorality and homosexual conduct.

The Holiness Code

Leviticus 18:2b-3, 22; 20:13
I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. … You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [abhorrence]. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Revisionist Argument #1:
The practices mentioned in these chapters of Leviticus have to do with idolatry, not homosexuality.
Christian Response:
The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 appear within lists of other sexual sins—adultery and incest, for example—which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments. If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise.
Revisionist Argument #2:
The Holiness Code’s injunction against homosexual acts is not an ethical but rather a ceremonial prohibition. It focuses on Jewish ritual cleanness, not Christian behavior.
Christian Response:
This argument, too, is based on a partial truth. New Testament scholar Stanley Grenz says:
This theory is a helpful reminder that the Holiness Code arose partly out of a concern for ritual purity. However, it is not completely clear that the injunctions against sex acts such as bestiality and same-sex intercourse fall in this category. … Further, by claiming that the Holiness Code prohibition of homosexual acts arises merely out of concern for ceremonial purity and not for morality, the argument assumes a disjunction between ethics and ritual uncleanness that is foreign to Leviticus. … Considerations such as these make it difficult to get around the conclusion that the Holiness Code prohibits homosexual acts in general and that it did so on the basis of concerns that were at least in part moral.
Revisionist Argument #3:
You don’t follow all of Leviticus, you eat shellfish and wear mixed threads, don’t you? Those are prohibited in the same passages as the verses on homosexuality.
Christian Response:
Of course, sexual activity is a much bigger deal than eating shrimp or wearing a polyester-cotton blend shirt. They are not equivalent. In addition, we don’t throw out other sexual ethics in Leviticus 18 and 20 such as the prohibitions against incest or adultery
Dr. Michael Brown, author and theologian, helps explain the difference between dietary laws that applied to Israel and ethical laws that apply to everyone: Within the Torah (God’s Teaching and Law), there were many laws given to Israel to keep them separate from the nations (like Leviticus 19:19). That’s why the Torah said that certain foods, like shellfish, were unclean for the Israelites but not for all people (see Deuteronomy 14:7, 19). On the other hand, there were laws given to Israel that were universal in scope, like the command not to murder.
When it comes to homosexual practice, not only is it the only sinful action singled out in Leviticus as an abomination, but it is part of a list of universal moral prohibitions, including incest and other forbidden sexual acts. We know this because the chapter states that the Lord judged the pagan nations for these very acts, and if acts were wrong for idol-worshiping pagans, they were wrong for the people of Israel (see Leviticus  18:24-30). And when we see that the prohibition against homosexual practice is reiterated in the New Testament, the case is settled for those who accept the Bible as God’s Word.

David and Johnathan

1 Samuel 19:1
And Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they
should kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David.
2 Samuel 1:25-26
[David is lamenting the deaths of Saul and Jonathan.]
Jonathan lies slain on your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.
Revisionist Argument:
David and Jonathan were obviously homosexual lovers.
Christian Response:
Given the evidence of the biblical text, the conclusion is anything but obvious. Instead, this interpretation reflects a set of cultural assumptions—in particular, a highly sexualized interpretation of the word “love”—which is more characteristic of modern Western society than of the ancient Near East. Contrary to the implications of contemporary movie plots and song lyrics, “love” and “sex” are not mutually interchangeable terms. They certainly weren’t in biblical times, and we shouldn’t impose our worldview on ancient times.
Demonstrative, emotionally charged same-sex friendships were common in David and Jonathan’s cultural context. Theologian Stanley Grenz notes that the language of David’s lament is typical of that used in treaties. In this case, it’s as if David were describing or establishing a treaty between himself and Jonathan’s family. Grenz also notes that both David and Jonathan married women and fathered children.
The Bible does not avoid David’s sins—including pointing out his orchestration of the murder of Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 11-12). If David had sinned homosexually, certainly Scripture would have noted it, and he might have incurred the penalty for such activity.

Plural Marriage in Scripture

Revisionist Argument:
Many in the Bible, including Abraham and David, practiced polygamy. Why aren’t you open to practicing polygamy and other types of sexual relationships?
Christian Response:
The Bible is honest about sexual sin in a fallen world and describes many kinds of sexual activity, including polygamy, incest, prostitution, rape and homosexuality, all of which are rejected as God’s design. But the only kind of sexual behavior the Bible prescribes is marriage between one man and one woman.

