It seems that lately, I only post on Friday’s after the open thread (sorry Chris L). This stat was passed onto me yesterday via Facebook and I thought I’d pass it on to you here. I found it to be profound.
WARNING! This may involve picking your jaw up off the ground after reading. Proceed with caution… Rev. Clenard Childress, Northeast Region President of the Life Education & Resource Network… “The abortion industry kills as many Black people every four days as the Klan killed in 150 years. Since 1973, legal abortion has killed more Blacks than AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease & violent crime combined.”
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 18th, 2009 at 10:35 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
134 Comments(+Add)
Joe – oddly, this is also something that was picked up by Steven Levitt in Freakonomics, where he talked about some pretty solid research which shows that the primary driver behind the drop in violent crime in the mid-1990’s was a direct result of Roe v. Wade, because children from the highest crime demographics (children of poor, unwed mothers who don’t want children and come from urban – predominantly minority – families) are disproportionately aborted.
Folks from the right hated this research, because it seemed to justify Roe v. Wade (though he has some caveats which would blunt this criticism). Folks from the left hated it because of its decidedly non-PC implications.
But yes, that statistic is factual, tragic, and quite ironic…
Chris, interestingly enough that book is on my wishlist if you are looking for a Christmas gift to get me.
The answer is to change hearts not legislation. I guess I could start with mine…
Why Rick? Were you thinking of having an abortion? It’s a really happy thing that the world didn’t wait to change the hearts of the German people so they would all stop allowing the murder of Jews, minorities and gays. When genocide is put into law, you change the law and then you worry about hearts so that you save lives in the mean time. You don’t try to change the heart of a child rapist first, you stop the rapist and worry about his regeneration after the child is safe. Duh.
Well said, Cash!
Finally someone I can relate to here.
A warning though: Common sense does not always go over big these days.
I would like you to explain why you would “stop” a murderer of your grandmother through violence, and yet you only use words against the murderer who is a doctor? You reference the violence of WW II, so why isn’t violence appropriate against those who murderer at a two million a year rate?
My point is that there seems to be a distinct hypocrisy between those who support war to defend but do not support violence against abortion doctors.
“You don’t try to change the heart of an
child rapistabortionist first, you stop therapistabortionist and worry about his regeneration after the child is safe. Duh.”Duh?
If child rape was legal, would you speak out and picket? Or would your approach be more proactive? Is child rape a lesser crime than murder?
Actually, Rick, the murdered in the case you’ve listed is the mother, who has contracted out the murder of her child. So, it creates a catch-22, because using lethal force to stop the mother from killing her child ends up defeating the purpose.
I agree, it is a conspiracy. However if a woman held a knife to her child’s throat and only lethal force would save the 2 year old, I am sure the police would have to kill the mother.
My point to all the moralists who take on certain issues, abortion being one of the most comfortable since it may be the most dispicable, is that they are duplicitous in their view of defensive violence.
since we’re getting all technical…wouldn’t the mom be an accessory to murder since the one performing the act would be the doctor?
just wondering…
I think so, nathan. And it would be premeditated murder, no less
#10 – And if you knew it was happening, and if you could stop it and did not, would that make you complicit? (As in holding Paul’s cloak)
Example – If the little girl down the street was being raped right in front of you, would it suffice to carry a sign and write an article condemning it?
@ 10:
or would it be sufficient to only get your blood pressure up and demonize a pro-rape political candidate once every four years?
just wondering…
No, because the protection of the child is entrusted to her until he/she becomes of age, and she is the one paying to have it killed. David was the one condemned for the unrighteous death of Uriah, not Joab, even though he was the one to carry out David’s order.
Therefore, the doctor would be the accessory, but the woman is the one whose blood is on her head under Jewish law.
Someone needs to remind Chris L that we are not under Jewish law.
Someone ought to remind Chad that the basis of Christian views of law regarding murder and the like are based on first-century Jewish law, which Jesus affirmed… I guess they don’t teach that in “Christian” seminaries with Muslims on the boards…
LOL, PB!
merry Christmas, guys!!!!
Christmas?
festivus?
winter solstice?
it’s amazing how fast discussions devolve into competing hypothetical situations.
the bottom line is, killing the most defenseless among us should be illegal.
#2 – I agree. Like indiscriminate bombing of towns and villages so we “might” get a bad guy. Or invading a country because they “might” attack its neighbors and having at least 100,000 die in the process and go “somewhere” into eternity.
Remember, I speak as a Christian and not an American. How in God’s dear name can we support any killing and still lyp sync belief in those teachings?
And Neil, to my obvious point, if you do believe in violence and killing to defend others, you MUST believe in killing abortion doctors. You cannot have it both ways. And of course my overall point is that the answer to everything is to make disciples first and the pro-lifers, not attemp to force feed the pro-life position on dead men.
“killing the most defenseless among us should be illegal”
And if it remains illegal some believers will find great solace in castigating lost pro-choicers, printing horrible pictures, and protesting against the sin of sinners. And some of these same believers will salute the flag which represents the country that is murdering these babies by the millions. It is very difficult to unpack all the inconsistencies in that incredible paradox.
“if it remains legal“
Thank you for the made up statistics and hyperbole Rick. I especially enjoyed the use of indiscriminate.
