Post Election Thoughts

A friend of mine wrote this in an e-mail to me. I thought it would make a good post.

Unlike the present President, when I was in the Marines and was sent to Viet Nam in the last months of 1967, we didn’t leave men behind because of the heat of a battle. I was a machine gun squad leader shortly after our ‘victory’ in the battle for Khe Sahn in the spring of 1968. We left Khe Sahn and we were at a base enjoying real food and real showers for a change. We suddenly got the fearful call to ‘saddle-up’. Another company was pinned down and taking heavy casualties and we couldn’t leave them without support. We loaded down with gun ammo (about 200 rounds per A-gunner, gunner and me, the machine gun squad leader. When we got out of the choppers all hell was breaking loose. Rounds were flying by us–It sounded like a swarm of bees. We charged up to where the other company was pinned down and our squad took up a position behind a berm of dirt. The wounded Marine nearby told us that there was a 50 caliber machine gun straight in front of us–Not good news. Then the order came to get up and go through the enemy line. I fixed my bayonet and told my gun squad to get up and move through the bush line in front of us. We charged so fast through the line that we got behind the enemy lines and didn’t realize our predicament until we were about 1/4 mile behind enemy lines. Then, our biggest fear was getting back to our lines without getting shot by our own men. On our way back to our lines we rescued a wounded Marine who probably would have died if we hadn’t made the mistake of charging too quickly through the enemy line.

So, what does this have to do with the election just past? It’s fearful to see the despondency about the re-election of Obama. It’s almost like there’s a total lack of hope among conservatives regarding the survival of this country. This is no time to falter in the sure battle that lies ahead. When I was lying behind that berm in Viet Nam with rounds buzzing over my head and wounded and dead Marines all around me, I’ve got to tell you that the last thing I wanted to hear was the command, “Get up! We’re going through!” But I obeyed the command and we defeated the enemy that day.

There are many traitors in high places in this country–But, there’s many noble, good and patriotic Americans also. Many of you who are reading this short letter are among those noble, good and patriotic Americans. My generation forgot the truism that “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” We thought, wrongfully, that we could trust the Judges and the elected politicians to do what was best for this country and for us.

The naysayers might be right. There might be no way out of the coming catastrophe. But this I vow and I hope you will too. I will fix my bayonet and do my duty to God and country. I will not lay down without a fight. I know what it’s like to face the enemy in battle. It is terrifying! But we have no place to run to. If we don’t fight we will be slaves and our children and grandchildren will never know what it’s like to be truly free. Will you stand and fight in this battle for our country?

The problem is simple. We, the church, have forsaken our first love. We have joined with the world in our entertainment, in sending our children into the hell-holes called “public schools”, and in our desperate struggle for ‘more stuff’. For the sake of a bigger house or a better car we have said that we can’t afford to educate our children–So they have to go to the public schools. Could someone PLEASE tell me that they really believe that Abraham would send his children into Sodom and Gomorrah because they had a more formal system to ‘educate’ their children. Is our culture any better than Sodom and Gomorrah?

You might think you’re unworthy because of your sin or your supposed lack of ability. But God chooses the weak to confound the wise. Moses was a murderer and he constantly made excuses to God why he couldn’t do what God had called him to do and yet God chose him and used him in the greatest national deliverance in the history of the world. David was an adulterer and murderer and yet God used him mightily as king of Israel and God called him, “a man after His own heart”. Jonah tried to run away from God’s calling but God delivered him to the city of Nineveh by a three day ‘fish-delivery’. Elijah was so despondent that he cried out to God to take his life. Job lamented the day of his birth. Peter denied his Lord three times and ALL the Apostles chosen by Jesus deserted Him at the hour of His greatest need. How can anyone say that God can’t use them?

Don’t be cowered by the enemy. He is a fearful but defeated foe. Right now he is flexing his power in America but if the church arises he WILL bow the knee to Christ. The most oft repeated and most often disobeyed commandment in the Bible is just two words–FEAR NOT!!! It terrifies me to think of 4 more years of Obama–And yet who is this man and his minions compared to Christ? We need to fight by the power and in the name of Christ for our country and for our God.

Blessings,

Caleb

The Apostle Paul’s World View Part Two, by Dr. Ean Theron

St. Paul by El Greco, c. 1608-1614. Originally taken from artchive.com (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last week we began exploring Paul’s world view as it is unfolded in the book of Philippians. We started by examining his view concerning himself as a slave of God. In this article, we will look at Paul’s view of the security of salvation. This is another important theme in understanding Paul’s world view.