Jesus and the Subject of Homosexuality

Revisionist Argument:
Jesus never taught against homosexuality or lesbianism. In fact, He was silent on the issue.
Christian Response #1:
As Grenz writes:
{A}rguments from silence are notoriously difficult to substantiate. We might just as easily conclude that other acts about which Jesus was silent were equally unimportant to the Master. For example, does His silence about incest mean that we are no longer bound to the Old Testament prohibitions in this area?
There is a much simpler and more obvious explanation for Jesus’ silence. It was not a controversial issue of that period. It was a settled issue in Israel that homosexual behavior was a sin, so Jesus was not asked about it.
Christian Response #2:
Jesus is the Son of God; He is the living Word, God made flesh. The revisionist argument assumes that Jesus somehow might have had a different view of homosexuality from that which was made clear to God’s people in the Old Testament. Jesus is one with the Father, and the Spirit, and the same Holy Spirit inspired all the authors of Scripture. Jesus kept and affirmed all that the Law and the Prophets taught (Matthew 5:17-19).
Christian Response #3:
Jesus said everything that needed to be said on the subject of sexual ethics when He quoted Genesis in response to the Pharisees’ question about divorce: He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
In other words, Jesus explicitly endorsed the Christian sexual ethic outlined Genesis, Mark and Matthew.
As Grenz affirms:
But nowhere did [Jesus] condone genital sexual activity outside the context of a lifelong heterosexual commitment. In fact, the only option He mentioned other than marriage was celibacy (Matthew 19:11-12). Moreover, whenever Jesus engaged with questions involving human sexual conduct, he appealed to God’s intention in creation (e.g., Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 19:4-9).

Paul – Natural and Unnatural

Romans 1:18-27
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Revisionist Argument #1:
Paul is not describing true homosexuals; rather, he is referring to heterosexuals who, as he says, “exchanged natural relations.” The real sin here is in changing what is natural to the individual.
Christian Response:
There is nothing in Paul’s wording to suggest he even recognized such a thing as a “true” homosexual versus a “false” one. The idea of gay as an identity, of someone “being gay” or “being homosexual” is a modern construct, rooted in ideology and a particular worldview. Paul simply describes homosexual behavior as against nature—unnatural.
Paul’s wording, in fact, is unusually specific. He chooses the Greek words that most emphasize biology. He is not considering any such thing as sexual orientation. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural—not just unnatural to “heterosexuals,” but unnatural to anyone. As Grenz puts it, “The verse does not
speak of natural and unnatural feelings, but natural and unnatural function.”

Paul is speaking of how we are created—male and female.

Revisionist Argument #2:
This Scripture describes people given over to idolatry, not gay Christians who worship the true God.
Christian Response:
Idolatry plays a major role in Romans 1. Paul begins his writing by describing humanity’s rebellion and decision to worship creation rather than the Creator. But Paul is also talking about sins that arise when humanity stops worshiping the true God, including the sin of homosexual sexual activity. Professor Schmidt explains:
Paul is not suggesting that a person worships an idol and decides therefore to engage in same-sex relations. Rather, he is suggesting that the general rebellion created the environment for the specific rebellion: “For this reason God gave them up to,” not “As a result of this they did.”

Paul: The Rejection of the Same-sex Acts

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. …
Revisionist Argument:
Arsenokoite, the word used for homosexuality by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy, is apparently a word he coined. It never appeared in Greek literature before he used it in these Scriptures. At that time there were other words for “homosexual.” Had he meant to refer to homosexuality, he would have used one of the words already in existence. Most likely, he was referring to male prostitution, which was common at the time.
Christian Response:
Whether Paul coined the term arsenokoite or not, there can be no doubt about its meaning. It is simply a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase mishkav zakur, “lying with a male,” which is “… the usual way of referring to homosexual intercourse in early rabbinic literature.” As such, it clearly refers back to the prescriptions of the Holiness Code, especially Leviticus 20:13 which, in the Greek Septuagint version reads, “…hos an koimethe meta aresnos koiten gynaikos.”
As Dr. Grenz concludes:
We must remind ourselves that Paul’s list in the Corinthian epistle occurs in the wider context of matters related to proper sexual conduct and the believing community (1 Corinthians 5-8). As his subsequent discussion indicates, Paul was convinced that the only proper context for sexual intercourse was heterosexual marriage. The apostle apparently did not see any reason to elaborate further why homosexual behavior violated this basic view.
Interestingly, this term arsenokoite or “men-who-bed-men” is close to the term used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “men who have sex with men” or MSM. Like Paul, the CDC places the emphasis on the behavior, rather than on identity or attractions. And the good news, stated clearly in the letter to Corinth, is that people come out of homosexuality—they are washed, made holy and their sin is paid for by the work of Jesus on the cross. From the early Church until today, people have left homosexual behavior.
In his book, Is God anti-gay?,
Sam Allberry explains how Paul’s list of sins should bring us to acknowledge our deep need for a savior: These forms of behavior characterize those who are not “just” and for whom the law was given, in order to bring conviction of sin and the need for mercy. All these practices contradict “sound doctrine” and the gospel. They do not conform to the life Christians are now to lead. They go against the grain of the new identity we have in Christ.