#23
Maybe we should just take away all of the laws. Make it OK for me to come into your house and kill you and take your things. That would probably be OK. Maybe someone could come in and rape your wife. God forbid anyone speak out against that, I mean we wouldn’t want people to call sin sin AND try to have laws against it.
Heck, we should cut all of the people behind bars loose. Maybe give them a Bible and a few CD’s of your sermons.
Please note I am not actually advocating the rape, or murder of anyone.
I am pro life, therefore I believe the murdering of anyone goes against the law of God.
That is why we preach in front of abortion clinics, and offer hope, counseling, and adoption to those mothers considering it.
And that is why I oppose radical clinic bombers and people who murder doctors. They play God. I would rather that God changes their heart, and that they would be saved.
so, the ’surgical’ targeting of people with only 1 piece of “collateral damage” (i.e. human being) is so much better?
1 or 10,000 is horrifying…
i can see the pragmatic need to go after bad guys…
i just wish some of you people here would at least pepper your speech with how such a “need” is NOT a good thing, but a proof of how broken the world is.
i just wish some of you would express agony and regret over the life of collateral damage…because it all comes off as “oh, well. that’s “the cost” of getting the bad guys.”
instead of “Lord Jesus, have mercy. We are trapped in a broken situation that means there will be more suffering added to suffering and we cannot escape it.”…
that’s what i wish i’d hear more from people…instead of pragmatic resignation.
lives lost are horrible. killing of all kinds is horrible. the “necessity” does not make it “ok”…it just evidences the depths of the tragedy that is a sinful world.
merry christmas!
True.
And when people argue that way, so be it.
The loss of one human being because we’ve raised his or her mother on the mistaken belief that her choice comes after she’s made a choice to have sex is also tragic.
all i am say’n is it should be illegal to kill you baby.
“all i am say’n is it should be illegal to kill you baby.”
Why? Why would you believe that unsaved people would see a living soul at conception? If I was not a Christian, I would be pro-choice. And so many times we are attempting to shine light into the eyes of the blind.
The pro-choice people do not need to be converted to the pro-life position, they need to be converted to Jesus.
A false dilemma.
A is not B.
Whether or not they follow Jesus, the life of a child should be spared.
Whether or not the life of the child is spared, they need to follow Jesus.
#30
no argument from me.
merry christmas!
Chris L said
Whether or not they follow Jesus, the life of a child should be spared. Should that not be UNBORN CHILD
Question. Why should the life of the unborn child be spared does the soul of the unborn go to heaven or hell. if you believe it to be hell then you may have a case, if the unborn go to heaven then to die before being born can only be a good thing.
Another point
Where the state does not impose abortion on its citizens but permits them by law to decide for themselves based on certain criteria “some countries have stricter legislation than others” are not the men or women who protests against such legislation based on religious “Christian” beliefs not guilty of rebeling against the authorities that God himself has instituted. Is that not simply Christians breaking Gods law in order to prevent non Christians breaking Gods law as they see it. Seems to me that Jesus new what He was doing when he told His followers to go out into the world and preach the gospel.
The early believers should have protested Rome since they allowed massive murder of already born people as they crushed nations and occupied by force.
Hannah, if eternity was the only and primary concern, then you might consider that a “good thing” (though, taken to its logical conclusion, this mindset would suggest that we ought to kill all children en utero). However, the Scriptures are silent on the topic of the destination of an untested soul. Personally, I believe that the age of accountability is a factor in the eternal destiny. Even so, the determination of the time and circumstances of death is to be left to God, and while one’s works may not fit into the eternal destination, one might make a case that one’s works in life might have some benefit of “stored up treasures” in heaven. The truth is, we don’t know exactly how it works.
Rebelling against authority requires taking actions against it and its laws. In a country like the US, where peaceful protest and individual lobbying of officials is legal, one would not be guilty of rebelling against authority, since the authorities allow this type of speech specifically for such purposes. In a country like China, where one may be compelled by the state to abort their own children, it would not be sinful to rebel against that authority to personally disobey an order to commit murder.
Certainly we should go out and preach the gospel, but that does not preclude also seeking, within the bounds of the law, to correct injustices or to prevent a state-permitted murder from occurring.
Actually, we have record of Christians (legally) protesting the ruling council of Ephesus for their practice of allowing children (25,000 or 250,000 per year, depending on whose translation you accept) to die of exposure outside the eastern gates of the city. We also have records of early Christians – disciples of the Apostles – trying to address such grievances. Many were unsuccessful primarily because they refused to declare that Caesar was god. Trying to compare the Christians in Rome as parallel to those in 20th century America is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
So, in short, they did protest Rome, via the means legally available (which were fewer than those available today, and also fraught with personal danger if you did not succeed in your request for redress). Today, we happen to be blessed/cursed with a system that has a much wider latitude, and much more peaceful process, to right injustices created by the government/society.
Do you hope this is the case in the sense of “desire” or in the sense of an “expectation”?
Isn’t it interesting how everything BUT Jesus Christ is a factor in one’s eternal destiny?
Merry Christmas!!!
I would say that it is a desire, but not an expectation. We don’t know exactly how a ’soul’ works, in actuality. Perhaps, since the word for it comes from “breath”, one does not even have a soul until one breathes. However, since the age of accountability factors into a number of the Hebrew Scripture teachings, and since it seems like the characterizations of children in the womb indicate they have souls, my personal belief is that they are not yet guilty of sin, so – like Methuseleh and Elijah – they are not condemned by their own sins and do not require Jesus’ sacrifice to pay for their sins.