There are many things we could say about what Paul believed about salvation. However, from Philippians it is apparent that he believed in the security of the believer. In Reformed circles, this is called The Perseverance of the Saints. Paul writes, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6, E. S. V.).

In the context, the “good work” is in reference to salvation. This can be seen for three very important reasons:

1. The word for began in Greek is enarchomai. This word is used in only one other place in the New Testament and it is also a reference to salvation, “Are you so foolish? Having started out with the Spirit, are you now ending up with the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is no. Paul is saying that those who start out regarding the work of salvation started out by the Spirit of God. These people are not sustained by the flesh, but by the Spirit.
2. Where this good works takes place. Paul identifies where this good work takes place. Namely, it is done in them. The reference here is to the inner reality of those within the Philippian Church.
3. When this good work will finally be completed. Paul identifies when that good work will be completed—namely, on the day Jesus returns. This is an obvious reference to an occurrence beyond their physical existence. These three facts identify what the good work is—redemption!

Paul begins by saying that he is sure of this doctrine. Paul has no doubts about the security of the believer. The work of God in salvation will be brought to completion by Him.  The reason Paul is so sure of this is due to the fact that this is God’s work and not man’s work. Paul does not say that God will complete what we start, but that He will complete what He starts. The Apostle is careful to point out that it is God who does the work. The reason Paul can be so sure of the security of the believer is due to God’s faithfulness to Himself.

There is no room in Paul’s theology for a salvation that starts with man and is finished by man. Neither is there any room for a faith that says man and God cooperate together to bring about salvation and that cooperative work is what secures a believer to eternity.

Personally speaking, any view of salvation that involves my efforts in any way is troublesome. This is because I know how often I fail and how often I displease and disappoint God. To be perfectly honest, if security for salvation is placed on me in any way, I’m damned. Thankfully, like Paul, I do not hold this view.

It is comforting to know that because the work of salvation is God’s, we can be confident in our security. This is not confidence in an arrogant sense. It would be arrogant to think that we can have security because of something we have done or something we are doing. This is confidence in God. It is confidence in what He has done in our lives and in what He will continue to do. Our security, and therefore our confidence are in God.

The Apostle Paul’s World View, Part One

Currently, I have been writing a commentary on the book of Philippians. Through my studies, I have found several elements of Paul’s basic beliefs about his relationship with God, others, and his circumstances. These basic beliefs have given me great … Continue reading →

Why Mormons Have Spiritual Experiences, by Ean Theron

Recently, on the TV show Heart of the Matter, a caller asked, “If the LDS Church is not true, then why do Mormons have spiritual experiences?” (Paraphrased). I thought the host, Shawn McCraney, did a really good job answering the question. However, I found myself wanting to add a few more reasons for clarification. So, why do Mormons have spiritual experiences?

I know that this question presupposes that they do, and some may want to argue that in fact they do not. However, before one comes to the conclusion that they do not, please consider my arguments for why they do.

Warning Warning Warning

Just as a Clarifying side note. I am in no way suggesting that Mormons are Christians or that Mormonism is Christianity. I wanted to make this clear just in case anyone was wondering where I was going with this article.

There are three reasons why Mormons have spiritual experiences:

First, Mormons, like every human, are spiritual beings. We are all composed of spiritual matter (called the soul) and physical matter.

We must understand this point carefully. First, spiritual experiences are not necessarily Godly experiences. Or, to be more definitive: spiritual experiences are not necessarily Godly experiences that involve the work of redemption. We cannot equate spiritual experiences to mean: Therefore, that person is saved.

This is where things get a bit tricky. Sometimes, we equate a non-saved person with a non-spiritual person, or a person that cannot have spiritual experiences. This is a false equation. Unsaved people are not non-spiritual people, they are fallen spiritual people. The fall ruined people spiritually. It did not eradicate people spiritually. After all, the soul or the spiritual nature of an unredeemed person will suffer conscious torment after death. And, the soul will be reunited with the body in the resurrection.

This is one of the reasons why Mormons can have spiritual experiences and report that those experiences even feel “good” in some sense of the word. For example, I have known many Mormons who have given to or helped a charity and have had a “good” spiritual experience doing it. These experiences can also happen in family life and in many other areas.