New International Version (Errors)

The New International Version (NIV) translation of the Holy Bible is apparently compiled and edited by a group of theological liberals who seek to tickle the ears of heretics and atheists seeing that the translation takes liberty with the Hebrew and the Greek and says something that the Scriptures simply do NOT say (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,  and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4 NASB)

Psalm 119:152

The Atheists say…

psalm 119 152

The NIV incorrectly translates “commands” which should be “testimonies.”

“Of old I have known from Your testimonies
That You have founded them forever.” (Psalm 119:152 NASB)

“Concerning Your testimonies,
I have known of old that You have founded them forever.” (Psalm 119:152 NKJV)

“Long have I known from your testimonies
    that you have founded them forever.” (Psalm 119:152 ESV)

“Long ago I learned from your statutes
    that you established them to last forever.” (Psalm 119:152 NIV)

See Hebrew translation of Psalm 119:152 at

“concerning your testimonies” = Heb: mê-‘ê-ḏō-ṯe-ḵā; Strongs #5713 [e] > your testimonies (occurrences 1 of 1)

What are the “testimonies” of our LORD referenced by Psalm 119:152?

Let us mark this eternal basis of “the testimonies of God.” The whole plan of redemption was emphatically “founded for ever”: the Saviour was “foreordained before the foundation of the world.” The people of God were “chosen in Christ before the world began.” The great Author “declares the end from the beginning,” and thus clears his dispensations from any charge of mutability or contingency. Every event in the church is fixed, permitted, and provided for — not in the passing moment of time; but in the counsels of eternity. When, therefore, the testimonies set forth God’s faithful engagements with his people of old, the recollection that they are “founded for ever” gives us a present and unchangeable interest in them. And when we see that they are grounded upon the oath and promise of God — the two “immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie” — we may truly “have strong consolation” in venturing every hope for eternity upon this rock; nor need we be dismayed to see all our earthly dependencies — “the world, and the lust, and the fashion of it — passing away” before us. – -Charles Bridges. See:


Numbers 5:11-31 (Test for Unfaithful Wife)

Numbers 5 is far too often used by pro-choice advocates in their efforts to prove the Bible supports abortion. The atheist/pro-abortion advocate will cite Numbers 5 in the NIV which incorrectly translates the Hebrew.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NIV)

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NASB)

21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [r]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [s]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [t]children.

Note: In the Hebrew, this test does NOT involve a child, a pregnant woman, but is simply a test of faithfulness/unfaithfulness. If the Woman is guilty, her uterus will be made sterile. If the Woman is not guilty of adultery, she will be able to bear children…there is no mention of a miscarriage or abortion in the Hebrew…it’s simply the difference between sterility and fertility, but no child is mentioned in the text other than in v. 28 stating that the innocent Wife would be able to bear children.

v. 21 in Hebrew:

v. 22 in Hebrew:

v. 27 in Hebrew:

Note: The NIV is the ONLY version that uses “miscarriage” in v. 21 and 22, see:

The Hebrew for miscarriage is Strongs #5309 (miscarriage or abortion) but v. 21-22 and 27 use Strongs #5307 (to fall, lie).  There is no mention of “miscarry” or a child in the Hebrew relevant to Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

“Got Questions” agrees that Numbers 5 is not discussing an abortion and notes that the NIV mistakenly translates “miscarriage.” See: