Ford Schwartz’s powerful example of Biblical marriage

It was December 1984 and I was pregnant with my second child. The dealership where my husband worked at the time had a Christmas party for the sales people. After the salesmen’s dinner, before the men got their Christmas bonuses, the management provided “entertainment”. It involved strippers.

My husband was faced with a dilemma. He knew he didn’t want to have anything to do with this, but was concerned that if he left, he might forfeit his bonus which totalled almost $2,000—money that we could immediately put to good use. Because he was a student of God’s law, who had been practicing its application, he knew that he could not stay. So, he got up and left as soon as he realised what was about to take place…

He found the nearest pay phone (that was before the cell phone revolution) and called me up quite frazzled. he was talking so fast that all I could gather was that he was sorry that he gave up the $2,000 bonus but he couldn’t in good conscience stay. When I finally heard the story, tears came to my eyes. I told him that I was grateful God had given me a husband who valued his Savior and his marriage enough to do the right thing…

After he got off the phone, there were two other salesmen waiting to talk with him. Each explained that they were uncomfortable with what was happening and knew it was wrong but didn’t want to anger their boss and decided to stay put and not leave. However, when they saw my husband exit, it gave them the strength to do the right thing…

As it turned out, the next day at work his bonus was waiting for him.

Quote Source

Schwartz, A. (2013). “Learn It; Live It; Teach It” in Faith for All of Life, November/December 2013, p. 19

Placing Christian pennants above national flags

Daniel Herrick has commented on this section:  “In other words, it has been the custom of naval chaplains to put a church pennant above the national flag. . . . Aside from that quaint custom of chaplains at sea (not in port) . . . the flag of the United States shall always have the place of superior prominence and honor.”[6. Herrick, "Flying the Flag," The Christian Statesman, Jan.-Feb. 2002, Vol. 145, No. 1]

I know some will say, yes, well, at least the chaplains are granted the discretion to fly a Christian symbol above the flag…sometimes.  But that’s just the point – the state has no right to “grant” nor withhold anything in this matter.  What the government has is a responsibility to submit itself to the dominion of Christ, and not just sometimes, but at all times.  The assumption that the government has the right of discretion in this matter proves that even on the rare occasion and circumstance of hoisting a Christian pennant above that of the state, they do not acknowledge the supremacy of Christ.  If the government claims any discretion over Christ and His Kingdom, it sets itself up as a judge over Him, and denies the power of any Christian symbol, no matter its placement.

Quote source

Herrick,  D. cited in Would, E. (2013). This Pledge I Repent: Why Christians Should Have Nothing to Do with the Pledge of Allegiance. Faith & Heritage. Last accessed 23rd August 2014.


Freeing the Bible from its alleged pagan ripoffs

The so-called parallels [between Jesus's virgin birth and earlier pagan myths] are not parallels at all! Perseus was not really virginally conceived at all, but was the result of sexual intercourse between the lecherous god Zeus and Danaë. Zeus had previously turned himself into a shower of gold to reach the imprisoned damsel. Zeus also fathered Herakles from Alkmene and Dionysus from Semele. Similarly for attempt to assert that the Resurrection of Christ was plagiarised—the death-rebirth-death cycles in paganism have nothing to do with the once and for all resurrection of Jesus, and the pagan gods didn’t die for our sins. And the Osiris legends have him remaining buried in the ground, while it’s a historical fact that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. Other alleged parallels are just as worthless, so it is pointless for sceptical scholars to multiply examples—zero times a hundred is still zero.

Quote source

Sarfati, J. (1994). ‘The Virginal Conception of Christ’ in Apologia 3(2):4–11, 1994.

Doug Phillips’ smackdown of Michael Gungor’s compromising theology

Michael Gungor asserted that:

And you can still love God and love people and read those early Genesis stories as myth with some important things to teach us. Not all of you will be ready to do that, and that’s perfectly ok. But know that if you create these dichotomies where we force people to either fall into the camp of scientifically blind biblical literalism or a camp where they totally write off the Bible as a complete lie, you’re going to rob a lot of people of some of the richness that the Bible offers.