However, all of this only proves that they are human. It does not prove that their religion is true or that they are saved. Often Mormons will conclude that their spiritual experiences prove their Church is true or that they are Christian. But this is an improper conclusion based on the data.

The second reason for Mormons having spiritual experiences can be attributed to Satan and his demons. The Scripture clearly warns:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (emphasis added, 2 Cor. 11:13-14).

Often Mormons appeal to their testimony to try to substantiate their religion. They will say that they have a “burning in the bosom” that testifies that their Church is true. If you ever talk to Mormon missionaries, they often ask you to pray over whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. And if you pray with a sincere heart, God will give you this “burning in the bosom” as a testimony that their Church is true.

This “burning in the bosom” is for many a real spiritual experience. The reason I say “for many” is that I have had a chance to talk to many ex-Mormons. Some have admitted that they never really had this experience and they were faking it for various reasons. However, the majority of ex-Mormons will say that the overwhelming, other-worldly experience of the “burning in the bosom” was real. I do not doubt this reality one bit. I just attribute it to Satan and not God.

The final reason is due to God, His people, and His overall plan. This is particularly the case when it comes to the many claims of healings in the Mormon community. There are many stories that circulate in Mormon communities about old so and so who was healed of some sickness when the Mormon elders came and prayed. Now, much of this is just pure nonsense. These “healings” can be attributed to the body’s natural ability to heal and to medical breakthroughs. Some of these stories are also made up and have become a type of Mormon-urban myth. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the story about a group of people who got into a car accident and only those who were wearing their garments survived the crash. However, there are some experiences that you cannot shuffle into these categories. So does this prove the Mormon Church is true? No!

Let me explain by giving an example from my own experience. One of my wife’s nieces was in a car accident and suffered severe brain injury. The niece and her family are all Mormon. And, I am sure they prayed to their false god repeatedly. However, they were not the only ones in prayer. My wife and I prayed too. We petitioned the Lord for a speedy recovery and that somehow God would use this to draw them out of the LDS Church. While there was no bonafide, “breaking the-laws-of-nature” miracle, she did recover at a phenomenal rate. God was not answering the prayers of the Mormons but the prayers of my wife and me.

Why did God choose to answer our prayers? Perhaps he plans on saving this girl at a later date. Perhaps God is planning to save her children or her great grand children. The truth is only God knows why. However, whenever it comes to any prayer God answers or chooses not to answer, we must consider that God has an overall plan for history.

In summary, the spiritual experiences reported by the members of the LDS Church do not validate their belief system. If spiritual experiences were a test of truth, then we would have to accept New Age, Wicca, and whole variety of other religions. All experiences, included spiritual ones, must be tested by the sure Word of God found on the pages of the Bible.

A Calvinistic Explanation of Hebrews 6:4-6, by Ean Theron

OK! Here is a portion of my new book on Calvinism. I hope you like it!
Hebrews 6:4-6
The last passage we will deal with is Hebrews 6:4-6. Out of all the passages that the Arminians use to try to prove that one can lose his salvation this one appears to be the most extensive. Therefore, we will spend some considerable time on what the writer of Hebrews was wanted to communicate. The passage reads:
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame (Hebrews 6:4-6, NASB).

This is generally where the Arminian stops to make his case. However, an adequate expiation cannot be rendered without examining the next three verses. We will quote them here and return to them when we come to the Calvinistic explanation of this passage:
For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned. But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way (Hebrews 6:7-9, NASB).

The first thing we must do is look seriously at the warning. The writer of Hebrews is saying that if this group of people (the people mentioned in 4-6) fall away, it is impossible to renew them to repentance. Their fate is sealed and they cannot be saved again. The writer of Hebrews is not giving a, “saved, then lost, then saved…” theology that is so popular with many Arminians. To put it directly, if a Christian can lose his salvation, then he can never gain it back.
The reason we need to feel the weight of this warning is that many Arminians will back off of these verses after realizing what is actually being said. However, there are some Arminians who are consistent with their theology, and they would teach that a Christian who loses their salvation cannot be saved again. It is not enough, therefore, to give cursory attention to this passage. We must understand its warning and the explanation.
Of course Calvinists have maintained that these verses do not teach that one can lose his salvation. However, there has been a verity of ways Calvinists have argued for this. We will deal with three explanations that I have found most viable.
Every explanation depends on whether or not this group of people is truly saved or they only appear to be saved. We are given five attributes:
1. Once Enlightened.
2. Tasted the Heavenly Gift.
3. Partakers of the Holy Spirit.
4. Tasted the Good Word of God.
5. [Tasted] the Power of the Ages to Come.
Some Calvinists have agreed with Arminians that the group of people under discussion is truly saved. They even agree that that if someone who displays these attributes falls away they will be lost forever. However, the Calvinists who believe this also take the warning of the writer to be only hypothetical. To justify this belief these Calvinists draw upon the term “if” used in some translations. For example, the New King James renders this passage:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame (emphasis added, Hebrews 6:4-6, NKJV).