The Catholics take a different position on original sin, which is why they are even more forcefully against abortion, because it is their belief that the souls of aborted children are damned. I would disagree with such an assessment, though, based on Scripture alone, with cultural analysis as supporting data…
I’m not sure what you mean…
#43
I think I do Chris L- it is another shot- but…oh well
To try and answer your question, Chad, it is a hope that I have based upon the character and nature of God. You claim it would be cruel of God to send a ‘good’ person to hell for eternity just because he or she never heard the name Jesus. But that is not why a person goes to Hell (and eventually the lake of fire for eternity, Rev 21:8). A person goes to Hell because they are transgressors of God’s law WITH KNOWLEDGE because God has written his law on their hearts, and knowledge of Him on their hearts (Romans 1:18-3:23) therefore when they sin with knowledge, they are storing up wrath (See Romans 2)
Based soley upon hope and the whole of scripture, I do not believe an unborn or even infant child has the ability to sin with knowledge (I think even mentally handicapped people have an issue here) of rebellion against God. I think there comes a time (somewhere after that first ‘NO’) that a child becomes aware that it is wrong. I do not know where that line is, and I would not want any to cross it. But that is the hope I have in a grace filled God that would not let anybody go into eternity in the lake of fire without knowledge that they had transgressed.
PB,
That makes no sense whatsoever.
There are millions beyond the “age of accountability” who die as ignorant of the name Jesus as the infants you have in heaven based on what you know of the character of God.
Basically, both you and Chris L believe infants will be in heaven for the same reasons I believe everyone eventually will – God’s love.
**There isn’t any Scripture to support infants go to heaven. If anything, there is good Scriptural reason to believe babies go to hell – We are ALL born sinners. In fact, we were conceived in sin within our mother’s womb. So to put babies in heaven is to insist on something that Scripture does not really support but can be believed based on what we know of God through Jesus Christ.
IOW, you are sounding a lot like me
not what I said…
They may be ignorant of the name of Jesus, but they are not ignorant of their sin or of God. When they sin they do so with knowledge.
The difference? babies, born and unborn do not yet have that knowledge. They do not yet have a fully formed conscience, or a fully formed knowledge of God.
When do we get that? I do not know.
But I do know that your person (adult) in the furthest reaches of the globe has the evidence of creation and a conscience that tells him (or her) what they do is wrong and offends a holy and powerful God that they can know through creation.
Sorry, PB, that still doesn’t make any sense and is profoundly unbiblical.
According to Scripture we are formed within our mother’s womb and we are sinners at conception. So no matter what a person DOES or DOES NOT do, they are sinners. Being a sinner has nothing to do with particular actions but with their nature (it can lead to sinful actions but that is not what separates us from God).
Basically what you are saying is that it can be possible for a good person to go to heaven who never hears the name of Jesus. This is possible, according to you, since the law of God is written on EVERY person’s heart. So regardless of whether someone hears the name Jesus in their short life, it is conceivable that someone is obeying that law and being “good.”
You have painted yourself in a corner.
Some of the most noble and “good” people I know are non-Christians who are living their lives based on what you just said. So according to you, they are going to heaven because they are “good.”
I find it fascinating that you think (and confess) that a person can know God is “holy” and “powerful” just by observing creation. You are sounding like a pantheist
Well, Chad, scripture is pretty clear.
Romans 1:18-32
And God’s standard of good is moral excellence. If a person tries to earn God’s mercy by keeping the law, he must keep the whole law. If he fails in one point, he is no longer good, but a transgressor of the law.
So your opinion of good is irrelevant. It is God’s opinion that matters, and he is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY.
That is why we need the righteousness of Christ.
Well, PB, I don’t think Romans 1 is saying what you think it is saying. But that doesn’t matter at this point.
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
God’s law is written on EVERY person’s heart but that law does not implicate a person until they reach some mysterious age of accountability. Once they reach that age they are declared guilty (as opposed to being guilty in the womb) and are damned to hell for all eternity unless they hear and believe in the name Jesus. So, for billions, God has written his law on their hearts yet has denied them the capacity to fulfill it or the knowledge of who they need to trust to be made righteous. THerefore, it is a sad, sad day for the majority of the world when they reach your mysterious age of accountability.
Is that right?
PB- Does a person who has never seen a Bible or ever met a Jew or Christian know to keep the Sabbath day holy just from observing creation?
Also, should a person still strive to be “good” (from God’s perspective) after they come to know Christ?
It is Scripturally disingenuous to suggest the Scriptures even directly address theplight of infants who die, much less create a valid teaching. One must piece together hints and perhaps’s to arrive at anything.
Their plight is in God’s hands, however let me offer this conundrum. If God takes all infants to heaven before they reach some arbitrary “age of accountability”, then we can assume He might do the same with all unreached adults as well.
I don’t call that a conundrum, Rick. I call it Good News!
The difference, Rick and Chad, is that it is not about hearing the Gospel message as much as the fact that we sin against God with knowledge (conscience).
We do not know, we hope, that God would be graceful to those infants. It is not found in the scriptures, to be sure. But when does the conscience develop to the point that you can, with knowledge, sin against God? I cannot answer that.
The difference, Rick, is that adults are accountable. The law is written on their hearts. They know that God exists and that He is powerful because of creation. They should look to Him for salvation, because they know, by their conscience, that they have transgressed His law.
