Freedom of Choice and Abortion: Would you take away that freedom? Would you make it a criminal act?

[Zaac]

I will preface this with I am in no shape, form or manner in favor of murdering babies. (But without fail, there will be the same cacophony of naysayers just because). Nor is this thread about child molesters, rapists or pillagers.

But if God has given us freedom of choice in this instance and all others: 1 Cor. 10:23

New International Version
"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive.

New Living Translation
You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is beneficial.

English Standard Version
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

King James Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everything is permissible," but not everything is helpful. "Everything is permissible," but not everything builds up.

International Standard Version
Everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful. Everything is permissible, but not everything builds up.

Should we not be working diligently to make disciples who make the RIGHT choice as opposed to inflaming folks by trying to take away or make illegal their God-given right to choose to obey or disobey Him?

Just pondering.

 

[Don]

You confuse civil law with biblical ethics.

In a perfect world, one that uses scripture as its guiding precept in all that we do, there would be no need for civil law. Everyone would work to make disciples; and disciples would willingly follow the precepts of scripture.

In the world in which we live, we have those that work to make disciples; and those that willingly follow the precepts of scripture. Civil law is required for all others.

Or, to paraphrase Galatians 3:24, the law is a schoolmaster to help us learn what's right and what's wrong. The "choice" to kill an unborn human being has to be defined in terms of "right" and "wrong"; not "choice." If it's morally wrong to kill unborn human beings, and the people who wish to do so won't abide by scriptural precepts or refuse to become disciples; how else do you propose we address it, other than shrugging our shoulders and just letting it happen?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Should we not be working diligently to make disciples who make the RIGHT choice as opposed to inflaming folks by trying to take away or make illegal their God-given right to choose to obey or disobey Him?

Inflaming people? Of course they are going to be inflamed when we preach that abortion is a sin against God.

Also, the lost are going to be offended when you try "make disciples" of them. The gospel IS offensive. Paul said there was an "offense" to the cross, that some stumble over the gospel because it isn't work based and other view it as foolishness.

Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace, but a division - even in the most intimate of relationships such as immediate families.

• We can't - CAN'T - "work diligently" to make disciples who make the "RIGHT choice" without first bringing them the gospel.

• We can't bring them the gospel without bringing the concept of personal sin to the surface.

• We can't bring a person to look at himself or herself in the mirror in the manner of Dorian Gray and NOT offend them.

The purport of our presentation of the gospel cannot be intentional insult. That's not Biblical. But the substance of the gospel, it's supernatural power to save, is going to offend.

When you share with a lost person or a professed believer who supports abortion that God is not pleased with this because He is holy - no matter much your words are lovingly said - the truth will cut like a knife.

As Don said, there is no other way to broach the subject. Our only other choice other than teaching and preaching the truth about abortion is to ignore it and hope it goes away.

 

[Zaac]

You confuse civil law with biblical ethics.

It appears, IMO, that it is those Christians who look to reverse Roe v Wade or make the choice illegal who have confused the two.

In a perfect world, one that uses scripture as its guiding precept in all that we do, there would be no need for civil law. Everyone would work to make disciples; and disciples would willingly follow the precepts of scripture.

In the world in which we live, we have those that work to make disciples; and those that willingly follow the precepts of scripture. Civil law is required for all others.

So again why would we as Christians work to take away as legal a choice that God has said is permissible?

Or, to paraphrase Galatians 3:24, the law is a schoolmaster to help us learn what's right and what's wrong. The "choice" to kill an unborn human being has to be defined in terms of "right" and "wrong"; not "choice."

It is a CHOICE to decide to do what's right and what is wrong. Which again is consistent with Scripture saying that all things are permissible. A person has the God given right to choose to do right or wrong. So how would Christians pushing to legislate against the choice to make that decision be consistent with Scripture?

If it's morally wrong to kill unborn human beings, and the people who wish to do so won't abide by scriptural precepts or refuse to become disciples; how else do you propose we address it, other than shrugging our shoulders and just letting it happen?

Shouldn't our answer always be the Holy Spirit and working to point people toward Christ?

Has anyone ever wondered how a nation that somewhat at least "seemed" to revere God, got to the point that the killing of babies ever got to be something that people would even consider?

Did we cede the ground that God had given us by not making disciples and the inevitable moved into the void?

 

[matt wade]

Should we not be working diligently to make disciples who make the RIGHT choice as opposed to inflaming folks by trying to take away or make illegal their God-given right to choose to obey or disobey Him?

Just pondering.

Would you ponder the same for murdering adults? Allow people the right to make a choice?