Those who hold this explanation also draw upon the phrase, “though we are speaking in this way” found in verse nine. According to Calvinists who argue in this way, the author of Hebrews is speaking in a manner contrary to reality. This is taken to be a sort of a literary wink. The writer is only giving the Church something that is hypothetically true, not true in actuality.
An analogy would go something like this: Suppose a loving father warns his child not to stray from the house into the road. He warns the child that if the he goes into the road, he could get hit by a car and die. This is a true and sound warning. However, also suppose that the father is perfect and was watching the child at all times. Every time the child wondered too close to the road, the father would run out and grab the child and bring him back into the yard.
The Calvinist argues that if someone is saved, and if they fall away from grace, then, yes, they would be lost forever. However, the Father will never let that happen. The writer is speaking in a “manner” that is not necessarily a reality.
Nation of Israel
Another interpretation is that this passage is talking about the nation of Israel. Those who argue for this position advocate that the description given in verses four through six fits Israel as a nation. They had once been enlightened, and had tasted the heavenly gift. They had become partakers of the Holy Spirit under the Old Covenant administration. They had the word of God, and had tasted the power of the age to come.
Those who argue for this say the warning is for the nation of Israel not to reject Jesus and the administration of the New Covenant. If they do, there is no way to renew them to repentance under the Old Covenant.
Apostasy
Still another section of Calvinists would agree with the Arminians that the author is talking about apostasy. Apostasy was a real issue in the early Church particularly among the Jews. There were many Jews who had come over to the Christian faith and for one reason or another went back to the religion of Judaism. However, the Calvinists would say that those who do go into apostasy were never saved in the first place. Those who adopt this model look for a different way to understand the list of attributes found in these verses. Let’s look at the list again and see if there is a viable alternative to the Arminian interpretation:
1. Once Enlightened.
2. Tasted the Heavenly Gift.
3. Partakers of the Holy Spirit.
4. Tasted the Good Word of God.
5. [Tasted] the Power of the Ages to Come.
The first thing to notice is what is not on the list. It does not say these people are justified. This list also does not mention the new birth or any synonyms associated with the new birth. It does not say that these people are: born again, born from above, or regenerated. It does not even specifically say that these people are saved. In fact, none of the phrases used in the Bible to identify a Christian is used in this list. And what is here is not necessarily taking about salvation.
The first attribute is Once Enlightened. It is possible to be enlightened and not necessarily be saved. Or to put it another way: There are a variety of ways one can be enlightened that does not entail salvation. For example, a person’s mind can be enlightened to theological truth and yet that person’s heart still remains spiritually darkened. Unbelievers, particularly those who have had close association with the Church, can often know a great deal of information about the Bible. A good example (but a sad one) is that of Children who grow up in reformed Churches. They often can know all the answers to their Church’s catechism. Often, they can even admit that they intellectually agree with truths of the Bible. However, they remain unsaved.
The second description is that these people have Tasted the Heavenly Gift. The fact of the matter is that this heavenly gift is not identified. What is likely being referred to here is the Holy Spirit. In other words, the second description is a literary introduction to the more direct wording of the third description. The third description is more direct, Partakers of the Holy Spirit. The idea that the Holy Spirit is the gift makes sense in light of what Jesus said about sending the Holy Spirit after He is gone (John 14:15-16).
What should we say about this description? It does seem to at least hint at salvation. In fact, people who are saved do partake in the Holy Spirit. However, the truth is that the Holy Spirit has done many works in both the New and Old Testaments that are not necessarily associated with salvation. In the Old Testament, Balaam prophesied accurately over Israel (Numbers 37:7-10, 18-24; 34:3-9, 15-24). Surly one might think that someone who displayed the spiritual gift of prophecy was saved. But Balaam is condemned in the New Testament as someone who will for sure suffer the pains of eternal Hell (2 Peter 2:15, Jude 11).
The forth and fifth description are also a bit difficult to break apart. In fact, all the descriptions kind-of function as a unit and are generally talking about the same thing, namely spiritual blessings. Tasted the Good Word of God and Tasted the Power of the Age of Come along with the rest of these descriptions are all references to partaking in genuine spiritual blessings in a genuine and legitimate way.
The assumption by the Arminian is that you must be saved in order to participate in the spiritual Gifts in any meaningful way. However, this is just not the case. At the establishment of the New Covenant, the visible Church received gifts. The gifts to the Church are not necessarily indications of personal and individual salvation. Rather the signs that were poured out on the Church were to establish that God was genuinely behind the establishment of this New Covenant Community. Remember what Jesus said:
Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, drove out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name, didn’t we?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil!” (emphasis added, Matthew 7:22-23).