It is sort of like coaching Notre Dame. There comes a point, The Faust Line, that coaches know what is expected and that they will be fired if they do not meet expectations. They do not even need to be told by the administration.
Well, if you believe in original sin, then infants are born sinners and are enemies of God, not because they are “accountable”, but because they are sinners. Again, if the sin of infants can be redeemed without personal faith in Jesus Christ, that presents other implications.
“We do not know, we hope, that God would be graceful to those infants.
Chad theology 101.
Happy Festivus Rick!
i am not an advocate of the age of accountability – so i can only conjecture – i agree with rick and chad regarding sin as a nature, versus sins as actions.
i think the difference age of accountability advocates might suggest is knowledge or recognition of that sin. at that point it becomes an issue.
it sounds lose/lose to me.
if you believe the unborn and infants get an automatic pass – then why fight abortion? why let anyone reach an age of accountability?
if you believe knowledge of the gospel is the key, then do not tell anyone about christ – ignorance is bliss – and what they do not know they cannot reject.
it’s these thoughts that make chad’s christian universalism so philosophically and emotionally and rationally appealing.
PB-
Does a person know the Sabbath is holy and how to observe it and what its benefits are simply from observing nature?
Yes or no?
chad,
you could probably say that off most of the finer details of the mosaic law. why pick that one?
Neil,
Perhaps. Depends on what you think the Gospel is.
If you think the Gospel is a propositional truth put before supposed rational, individual beings of which its acceptance or rejection is the determining factor in where they spend all of eternity than you have a point.
But, if you think the Gospel is the pronouncement of the good news that God in Jesus Christ has defeated sin and death, than that problem is not really a problem.
Because it may be one thing to say we have “knowledge” that murder is wrong, even without a Bible to tell us so, but it is another thing to say we have knowledge of the Sabbath. PB is maintaining that the whole law of God is written on the hearts of every person. I’m curious just how much he really believes that.
To elaborate – the reason I don’t see it as a problem is because I don’t view individuals as potential converts from hell to heaven but as people God already loves and desires to have life. IOW, I share the good news of Jesus Christ with them not to snatch them out of an eternity in hell but because I am commanded by my Lord to love my neighbor. Evangelism is an invitation to switch stories – to enter into the reality that is true – that God loves the world and is in the process of rescuing it all.
This gives life meaning – and hope.
Something we could all use on Christmas
ok – i missed the “whole” of god’s law reference.
as for the gospel, it not only depends on what the gospel is, but how it is applied. obviously, theologians have recapitulated the problem.
chad,
re 62 – as i said – it’s these thoughts that make chad’s christian universalism so philosophically and emotionally and rationally appealing. (but, as you know, i cannot accept it biblically)
i could say this as well, with the addition of one word. in fact, much of what was lacking in 20th century american evangelicalism was the fact that people’s only goal was to snatch them out of an eternity in hell. not that that is a bad thing.
Here is a conundrum:
If you believe all babies go to heaven, why interfere by preventing abortion?
If you believe all babies go to heaven, but you do not believe in universalism, what good is it if you prevent an abortion only to see that baby grow up and reject Christ?
If you are a Calvinist, you cannot actually believe all babies are elect.
“Something we could all use on Christmas”
More than at other times? See how the observance of days skews things.
philosophically and rationally, yes. Emotionally, not so much.
Last night my mother-in-law shared with us the news of a guy in town who was picked up for abusing his 2 year old son. He and his girlfriend would get the 2 yr old drunk and then push needles into his flesh up alongside his bones so they were not seen. This went on for months until the boy got a cold and had xrays on his chest and they found a ton of rusted needles all throughout his body. The father did this to get back at his wife for divorcing him.
My mother-in-law and a few others in the room agreed that there was a special place in hell for people like that.
I suppose that is emotionally satisfying.
But I found myself praying: Even him, God? Seriously? You have a plan to redeem and release even a piece of shit like that? And you want me to love someone like that? You have to be joking!
The answer I felt I heard was: Yes, Chad. I died for him every bit as much as you.
That is not all that emotionally satisfying.
No conundrum.
If you believe that the kingdom of God exists both here and on into eternity, you don’t make decisions simply based on what you believe about one’s eternal destiny. The ends do not justify the means. The principle of preservation of life trumps whatever you might think about one’s future destiny.
One can observe a number of cycles in nature to observe that periods of rest and/or dormancy exist and have some benefit. Interestingly, I’ve heard both Rob Bell and John MacArthur give sermons which talked about the natural rhythms (citing several natural 6:1 cycles). Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath…
Chris L-
Recognizing that a period of rest is a good idea is not the same thing as observing Sabbath and keeping it “holy.”
PB contends the law of God is written on every heart and that this knowledge justifies their condemnation – i.e – they know what they ought to do but don’t, therefore God is just to punish them to an eternity in hell.
However, this is not true. Paul contends that the pre-Christian state of mind is “dead” and that the natural man cannot know the things of God (this is why I disagree with PB’s interpretation and use of Romans 1). Furthermore, if we are rational and knowledgable in a pre-Christian state, than we should expect Jesus to pray from the cross: Damn them, Father, for they know what they should do but do not.
But this is not the prayer. Rather, it is : Forgive them, Father, for they know NOT what they do!