 

[TC]

Exodus 20:13 says "You shall not murder." (ESV)

Are you saying God changed his mind? Or are you just looking to justify lawlessness?

Sent from my RCT6773W22B using Tapatalk

 

[Zaac]

Would you ponder the same for murdering adults? Allow people the right to make a choice?

Yes I would. Because people are already choosing right and wrong as God has given them the choice. People are already, everyday, exercising their freedom of choice to murder or to not murder someone. So again, why would I, as a follower of Christ, legislate to keep them from making a choice?

And if, as was mentioned, the civil law allows or doesn't allow something. It doesn't take away the choice to let you decide to do or not do something.

 

[Zaac]

Exodus 20:13 says "You shall not murder." (ESV)

Are you saying God changed his mind? Or are you just looking to justify lawlessness?

Sent from my RCT6773W22B using Tapatalk

No TC. I'm asking does it serve the purpose of Christ for Christians to be pushing to take away the ability of other Christians (because I'm assuming the "all things are permissible" was directed to us) to make a choice where this is concerned?

If a Christian said to their Christian son, I forbid you to keep getting drunk, would it make sense to push for legislation to outlaw alcohol? Would he not find a way to make a choice to get it and get drunk if he really wanted? Isn't that the way it used to be for abortion, and one of the reasons women were getting the "back-alley" abortions?

 

[matt wade]

Yes I would. Because people are already choosing right and wrong as God has given them the choice. People are already, everyday, exercising their freedom of choice to murder or to not murder someone. So again, why would I, as a follower of Christ, legislate to keep them from making a choice?

And if, as was mentioned, the civil law allows or doesn't allow something. It doesn't take away the choice to let you decide to do or not do something.

Civil law gives penalty for those that make poor choices.

 

[Zaac]

Civil law gives penalty for those that make poor choices.

I understand that too. But should the way of the Christian be to push to help make it illegal to make a choice, when again, Scripture says that all things are permissible? Or in my words, God says you can make the choice to do whatever you want to do, BUT...

 

[Zaac]

Inflaming people? Of course they are going to be inflamed when we preach that abortion is a sin against God.

But is THAT what they are hearing Scarlett? Or are they hearing us telling them that they don't have the right to make a choice about what to do with their bodies?

Also, the lost are going to be offended when you try "make disciples" of them. The gospel IS offensive. Paul said there was an "offense" to the cross, that some stumble over the gospel because it isn't work based and other view it as foolishness.

You're going left here lol. I think we're aware that what you're saying is the truth. But when people feel like you've taken away or are pushing to take away their ability to make a choice, they aren't gonna hear anything else.

Should we not be doing those things that give us a platform to share the Gospel as opposed to taking it away?

 

[HAMel]

...I've got a 1931 Cadillac Pick-up truck with only 2,123 original miles on it. Needs a battery. Anyone in need of a truck?

 

[JonC]

I will preface this with I am in no shape, form or manner in favor of murdering babies. (But without fail, there will be the same cacophony of naysayers just because). Nor is this thread about child molesters, rapists or pillagers.

But if God has given us freedom of choice in this instance and all others: 1 Cor. 10:23



Should we not be working diligently to make disciples who make the RIGHT choice as opposed to inflaming folks by trying to take away or make illegal their God-given right to choose to obey or disobey Him?

Just pondering.

As Christians we are to reflect godliness, which would not be remaining silent in the face of abortion. So, no, I do not think that time is better spent ignoring this issue and focusing on those who are on the "right" side of the debate. But that's not why I replied.

The context is not as broad as your post implies (you aptly identify this when speaking of rape and murder...."all things are lawful" does not mean that rape and murder are now lawful for the believer or anyone else). All things that we would do, in Christ, are lawful but I will not be mastered by anything is probably closer to the context. Paul is speaking of avoiding the mistakes of Israel by not craving evil things as they did.

 

[Don]

But is THAT what they are hearing Scarlett? Or are they hearing us telling them that they don't have the right to make a choice about what to do with their bodies?

Ah, there's the rub. They *don't* have a "God-given right" to choose evil. They have the freedom to make a choice. The two are not synonymous. If it was their "right" to do evil, then God would not condemn people to hell.

Should we not be doing those things that give us a platform to share the Gospel as opposed to taking it away?

No. What you're asking is to sugar coat things. Make it easier for them to swallow being told that what they're doing is wrong. But isn't that exactly the method that's ceded the ground, and moved us toward the void?

There's no need to be hateful about telling the truth; it should be told in loving kindness. But no matter how loving you put it, how much sugar you put on it, some folks are just not gonna accept being told that what they're doing is unacceptable in God's eyes.