Notice that Jesus did not say, “I knew you at one time, and now you have fallen away.” Rather, He said, “I never knew you.”
The interpretation that the spiritual gifts are given to the visible Church, and that these gifts are not signs of individual salvation makes sense in light of what the writer goes on to say:
For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned (Hebrews 6:7-8, NASB).

We need to pay close attention to this analogy because it is the key to understanding the previous description and warning. The analogy is that the rain falls on ground and it feeds both good plants and bad plants. The writer does not say that good plants somehow turn into bad plants. But that the thorns and thistles soak up the rain just like the useful plants do. Likewise, spiritual blessings are poured out on the visible Church and bless the truly regenerate and in many ways the unregenerate.
In the end, the writer himself indicates that the description and the warning are not talking about true converts when he says, “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way” (emphasis added, Hebrews 6:9, NASB). The people who fell away and the people who do fall away permanently were never saved in the first place. They did not have those qualities that accompany salvation.
Apostasy is a real phenomenon in the Church. And the warning here is for the visible body of people who gather together to worship in the Christian manner. There is no way the writer or any of us can tell with certainty those who are truly saved and who are false converts. This is why the warning must go out to the visible institution. The writer is not suggesting that a saved person can become lost any more than he is warning that useful plants can turn into thorns.
As I said above, apostasy is a real phenomenon. However, there is only one passage in the entire Bible that explains this phenomenon. That passage reads:
They left us, but they were not part of us, for if they had been part of us, they would have stayed with us. Their leaving made it clear that none of them was really part of us (emphasis added, 1 John 2:19).

Those who fall away permanently are not saved people who lost their salvation. They never were really saved in the first place.