IOW, they are ignorant!
As we all are pre-Christ.
Not necessarily so. That is one particular systematic interpretation. From the OT, we have accounts of Elijah and Enoch (further expanded in the book of Enoch, which is canon in the EO and Catholic traditions) who were able to go into the next life without dying, as a result of living without sin.
The “age of accountability”, which is based upon the ages of those judged as unfaithful from the Israelites wandering in the desert, and was consistently believed and taught across the Hebrew spectrum in 1st century Israel, has to do with the age at which one becomes accountable/liable for one’s actions – specifically sins. You can twist this in your own demented logic as much as you want, but to this point you’ve not made a lick of sense.
Not at all, but nice try.
I believe that sins will not be held against the unborn, because they have not committed any. That has no resemblance, whatsoever to the fairy tales and unicorns of “Universal Reconciliation”
But Chad that assumes that they don’t know Jesus or that they don’t know right from wrong.
Genesis kinda gives a context for “Knowledge of good and evil”. That being said, Christ prayed that because He loved them even though they were killing Him. It’s a little different than what you were saying.
By your reasoning, we should just leave unbelievers in their pre-Jesus bliss (safety) or at least keep Jesus a secret until we are sure that when we tell them about Jesus, they will accept what he did for them.
Neither one of those options really jive with scripture.
I’d also note that the commands about keeping Sabbath are Mosaic law – only applying to the Jews – not Noaic Law, which does not include the festivals, Sabbath or ceremonial law.
Noaic law, which is the law for all men, includes prohibition against murder, blasphemy, sexual impurity, theft, injustice and cruelty. This is why the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 didn’t require Gentiles to become Jews in order to be Christians.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Apparently you are incapable of conversing without being insulting.
I reject the whole underlying assumption that the question of whether aborted babies go to heaven or not is based on. Ultimately, I trust God with those sorts of things, but to me I don’t like how the question is framed around the idea that the whole goal of life on earth is simply to “go to heaven”. I reject that.
I think the goal of our life on earth is see God’s will done here as it is in heaven. In other words, our ambition should be to take part in whatever God is already doing. And I believe that ultimately, it isn’t ever God’s will that one human being take the life of another one.
I would also say that the thinking that says that ending the life or not intervening to save the life of someone just because they will go to heaven takes you down some weird roads. Certainly if you saw a car bearing down on a family member you knew was a Christian you would try to get them out of the way of the car. Protecting human life is an impulse that is in us because of God.
Phil, I agree.
Mike, I think I address that up above. Basically, there is no problem there because I don’t believe someone is going to hell if they hear of Jesus and reject the message.
I pronounce the good news not to get them out of hell but to show them life.
My mistake, I will scroll up
Mike, no problem. I’m chasing kids right now otherwise I’d find it and repost.
…..maybe later.
Okay, I see your statements Chad, but I think that they don’t make sense in the overall context of the Bible.
I think that you are saying that only a few people really reject Christ (and I am remembering that from a post a few weeks ago). Most people even though they don’t accept Christ’s payment for their sins as being something that is real and true, that they are still going to be taken to heaven when they die?
Now I may be interpreting that completely wrong.
Oh and be careful chasing kids, they are fast…
Mike,
To cut to the chase, Chad’s position (and he’ll correct me if I’m wrong) is that eventually hell will be empty, because one can accept Christ after they die, and Jesus will continue working on them until they accept him, after death. This is based on the reasoning that 1) God desires that all will be saved; and 2) God always gets what He desires, in the end.
Mike,
Basically what I am saying is that Christ’s life, death and resurrection have done something of cosmic value that is not conditional on your aknowledgment. He has delivered a death blow to sin and death and will ultimately destroy them in the end.
Christians are those “called out” to proclaim this good news to the world.
So, salvation is not about getting moved from the “hell” category to the “heaven” category. That assumes salvation is man-centered. Rather, salvation is about what God has done and is doing and will one day do for all of creation.
Read Jesus’ first sermon (Luke 4), for instance. This is completely proactive and there is nothing conditional about what he sees his ministry as. This will be done, Jesus says. He does not say, “I have come to release those who are willing” nor does he say he will go and find the sheep that are willing to come with him. Rather, he picks up the lost sheep and returns them to the fold.
I think it significant that not a single preacher in the Bible exhorts anyone to believe in Jesus Christ OR ELSE they will spend eternity in hell. IF that were the sole purpose of the gospel (of even A purpose) one would expect to find at least one preacher proclaiming it. Today we have no shortage or Christians who make salvation about heaven vs. hell and reduce it to nothing more than your individual choice to accept or reject the choice before them (which assumes we are rational beings before we come to Christ!)
That was perhaps more than you asked for but the kids are quiet for the moment so I just rambled
#83-
Chris L, you forgot to add that in my own demented, morally bankrupt, moronic way, I believe all roads lead to heaven and that on each road is a pixie-dust-tossing unicorn leading the way across the river and through the woods to a great big Gingerbread House in the sky.
I don’t see how you can say that, Chad. Heck, Jesus couldn’t even heal people in Nazareth like He wanted to because of their unbelief. It certainly doesn’t seem like what went on there was “unconditional”.
That will be my only comment on this thread related to universalism, but I simply have a hard time understanding your view.
And there are millions of people on earth who will refuse to believe and forego the healing that comes with knowing God is “with us” (as opposed to against us).