But mixing this telling folks about God's morality with civil legislation -- what's really your end game? That Christians shouldn't be involved in politics or government at all? In your view, what exactly are you trying to say we should all be doing or not doing?

 

[Zaac]

As Christians we are to reflect godliness, which would not be remaining silent in the face of abortion.

I didn't say remain silent. You don't remain silent and make disciples.

So, no, I do not think that time is better spent ignoring this issue and focusing on those who are on the "right" side of the debate. But that's not why I replied.

And THAT is not what I said.

The context is not as broad as your post implies (you aptly identify this when speaking of rape and murder...."all things are lawful" does not mean that rape and murder are now lawful for the believer or anyone else).

That's one of the reasons I gave several translations of the passage. But if lawful, permissible and whatever other term Biblical translators have used interchangeably in that passage can be correctly used interchangeably, why would anyone contextually not believe that it is lawful/permissible/I have the right/I am allowed? Is that not what it says?

It doesn't say that it is RIGHT or there are no consequences, but it does essentially say you can do it if you choose.

All things that we would do, in Christ, are lawful but I will not be mastered by anything is probably closer to the context.

We open the door to false teaching and opinion when we interject probably. Why not just deal with what the Scripture actually says?

Paul is speaking of avoiding the mistakes of Israel by not craving evil things as they did.

That may be. But how would that take away from one's ability to still have the choice of making such a mistake or not?

 

[JonC]

What I am saying, Zaac, is that we cannot take a verse out of context and call it "scritpure." Sure the words are there, but the teachings are absent.

To illustrate, I will answer this question of yours with the same methodology you extract 1 Corinthians 10:23 from its context.

But how would that take away from one's ability to still have the choice of making such a mistake or not?

We never choose to make a mistake. Choice is intentional.

 

[Zaac]

Ah, there's the rub. They *don't* have a "God-given right" to choose evil.

Since when has THAT become a truth?God has given every man the freedom of choice to choose Him, that which is Good, or that which is against Him.

They have the freedom to make a choice.

That's what I said.

The two are not synonymous. If it was their "right" to do evil, then God would not condemn people to hell.

Don, I don't believe that I said "their right to DO evil". I said that they have been given the right from God to choose to obey or disobey. There's a difference. .

No. What you're asking is to sugar coat things. Make it easier for them to swallow being told that what they're doing is wrong. But isn't that exactly the method that's ceded the ground, and moved us toward the void?

What I'm asking is what I asked. What it does is give you the opportunity to explain why what they want to make the choice to do is wrong. So either we're trying to win the argument, or we're trying to point people to Christ? Which one is it?

How would pushing to take away a choice given by God aid in pointing them towards God?

Wouldn't it figure that God said what He said the way that HE said it with purpose?

So are we gonna continue to push people to throw up a wall and not receive anything from us because we want to make illegal a choice God says they get to make? Or do we roll with what God says and say yes, you do have the right to make this choice, but let me tell you why God desires that you make another choice?

There's no need to be hateful about telling the truth; it should be told in loving kindness. But no matter how loving you put it, how much sugar you put on it, some folks are just not gonna accept being told that what they're doing is unacceptable in God's eyes.

You're skipping ahead. I'm not talking about the GETTING an abortion. I'm talking about making the CHOICE. That's what they are hearing is that we are telling them they don't even have the right to make the choice to do or not do. And THAT is inconsistent with what Scripture says.

But mixing this telling folks about God's morality with civil legislation -- what's really your end game?

I didn't mix it. You'll have to ask that of the person who brought it up. I simply responded to what they said.

That Christians shouldn't be involved in politics or government at all?

I'm sure it would help your tone if I had said that.

In your view, what exactly are you trying to say we should all be doing or not doing?

Did you not read the OP?

 

[Zaac]

What I am saying, Zaac, is that we cannot take a verse out of context and call it "scritpure." Sure the words are there, but the teachings are absent.

To illustrate, I will answer this question of yours with the same methodology you extract 1 Corinthians 10:23 from its context. We never choose to make a mistake. Choice is intentional.

Absolutely. That's why it shouldn't be encouraging laws that get in the way of explaining to people why they have a choice and who gave it to them.

 

[JonC]

Absolutely. That's why it shouldn't be encouraging laws that get in the way of explaining to people why they have a choice and who gave it to them.

Laws are for those who choose to practice lawlessness. Lawlessness is not a choice given but a decision made. Rebellion is never a choice offered. It is always a decision made.

 

[matt wade]

This entire thread is pure foolishness. According to the OP, we should do away with all laws so that we can better share the Gospel with the lost. Have fun doing that while you are raped/murdered/battered/take your choice.

Ever seen The Purge? That's what happens when laws are suspended/gone.