A Christian Assessment of Abortion Part Three, by Ean Theron

A Christian Assessment of Abortion Part Three, by Ean Theron
In the last article, we looked carefully at those arguments pro-abortionists give in support of their system and found them to be deficient. What we will be doing in this article is giving a few arguments that support the pro-life position. There are three arguments that fall into this category: 1) the biological argument, 2) the legal argument, and 3) the Biblical argument. We will examine these in this order.
I have to make a digressive note. Argument one and two ultimately find their validation in the Bible. That is to say that they are not in the end justified on their own merits. This may lead some to ask why not start with the Bible first? I did not do this due to the fact that I wanted to make the best argument the last argument.
The Biological Argument
Every living thing has a biological address. Scientifically, we classify biological life by the Linnaeus Taxonomy which has seven categories. Those categories are:
1. Kingdom.
2. Phylum.
3. Class.
4. Order.
5. Family.
6. Genus.
7. Species.
At the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized, you have the joining of 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 from the father. This makes every fertilized egg fall into the human category as presented in Linnaeus’s Taxonomy as follows:
1. Kingdom/Animalia.
2. Phylum/Chordata.
3. Class/Mammalia.
4. Order/Primates.
5. Family/Hominidae.
6. Genus/Homo.
7. Species/Sapiens.
Furthermore, the fetus has its own genetic identity that is distinct from both the mother and the father. In other words, this is not just a “piece” of the mother that is growing that will eventually become a human. It has its own genetic identity from conception.
Not only is it genetically and individually human, it is alive. This is evident by the fact that it is growing. In fact, there would be no controversy over killing it if it was not alive.
As the fetus grows, it begins to gain human characteristics very quickly. At 18 days, the heart begins to beat. By 28 days, it starts to form eyes and ears. The fetus has brain waves by 42 days. In only 7 weeks, we have pictures of the baby sucking its thumb. By 16 weeks, the baby can kick and normally the sex of the child can be identified. Some of the unborn have hair on their head by 20 weeks. And almost 80% of babies can survive a premature birth at 25 weeks* (*Source: M. Allen et. al., “The Limits of Viability,” New England Journal of Medicine, 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.).
This is to say that every killing of a fetus, no matter what the developmental stage, is the killing of a living, human life.
The Legal Argument
This leads us to the next argument. That is the Legal Argument. Just because something is human does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to kill it. There are instances when the killing of a human life is the most ethical thing to do. For instance, there are some cases of self defense when the victim must kill the attacker. We also make exceptions in the killing of humans when in comes to capitol punishment.
However, the unborn does not fall into either of these categories. The unborn is not in a situation of attacking the mother; and therefore, the mother need not defend herself to the point of killing the unborn. Neither has the unborn committed a crime that would require it to be put to death.
The law grants everyone the right to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One of the supporting reasons advocates of abortion give is that the unborn is treading on the liberty of the woman who is carrying the child. If a woman does not want to carry her baby, then she should not have to have her liberty infringed. However, what this argument presupposes is that the right to liberty supersedes the right to life. To see the ridiculous nature of this presupposition, just invert the right of the pursuit of happiness with the right to liberty. For example, lets imagine that one mans happiness is to take women who desire abortions and lock them away until the child is born. The man reasons that his right to pursue what makes him happy should not be infringed upon by the woman’s right to liberty. Everyone can see the problem with thinking this way. The right to pursue happiness does not take precedence over the right of liberty. Likewise, the right of liberty does not take precedence over the right to life.
The unborn is a living human and has the right to life according to our Constitution. The act of abortion is an act that is antithetical to the founding documents of the American government.

The Biblical Argument
In the end, we as Christians must recognize that biology and civil law cannot adequately answer the questions surrounding the issue of abortion. This is due to the fact that this is not ultimately a question of biology or law, but of ethics. All the scientific facts in the world cannot dictate how one should respond to them. Nor does any society have a sufficient enough foundation within itself to justify the laws it may or may not legislate. The ethical question becomes: What should we do with people who are in the way who cannot defend themselves, and who have not violated the civil law?
The answer to the question above is directly answered by the Bible, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). It may surprise some to know that the Bible speaks about the murder of the unborn directly:
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex. 21:22-25).
Here the life of the child is put on the same level as any other human life. If it is taken unjustly then the one or ones who were responsible must be put to death. In fact, the Bible is overwhelmingly pro-life. The first social law that was established by God was the protection of life (Gen. 9:6). Later, when God established the nation of Israel, He included the protection of life as one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3-17). Under the Old Covenant, even in cases of accidental death, the one who killed accidentally had to take all kinds of precautions. He had to flee to a city of refuge and go through a trial. And even if he was found innocent of the crime, he had to live and remain in the city until the death of the High Priest. And under the New Covenant we are not even permitted to hate anyone else (Matthew 5:22).

There can be no question that the Bible is clearly pro-life. In fact, all the words used for a baby or a child are applied to the unborn in both the Greek and the Hebrew.

Epilogue

A great desire of mine is that the holocaust of abortion will one day be a thing of the past. Of course, this can only happen through the grace of God. But, we also need to take practical steps toward this goal. I urge all of you who care about the unborn to get involved to any degree you can.