Witness Doug Phillips’ 21-point smackdown—a theological tour de force:

Consider the implications of our understanding of Genesis on just one doctrine—the atonement of Jesus Christ. The entire hope of the Christian rests on the existence of a:

  1. literal Jesus Christ, described by Scripture as the Second Adam, who

  2. literally offered up His body as a sacrifice for sinners loved by God, and who paid the price for their sins on a

  3. literal cross—a Jesus Christ who

  4. literally was the Son of God. It was this God-man who

  5. literally died and was

  6. literally resurrected on the

  7. literal third, 24-hour day after His crucifixion. This was necessary because the

  8. literal first man, named Adam, who was created on the

  9. literal sixth 24-hour day of creation with all of creation in a state of

  10. literal deathless perfection, and was

  11. literally declared by God to be

  12. literally perfect. Adam lived in a

  13. literal garden called Eden, broke a

  14. literal commandment which was

  15. literally spoken to him by God Almighty, a commandment which instructed him not to eat of a

  16. literal tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus causing

  17. literal death to fall on all men and animal life. Now all of creation is

  18. literally dying, the subject of entropic forces of decay, and creation is waiting for the final redemption in which the earth will

  19. literally be restored to its original glory—the same

  20. literal sinless/deathless perfection of the

  21. literal first creation as described in Genesis 1.

Quote sources

  1. Gungor, M., cited in Blair, L. (2014). Baptist Church Cancels Gungor Event Over Views on Bible; Band Insists ‘No Reasonable Person Takes the Entire Bible Literally’. Christian Post. Available Last accessed 23rd Aug 2014.
  2. Phillips, D.W. (1998). An Urgent Appeal to Pastors. Institute for Creation Research. Available Last accessed 23rd Aug 2014.

Jennie Chancey’s exegesis defeating Andrew Sandlin’s

What truly amazes me is that Rev. Sandlin can state so confidently that the Bible does not call a woman leaving her God-given, home-based occupation for work outside the home “sin.” While he quotes the first portion of the famous Titus 2 passage, he neglects to carry it through to the final kicker: “that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2:5b).

I don’t know about anyone else, but my dictionary still defines blasphemy as showing “contempt or disrespect for (God, a divine being, or sacred things), esp. in speech” and uttering “profanities, curses, or impious expressions.” The Greek word used here is blasphemeo, which is used elsewhere to refer to reviling the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting to note that St. Paul uses the word in 1 Cor. 4:13 to refer to the way the world reviles Christians, calling them “the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things.”

Are Christians to blaspheme or to encourage others to blaspheme God’s Word? St. Paul writes in Col. 3:8, “But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.”

I think we can feel fairly confident, then, that blasphemy is sin, whether it is spoken verbally or lived before a watching world.

Quote source

Chancey, J. cited in thatmom (2007). Questions for Stacy on Being a Keeper at Home and the Roles of Women. Available Last accessed 16th Aug 2014.


Too much faith in fossils, not enough in the Bible

According to David-Constantine Wright:

Using the natural processes of evolution doesn’t make God any less God….

To force the belief in literal six-day creationism as one of the criteria of Orthodoxy one still has to deal with all that pesky fossil evidence … the record of millions of years in sedimentary rock…

According to Gordon Howard, Wright has put too much faith in the ‘pesky’ fossil evidence (and the epistemology of evolutionists):

Evolutionary paleontologists use ‘index fossils’ to assign an age to a layer of sedimentary rock and its associated fossils.

When they are interpreting the fossils, evolutionary geologists assume that animals evolved over millions of years, and that fossils buried together, (that is, in the same layer of rock) lived together at the same time. They assume that layers in different parts of the world containing the same fossils are the same age. This is the whole idea behind using index fossils to relate rocks around the world. But suppose there was a world-wide flood. Then the vast majority of fossils would all have been buried during that Flood year. Different layers would contain fossils transported from different ecosystems rather than different evolutionary time periods, completely destroying the idea that index fossils represent different evolutionary ‘ages’. With the global Flood we would expect particular fossils to sometimes be present and sometimes absent from layers of the same ‘age’ in different parts of the world, as well as ‘index fossils’ to be found in rocks of supposedly ‘wrong’ age.

Quote sources

  1. Wright, D. (n.d.). The Wonder of God’s Working in Creation: Orthodox Catholic Theistic Evolution. Orthodox Thoughtful and Progressive. Available Last accessed 16th Aug 2014
  2. Howard, G. (2012). Index Fossils—Really? Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 16th Aug 2014.

Creation can trump evolution in the classroom

So, while evolutionists puzzle over ‘origins questions’, they muzzle creationists. This is not surprising, because the humanist-award–winning anti-creationist leader Eugenie Scott admitted:

“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.” (cited in Where Darwin Meets the Bible—by anti-creationist Larry Witham, Oxford University Press, 2002).

Translation: ‘We must not teach students about the problems with evolution and must stifle dissent, otherwise they might end up not believing in it!’

But evolutionists can’t stifle the truth completely. They can’t stop Christians from disseminating creation resources hand-to-hand, by post and by email, and especially from directing people to websites such as this one. They might try to muzzle the messenger, but they can’t stop the message. So, take heart … and pass it on!

Quote source

Catchpoole, D. and Sarfati, J. (2006). ‘Origins Questions’—Evolutionists Puzzled, Creationists Muzzled. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 16th Aug 2014.