But this does not necessitate an eternity in hell only a temporal lack of hope.
Let’s keep in mind that Jesus’ harshest words were to the people who should have known better. His words of damnation were not directed towards the “sinners.” In fact, he said they would enter heaven before the so-called righteous Jews. And note that Jesus does not qualifty this with, “They will enter before you provided they first hear about me and believe in me.”
No. Whores, tax collectors and sinners will enter the kingdom even before many of us “church” people.
No, that was exactly what I was looking for.
I see where you are interpreting Luke 4, but I think that you are looking at nuances that we would disagree on. But agree to disagree.
Many preachers in the Bible do exhort people to believe and be saved. My interpretation of saved includes the whole going to heaven thing, but it is only a part of the bigger Christian package.
Now I do agree with the choice thing. I think choice is a something that God gives us. I think the choice between rejection and acceptance of Christ’s gift is an under-current to the entire Bible.
However, that being said, I agree 100% that too much is focused on getting people to accept or reject (which is very important) and not enough emphasis is put on “having life more abundantly” (which might be even more important).
Thanks for taking the time Chad, have a blessed Christmas all y’all.
Agreed.
Merry Christmas to you and yours as well!
It must be providential that both PB and Chris L have leaned on Romans 1 and natural theology as part of their argument. I am reading my way through Douglas Campbell’s The Deliverance of God, which is in part a refutation of classic Justification Theory. No more than 2 minutes ago I read this….
Romans 1:19-20, a key text for the launch of Justification theory in Paul, supplies the most explicit attestation in him – and argubably in all of Scripture – to natural theology, or general revelation. The text states that the essential facts about God – his eternity, power, divinity, transcendence, and singularity – are plainly evident in creation. The generic individual necessarily knows God in this sense, at any time or any place. But Barthians object to any such claim on two main grounds. First, it offers hostages to political fortune, and second, it is a grievous error in terms of theological epistemology – it is fundamentally foundationalist. To these problems we can add the third contention that the claim creates the very situation it seeks to avoid, namely, the a priori rejection of God, or atheism. These are serious difficulties.
We should recall, first, that Barth’s celebrated protest against natural theololy – directed specifically at Brunner – was oriented more broadly against the rise of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930’s. One of Barth’s main points within this debate was that a strong commitment to natural theology has potentially sinister political consequences, allowing the emergence of an unchecked nationalism – indeed, even underwriting that emergence theologically…. (203)
Chris
The Primary concern of the Christian is the proclamation of Gods Truth contained in the Gospel the unborn child has no concept of this therefore our natural concern would be the Childs eternal condition.
You said” the Scriptures are silent on the topic of the destination of an untested soul.” Are the scriptures clear on the destination of the tested soul and if so where do the test passers go? You also believe in the age of accountability, is not “in utero” logically below the age of accountability. Also with reference to your comments on treasure in heaven and how much we know concerning Jesus’ statement. It would appear that if we read Matthew 6:19-34 in a simple and straightforward fashion then we would understand exactly what Jesus meant by “treasures in heaven” and exactly how it works “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness”
The point I was really trying to get across is this that by behaving as Believing Christians we are salt and light exposing the dark deeds of the world at large, and the world will despise us for it. If we behave in a worldly fashion using the world’s methods legal or otherwise to impose our view are we not just attempting to convert darkness and yeast into salt and light? The result being either failure and ridicule or success and tyranny, neither of which brings glory to God and His Son.
You also commented
“my personal belief is that they are not yet guilty of sin, so – like Methuselah and Elijah – they are not condemned by their own sins and do not require Jesus’ sacrifice to pay for their sins.”
The psalmist would appear to disagree with you on the above point as does Jesus in john14.
Ps 51:5-6
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
Gen 8:21
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Your statement above would seem somewhat unorthodox.
#91 I am glad I disagree with liberal theologians.
PB,
Ignorance is bliss, right?
You still haven’t answered any of my questions.
Does the natural man know to keep the Sabbath day holy? Does the natural man know HOW to keep the Sabbath holy and why?
Chad,
The Sabbath is the only commandment of the ten that Jesus did not reaffirm. Jesus Christ is our Sabbath rest; He rescues us from the law-keeping of false religion, He saves us based upon trust in Him alone. We can rest in our salvation when we repent/believe on Jesus Christ, for the work is completed.
Still does not change the fact that we must look to Him alone to be saved.
Either you don’t know what orthodox is or well, that can be the only explanation. Could you tell me what orthodox means to you? Have you studied Church history on this topic? More than a few orthodox people throughout history have held to Chris’s view. In fact, I can see someone saying that it isn’t reformed, but orthodox? Really?
You must not understand the question. Let me remind you we are talking about the natural man, someone who has never heard of Jesus Christ. So for you to bring up Jesus as our Sabbath rest is meaningless at this point.
You have asserted that the whole law of God is written on the hearts of every man and they are without excuse once they become “of age.” So again, let me ask: Does the natural man know how and why they should observe Sabbath?
Joe – his statement is unorthodox in that it denies that every human is born in sin and conceived as such.
That would be “unorthodox” in the sense of mainstream Western theology.
Paul is quite clear: Because of one man’s sin (Adam), ALL are born in sin.
(But Paul is also just as adamant that because of one man (Christ) ALL are free – more Good News!)
#98.
