For the record, I am anti-abortion, as I know are most here. But I'm also aware that a fair proportion of posters here are also Calvinists. In a discussion on Another Board (which shall remain nameless, less I incur the wrath of the Mods), the point was made that if one is a strict 5-point Calvinist, one can't really talk about abortion as being the killing of an 'innocent', since all human life is Totally Depraved as a result of the Fall and Original Sin, and Christ is the only human who has ever been truly innocent, so how do you get round that theologically, if you're a TULIP-picker (as it were)?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Abortion and TULIP
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
I would use the example of David, whose child died. All have the sin nature, even from birth, and those in the OT as well. David assured others that he would "go to him," and thus arose, dressed himself, and ate. He mourned no more. As long as there was hope for the child to live, for God to answer prayer, David prayed. When the child died, David had peace that the child would be in Heaven.Matt Black said:
I believe that David, as we all can, fell on the mercy of God. In God's mercy (who is not willing that any should perish) he took the infant, as he does all infants, to heaven. To think or believe otherwise would make God cruel, IMO. He is a merciful and loving God.
ray Marshall
New Member
DHK said:
Where are the infants?
Job' 3:16,17KJV 1611 edition.
16, Or as an unhidden untimely birth I had not been as infants which never saw light. 17: There the weeked cease from trobling and there the weary be at rest.
And continuing on through the verses. Sounds like a pretty good place to be.
So, are we correct to use the word 'innocent' to refer to the unborn victims of abortion?
Matt --- Good question. I'll ask someone much smarter than I & and will pass on his response. Here are my thoughts. The pre-born infant is indeed innocent in the eyes of the world - from an earthly standpoint. He or she has committed no crime and does not deserve death --as opposed to capital punishment for a mass murderer. From a spiritual standpoint, we are all sinners, we are all born with a sin nature, and we all deserve a spiritual death.
Here is the cosmic question: since he was not "born", is he innocent in a spiritual sense? That my friend is "above my pay grade." I just don't know.
Here is the cosmic question: since he was not "born", is he innocent in a spiritual sense? That my friend is "above my pay grade." I just don't know.
I think the term "innocent" in relation to a child is a relative term and has nothing to do with soteriology.
As to all infants going to heaven, I think that is also wishful thinking more than biblical. Certainly we have David's words, but one statement does not a doctrine make. We support our doctrines in theology by several verses, and not an isolated text.
Confessedly, I have quoted David also whenever I had an infant's or child's funeral to serve.
Again, I don't believe the TULIP has anything to do with the results of abortions.
By the way, my statement on abortions still stands: Abortion if necessary, but not necessarily abortion. I do not rule out all abortions.
Cheers,
Jim
As to all infants going to heaven, I think that is also wishful thinking more than biblical. Certainly we have David's words, but one statement does not a doctrine make. We support our doctrines in theology by several verses, and not an isolated text.
Confessedly, I have quoted David also whenever I had an infant's or child's funeral to serve.
Again, I don't believe the TULIP has anything to do with the results of abortions.
By the way, my statement on abortions still stands: Abortion if necessary, but not necessarily abortion. I do not rule out all abortions.
Cheers,
Jim
Last edited by a moderator:
There is more than that one statement...
Romans 7:7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
Also, what other abortion besides saving the mother's life should be OK?
DHK said:
I agree.
DHK said:
I see you are still using 2 Peter 3:9 wrongly and woefully out of context.
To make the claim that the Lord takes all infants to heaven is an unwarranted assumption.You have not proven that biblically --it's just your sentiment.
"To think or believe otherwise would make God cruel."?! Hey! The Lord is the only God with which we will deal.If He doesn't take every single baby to heaven He is still a merciful and loving God.You don't get to set conditions that God must meet so that He qualifies as compassionate.
Matt Black said:
There's a few ways to get around it theologically.
1. God, in his mercy, chooses to save all children. We have a LITTLE bit of scripture to back this up. For example, the Israelites under 21, I think it was, were not held responsible as were their older peers. David was told he would see his son again, even though the child was not of age.