A Christian Assessment of Abortion Part Three, by Ean Theron

A Christian Assessment of Abortion Part Three, by Ean Theron
In the last article, we looked carefully at those arguments pro-abortionists give in support of their system and found them to be deficient. What we will be doing in this article is giving a few arguments that support the pro-life position. There are three arguments that fall into this category: 1) the biological argument, 2) the legal argument, and 3) the Biblical argument. We will examine these in this order.
I have to make a digressive note. Argument one and two ultimately find their validation in the Bible. That is to say that they are not in the end justified on their own merits. This may lead some to ask why not start with the Bible first? I did not do this due to the fact that I wanted to make the best argument the last argument.
The Biological Argument
Every living thing has a biological address. Scientifically, we classify biological life by the Linnaeus Taxonomy which has seven categories. Those categories are:
1. Kingdom.
2. Phylum.
3. Class.
4. Order.
5. Family.
6. Genus.
7. Species.
At the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized, you have the joining of 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 from the father. This makes every fertilized egg fall into the human category as presented in Linnaeus’s Taxonomy as follows:
1. Kingdom/Animalia.
2. Phylum/Chordata.
3. Class/Mammalia.
4. Order/Primates.
5. Family/Hominidae.
6. Genus/Homo.
7. Species/Sapiens.
Furthermore, the fetus has its own genetic identity that is distinct from both the mother and the father. In other words, this is not just a “piece” of the mother that is growing that will eventually become a human. It has its own genetic identity from conception.
Not only is it genetically and individually human, it is alive. This is evident by the fact that it is growing. In fact, there would be no controversy over killing it if it was not alive.
As the fetus grows, it begins to gain human characteristics very quickly. At 18 days, the heart begins to beat. By 28 days, it starts to form eyes and ears. The fetus has brain waves by 42 days. In only 7 weeks, we have pictures of the baby sucking its thumb. By 16 weeks, the baby can kick and normally the sex of the child can be identified. Some of the unborn have hair on their head by 20 weeks. And almost 80% of babies can survive a premature birth at 25 weeks* (*Source: M. Allen et. al., “The Limits of Viability,” New England Journal of Medicine, 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.).
This is to say that every killing of a fetus, no matter what the developmental stage, is the killing of a living, human life.
The Legal Argument
This leads us to the next argument. That is the Legal Argument. Just because something is human does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to kill it. There are instances when the killing of a human life is the most ethical thing to do. For instance, there are some cases of self defense when the victim must kill the attacker. We also make exceptions in the killing of humans when in comes to capitol punishment.
However, the unborn does not fall into either of these categories. The unborn is not in a situation of attacking the mother; and therefore, the mother need not defend herself to the point of killing the unborn. Neither has the unborn committed a crime that would require it to be put to death.
The law grants everyone the right to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One of the supporting reasons advocates of abortion give is that the unborn is treading on the liberty of the woman who is carrying the child. If a woman does not want to carry her baby, then she should not have to have her liberty infringed. However, what this argument presupposes is that the right to liberty supersedes the right to life. To see the ridiculous nature of this presupposition, just invert the right of the pursuit of happiness with the right to liberty. For example, lets imagine that one mans happiness is to take women who desire abortions and lock them away until the child is born. The man reasons that his right to pursue what makes him happy should not be infringed upon by the woman’s right to liberty. Everyone can see the problem with thinking this way. The right to pursue happiness does not take precedence over the right of liberty. Likewise, the right of liberty does not take precedence over the right to life.
The unborn is a living human and has the right to life according to our Constitution. The act of abortion is an act that is antithetical to the founding documents of the American government.

The Biblical Argument
In the end, we as Christians must recognize that biology and civil law cannot adequately answer the questions surrounding the issue of abortion. This is due to the fact that this is not ultimately a question of biology or law, but of ethics. All the scientific facts in the world cannot dictate how one should respond to them. Nor does any society have a sufficient enough foundation within itself to justify the laws it may or may not legislate. The ethical question becomes: What should we do with people who are in the way who cannot defend themselves, and who have not violated the civil law?
The answer to the question above is directly answered by the Bible, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). It may surprise some to know that the Bible speaks about the murder of the unborn directly:
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex. 21:22-25).
Here the life of the child is put on the same level as any other human life. If it is taken unjustly then the one or ones who were responsible must be put to death. In fact, the Bible is overwhelmingly pro-life. The first social law that was established by God was the protection of life (Gen. 9:6). Later, when God established the nation of Israel, He included the protection of life as one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3-17). Under the Old Covenant, even in cases of accidental death, the one who killed accidentally had to take all kinds of precautions. He had to flee to a city of refuge and go through a trial. And even if he was found innocent of the crime, he had to live and remain in the city until the death of the High Priest. And under the New Covenant we are not even permitted to hate anyone else (Matthew 5:22).

There can be no question that the Bible is clearly pro-life. In fact, all the words used for a baby or a child are applied to the unborn in both the Greek and the Hebrew.

Epilogue

A great desire of mine is that the holocaust of abortion will one day be a thing of the past. Of course, this can only happen through the grace of God. But, we also need to take practical steps toward this goal. I urge all of you who care about the unborn to get involved to any degree you can.