Chad, to say that Chris L isn’t orthodox because he believes that babies go to heaven… come on, I know you don’t like him but that’s silly.
Hannah either doesn’t know what orthodox is or she’s just here to argue or she has a really really unorthodox view of what orthodox means.
Very orthodox people throughout history have held to that view. You and I both know it.
Hey Joe
Could you point me in the right direction would be interested in reading about orthodox Christians who hold to the belief that Jesus Christ is Not the only way Gate Door into the kingdom of God
I recollect paul mentioning somthing about them in Galatians
It seems to me that my last comment of my post was edited out #92
It was hardly offensive
#100
So you’re saying that people who think people who die before a certain age go to heaven are not orthodox? As I suspected, you don’t actually know what the word means.
Would you mind repeating the part that you think was edited?
I was just passing caught a glimpse of this site whilst checking out other things and found a discussion on abortion thought I would chuck in my tupence for what is was worth
now I am being accused of being either ignorant or argumentative because I disagree
my post was origionaly intended to encourage comment on whether christians should be involved in political protest concerning the issue of abortion as well as other issues.
those points have clearly been ignored
ps
the issue is not is abortion wrong clearly it is. Under most circumstances it is a horrible evil practice. the issue is does God really what his Children forming protest groups…
Hannah – We don’t edit comments (except to star out a short list of words, or – in extreme circumstances – to remove content that is private or graphic).
With the new web design, our comment box is physically smaller (trying to figure out how to change that), which has led me to accidentally type over paragraphs. I suspect this is what occurred to your comment.
He does not need to know the Sabbath – natural man is not Jewish, so he is not commanded to keep Sabbath.
Hi chris
No problem thanks for explanation
#92 was really directeted at your own comments earlier and is not intended to cause offence appologies if I have offended anyone
now I am being accused of being either ignorant or argumentative because I disagree
Well, you still haven’t answered the question about what you believe orthodox means to you? You answered my question with a backhanded offensive. In other words, Chris L must be apostate (what Paul called those people you referenced earlier) so I’m sure you can see how I don’t find your “oh I’m being accused” all that compelling.
You accused a friend of mine of not being all that orthodox for holding a belief that has been pretty commonly throughout history. I wanted to understand this better because Chris L has plenty of faults. He’s written things that have made me close my laptop in disgust, but he’s not apostate. He’s a good guy and I’m not going to just sit here and watch silly accusations be sent his way without at least tying to better understand him.
If you do know what orthodox is as it has commonly been understood you should be able to give a fairly simple answer.
So let’s try again. Three questions.
1. Can you define orthodox for me?
2. Are you saying that anyone who believes in an age of accountability is not orthodox?
3. Can you point to anyone in church history who would say that?
If you want to argue that we should be about preaching and not involved in the process of politics, so be it. Have at it, and I’ll go away.
That should say, “without better trying to understand them.”
Hannah, I’m not trying to offend you, I’m trying to understand what you mean by orthodox.
So, I’m going to run. Family time calls. Hannah, if you would like to answer those questions that would be great, if not no big deal. Have a great day. Merry Christmas everyone
Joe
you seem to see what you want to see please read this comment again
Could you point me in the right direction would be interested in reading about orthodox Christians who hold to the belief that Jesus Christ is Not the only way Gate Door into the kingdom of God
then read #92 in its entirity and you will realise how absurd you are behaving age of accountability is not in view at the moment
ps
I dont condem people for holding such a view although I personaly do not hold to that view just for the record
There is a difference, Hannah, between imposing exclusively Christian beliefs as laws (blue laws, forced benevolence, etc.) vs. seeking the upholding of natural law (which includes prohibition against murder). In the specific case of abortion, seeking to prevent the legalization of murder is not an attempt at conversion, but simply seeking a non-perverted system of justice.
As for original sin, there are disagreements within the church (all within orthodoxy) as to its actual effect. For instance, we see in Ezekiel:
And this passage concludes with:
I would contend that we are born under the curse of Adam’s sin (which is what the Psalmist refers to), and as so, we all die. However, as the passage in Ezekiel (and elsewhere) maintains, we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, but only our own.
Because abortion is not an issue of orthodoxy/belief/conversion, we are not trying to force the pagans to live as a Christian. Rather, because it is an issue of basic justice, which we should desire and seek. As such, there is no prohibition against seeking, within the law, to have unjust laws changed.
Additionally, I would suggest that you are arguing from a the standpoint of a regulative principle, whereas I would apply the normative principle to most day-to-day activities…
Thanks, Joe.
Seriously, thanks for stepping in, as I think you’ve been a lot clearer on this than I have been.
Blessings.
Hannah,
My answer, being very specific about the unborn, is that: Jesus is the only way into the kingdom of God – which is in existence here on earth today, and will extend into eternity. The aborted/miscarried unborn will never be a part of the kingdom of God as it exists today. However, Jesus is the first fruits of resurrection, and it is only through him that they will be rescued from the results of Adam’s curse (death). Even so, I would also say that they have no sins of their own which need to be forgiven (which is a different aspect of Jesus’ sacrifice).
Chris L, it is sweet of you to try to answer for PB but he is a big boy and can answer for himself.
But since you insist on interjecting yourself…
When Jeremiah said that God’s law would be written on our hearts rather than on stone did he have in mind some other law than Jewish?
Is the Sabbath not part of God’s Law?
Yes or no?