2. Another way around it is to smack people upside the head and tell them they're making an emotional plea that has nothing to do with reality, that they're making people picture fetuses laying about the floors of hell or babies on spits in the pits, but that in reality souls are not of any age. When we die we have full knowledge. There is no concept of time in eternity as there is on earth. Christ knew from the foundation of earth who would and would not be his elect, so it doesn't matter if a person lived for a minute or for 90 years. They were destined one way or the other.
When we speak of someone being innocent when they died, do we mean their standing before God? No. A woman in our church has a grandson. He and his girlfriend were jogging last evening and were hit by a drunk driver. The girlfriend died and the grandson is in the hospital after having damaged his aorta. They were both innocent victims because nothing that they did caused the accident. In the same way, babies who are aborted (or murdered after they are born) are innocent children because they did nothing to warrant their death. As to their spiritual life or death, that's up to God to decide. I know Him well enough to trust His judgment in this area.
The reason we call Babies "innocent", is because they did nothing to bring about there death. For example, when a soldier is shot and killed in a gun battle, we don't say the "innocent soldier". But when a gang member shoots grandpa by accident, we DO call him an "innocent" bystander. Is he also "innocent" soteriologically?
To the other matter...
Although Babies are by nature sinful, they are declared innocent because they have no knowledge of sin. MULTIPLE times throughout scripture, babies are automatically associated with Heaven> they are never once associated with damnation.
All babies are saved: no question of it, in scripture. They "meet the conditions" fot salvation.
To the other matter...
Although Babies are by nature sinful, they are declared innocent because they have no knowledge of sin. MULTIPLE times throughout scripture, babies are automatically associated with Heaven> they are never once associated with damnation.
All babies are saved: no question of it, in scripture. They "meet the conditions" fot salvation.
So, it better soteriologically then for babies to die in the womb and thus go to heaven rather than make it out into the world and risk dying in their sins?
Matt Black said:
No, in minds that can't comprehend justice (mine included) it's better to die in the womb.
Wasn't it Job who, even as a staunch believer, stated it would have been better to die in the womb and not see the light of day than go through the traumas we go through in this world?
Technically, that's true of all of us if we think "better." I'd have been better off not having scraped my knee, been abused, or been ill.
But that view comes from one of failing...of not understanding the gift of life, the excitement and joy of succeeding, of failing, of helping other people and fulfilling our purpose as humans.
So focused are we on the joys of heaven and seeing Christ that we often forget that being on this earth is a gift unto itself. We're spoiled, we're lazy, and using excuses as to why it's not all we think it should be.
It stops the gift of life that God has given us and denies an individual the inherent right to live and make their choices. That is wrong, soteriologically and otherwise. There aren't loopholes in scripture...those God has chosen to himself will remain chosen, those who aren't won't.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
Even worse -- if one is 4 or 5 point Calvinist then those who participate in conducting those abortions "have no other choice" -- for God knows every moment and every detail - He does this by sovereignly ordaining that they each do exactly as they are doing. Who are we to complain to the potter over what he makes them do? (said as if to make theiir 4 and 5 point argument).
The Arminian view is "no they are doing wrong - God is not making them do it NOR is He willing them to do it".
But your argument that "they deserve it" if they have "sinful natures" is not justified in scripture since God marks many that he calls "The innocent" that suffer at the hands of the unjust wicked -- and yet ALL of the "innocent" have the Romans 3 sinful nature -- that did not stop God from seeing them as the "innocent".
in Christ,
Bob
It's not my argument - I'm just pointing out that it's something of a logical conclusion of the 5-point Calvinist argument and that it poses something of a theological and moral problem.
BobRyan said:
So what you're saying is that Calvinists believe God is the author of sin. Is that right? God makes man sin.
I don't see Scriptural support for that. Man is sinful - he sins because of that. Those who perform abortions are doing so because they are sinners. End of story.