Apologetics 2a

Ean discusses problems with both Presuposistional Apologetics and the Classical approach http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv4G25J6qis

God Evil and Arminiansim

A friend of the ministry recently sent me this question:

I’ve got a question for you (I am Reformed): how do you answer an Arminian who says that if God decrees something then He is therefore the cause of it? I get this ALL the time LOL!

I thought that both the question and my answer would make a great blog article. Now that you have the question, here is my answer:

Good question. The answer is to flip it on the Arminian. Just ask if God is all powerful and does not want evil then why does He not stop evil? There are only a few answers they can give and none of them are good. First, they will say that God must respect a person’s free choice. However, all this means is God cares more about free will then He does about stopping evil. Next, this would make God culpable after the fact. For example, if I witnessed a person attempt to stab another person and I could stop it, without any harm to my self and I don’t, this makes me culpable. If the police were to come to me and ask why I did not stop the evil act and I respond by saying, “I had to respect the offender’s free will” I am guilty too.

The next thing they could say is that God uses evil but does not plan evil. This also does not vindicate God from being evil. If God uses evil, then we would have to say that on some level God desires evil. This seems to be the focus of the Arminian’s objection.

Each system has to realize that evil and God have some relationship with each other. The question is not to have it all figured out intellectually. The question should be is my view of God and evil intellectually consistent with Scripture?

Here is the answer for the Calvinist. God is not the active agent of evil in this world. However, God predestines everything. This would include evil. However, God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil he predestines. That morally sufficient reason is known only to him. God also created beings that carry out evil without any outward compulsion from God. How is God able to do this? I don’t know. But the manmade system of Arminian cannot vindicate God from evil. It only diminishes His sovereignty over evil. This is a step in the wrong direction and does not get us closer to understanding the issue.

A Christian Assessment of Abortion Part Two, by Ean Theron

In this article we are going to assess some the arguments for abortion. There are several.
Argument One: The fetus is not a real human being; therefore, it is OK to kill.
Answer: At conception, there is a combining of 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. This makes the unborn three things:
1. Alive. It is growing biologically.
2. Human. This living thing belongs to no class other than homosapien.
3. Individually human. It is genetically distinct from the father and mother.
The only difference between a fetus and an adult is the passage of time and the availability of adequate nourishment within a distinct, developmental paradigm. The only difference between a four-year-old and an adult is passing time and adequate nourishment within the same paradigm. To kill the unborn is to kill a real, living human being.
Even if the pro-abortion advocates were right about the fetus not being human, it is not OK to indiscriminately kill a non-human life. This argument would certainly not work if one wanted to hunt Bald-Eagles.
Argument Two: The fetus is “non-viable” outside the womb; therefore, it is OK to kill.
Answer: What is and is not viable changes from age to age and place to place. Today, in America, a fetus can survive at a very early stage outside the mother’s womb. However, this is not true of other places in the world like third-world countries. Also, the stage of viability continues to increase as we progress scientifically. What is viable today was not always viable in the past.
In addition, we are all non-viable given a certain set of circumstances. Take away our air and we quickly find out how “non-viable” we are. Viability has no logical bearing on whether or not the fetus is a live-human individual, or whether or not it is right to kill that individual.
Also, viability has nothing to do with whether or not killing something is right or wrong. A Bald-Eagle needs to develop inside the shell of its egg. Just because it cannot develop to viability outside the shell, does not make it OK to break the eggs open.
Argument Three: You cannot legislate morality; therefore; it should be legally acceptable to kill the unborn.
Answer: This is simply not true. In fact, very few laws do not legislate morality. From speed limits that regulate moral driving behaviors to international affairs that support the moral treatment of fellow human beings, all have their issues grounded in moral questions. For instance, school zones receive special treatment pertaining to speed limits because there is a special moral concern we have for children. Practically every law we have is a legislation of morality.
Argument Four: The unborn is unwanted; therefore, it is OK to kill.
Answer: This is factually wrong. There are more people every year who are looking to adopt than there are unwanted pregnancies.
Often, the unborn is wanted by one or more of the parents. There have been cases when the father was willing to raise the child, but the mother refuses to carry the baby to term. There have also been cases when the woman is pressured to get an abortion by the father of the child. We have also seen parents of these supposed unwanted children change their mind after the child is born.
It is evident that the arguments for abortion are not valid. However, does that automatically make abortion wrong? What are the arguments for keeping the unborn alive? We will answer these questions in the next Blog.