And Joe, the reason Hannah is right about Chris rather unorthodox view has nothing to do with babies going to heaven. It has to do with his view of orginal sin. He seems to be implying that infants are born untainted by sin. His problem is he is using the word “guilty.” Original sin is not about “guilt” but about being under the curse of ininquity. It has nothing to do with later committing morally dubious acts which then make us “responsible.”
We are all born into sin. That is our ontological status – it matters not whether we have acted on that nature or not.
Careful, you are sounding like a universalist
The law has different parts which apply to different people. There are some parts which only apply to priests, others to high priests, some to all Jews, some to just women, and others to all people – Jew and Gentile. All are part of the Torah, but only some parts apply to all men. These are often referred to as “natural laws” or Noahide Laws, because they were given to Noah and his descendants, prior to Abraham and Moses. In the first century, these were summed up in almost an identical fashion as what we find in the Jerusalem Council ruling in Acts.
The Mosaic Law (which includes Sabbath, Ceremonial and Dietary laws) only applies to Jews.
It is rather clear that what Paul refers to in Romans is natural law, since it is made evident from Creation, itself, and not via revelation.
So “Yes”, the Sabbath is part of God’s law, but “No” it is not part of the law that Gentiles are required to keep.
Hypothetical situation
Some western government under the influence of Christian protest changes the law and bans the practice of abortion
A pregnant mother with two young children has her unborn diagnosed with the severe neural tube defect Anencephaly to complicate matters to continue with the pregnancy is going to put her own life in danger abortion provides the only satisfactory outcome although there is no guarantee
But hold on abortion is illegal what are her options if the law is upheld both parent and child will die if she breaks the law its backstreet abortion time again
Do you really think that God is going to be glorified in that situation would you really sign your name on that petition
Abortion is evil and should in no way be allowed as a method of birth control but a blanket ban on the practice is equally evil the church when it finds itself with political power and influence ceases to be the church of God
Hannah, the situation you propose is why most anti-abortion laws I am familiar with contain exceptions for the life of the mother. As you note, there are some specific medical conditions which would result in the death of both mother and child, and as such, you have to make a decision which most preserves life. The Jewish doctrine under which our definitions of “sanctity of life” falls (call Pikuach Nefesh – which Jesus defends in the Parable of the Good Samaritan and a few other places, as well) defines how far we are to go to preserve life. This doctrine allows for the use of lethal force in preventing a death in the case of a rodef (pursuer) who is trying to take the life of another person. In the case you mention, the child would be considered rodef (because it is putting the mother in a situation where she will die), and the choice between one death or two is resolved by choosing the lesser of two evils.
an appeal to rabbinic judaism strange
a similar appeal may provide the answer to who attoned for the sins of Methuselah and Elijah
nearly 11:30 here in glasgow scotland bed time for me here enjoy the rest of your day
Hannah
Hannah –
1) My other reference should have been to Elijah and Enoch (not Methuselah)
2) I don’t consider it an appeal to Jewish law, but an appeal to Jesus’ rulings on points of Jewish Law (which ended up being the basis for our laws, as well).
Merry Christmas, everyone. Today we celebrate the day God said “YES” to all of creation in Jesus the Messiah.
Hannah – Good discussion and you make valid arguments. I am non-political and I am Irish! If it were not for Jesus we could hate the English together!!
RE 91
it’s hard to argue against one pericope without the whole – but i do see the problem of foundationalism – that seems to be the very thing paul is advocating.
and, even though campbell states it as fact, he does not say why he thinks this creates an a priori rejection of God, or atheism.
hannah,
i suspect had joe started off with you this way – it would have gone better.
joe and i have gone back and forth before on the style of commenting. he tends to be more blunt, i tend to be more conciliatory.
so – when he pushes, push back. when the points are made and understood he can agree to disagree.
hope that makes sense.
hope that’s not condescending – joe.
neil – the conciliator
i’m do see why this would be strange. i’ll grant that chris l. puts a lot more emphasis on things jewish that i… probably than most.
you offered a very soecific hypothetical. and the problem with hypotheticals is that they are most often extreme cases and can cut both ways.
for every hypothetical like yours – i could post one about some careless slut who uses abortion as a form birth control… or someone who has two girls and want a want a boy…
anyway, chris l’s point was to show how exceptions can be made, and on what basis this is done.
yeah karl!
Natural theology is implicitly and absolutely subjective because it is based entirely on observable evidence, personal processing, and a host of cultural and educational influences.
In a word – “opinion”.
Even so, Rick, Paul indicates that evidence of Creation is enough to give no man an excuse for rejecting God (which was the original point).
I suggest a difference between “cause and effect” evidence of God’s existence and any observable evidence that would provide material for a “theology”. In fact, many of the pagan religions throughout history used the material creation as a framework for their “theology”. (Sun god, Moon God, Cow god, etc.)
So one man rejects the existence of God in spite of creation while another distorts the meaning of creation and rejects God buy constructing his own inaccurate theology, even sometimes worshiping the creation.
Without the Scriptures, everything is worthless human philosophy and articulate “What I think is truth” theology, even if it is accompanied by Van Goghesque sincerity.
You still miss the point in Paul’s comments in Romans 1. It is not to give “an out” via “natural law” to those who have not heard the message, but rather to indicate that even if they have not heard, they have the evidence of Creation and have sinned against it (so they are without excuse).