Abortion - Should There Ever Be Exceptions?

Post by **_loaves** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:12 pm

Yeah Paidion, I see your point. I realize that people have different opinions, and I’m sure we all didn’t intend to get into a full-fledged debate, considering the sensitive, thin-skinned topic.

But I just can’t come to believe that God would be directing me to exterminate someone’s life. God brought that life into the world, and I don’t believe it’s my business to take it out. That’s just simply my belief.

You had mentioned that we need to work, otherwise we would die. That is a reasonable argument. But let me just say this: what did George Mueller do when his hundreds orphans were verging on starvation?? He could have gotten a loan and gone into debt. He could have done something else that would be against God’s will. What did he do? He dropped to his knees and asked God to provide. And God always did. Yeah, they may have not had the best food or clothes, but God always provided. There were no exceptions.

God never promises that we will get what we want. He only promises us that we will get what we need.

“all things work together for good to them that love God” - Romans 8

“For the good” doesn’t always mean that we get want we want. We will get only what is necessary. And it’s not necessary for us to survive. It’s only necessary to obey God. God’s commands don’t need to be reasonable, they don’t need to be understood; they just need to be obeyed.

I don’t know much about Terri Shiavo. I usually don't follow the news that much. I’m guessing she was on some sort of life support?? Maybe someone could enlighten me?? And if she was deprived of all food and water until she died, I do think she was "purposely killed."

Did the prayers of thousands of people prevent her death?

“whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matthew 21:22)

And so, I believe that if we had faith as small as a mustard seed we can move mountains. Jesus said that, and I don’t think he was speaking in hyperbole. If those thousands of people that were praying for Mrs. Shiavo had faith as small as a mustard seed, I am 100% sure she wouldn’t die. We need to have that kind of faith. The big condition is that we need to ask of God “believing it will happen.” And if you didn’t believe it would happen, you have asked in vain. And so those people didn’t pray in faith.

“Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (James 4:3).

And wars. If everyone using this forum had the faith of a mustard seed that there would be no wars, guess what would happen? If everyone had the faith of a mustard seed there would be no wars.

We shouldn’t underestimate to power of God.

But I realize people have differing opinions.

This topic is becoming more like a non-resistance/pacifism/not-taking-life topic rather than an abortion issue. That’s okay with me, but I just wanted to be sure moderator Steve was okay with that or should we start another topic??

Post by **_Homer** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:24 am

Wow! Terri Shiavo's death is proof positive that the people praying for her had no faith, or almost none! Couldn't it be that their prayer was not in God's will? Even thwarting God's will?

It seems to me we are prone to easy answers to tough problems. Should the mother die and her children and husband suffer enormously or should surgery be done, the intent of which is to save the life of the mother. There is a great moral difference in this case and in the vast majority of abortions where the intention is to kill the baby.

If your wife (or husband) and a stranger fell into a river and were drowning, and you only had time to save one, who would you save? I would save my wife. Not because the life of my wife is more valuable in God's eyes, but because of what she means to me personally. If the stranger was a baby, I would still save my wife first. I would not be able to do otherwise. This would not be an immoral choice. There is a bond of love for my wife that I do not have for stangers, not to mention an oath to God.

We must admit that there is an emotional attachment between the mother and her family that does not yet exist between them and the unborn child.

In living as Jesus would have us live, real dilemmas arise. Would you lie to save a life? And who, if lost in the woods, wouldn't break into a cabin for food and shelter? Jesus approved of David and his men eating the showbread when they were starving, a clear violation of The Law. We must obey the Law of Love which may involve painful, difficult choices.

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:52 pm

Hi Loaves,

Thank you for bringing up George Mueller. I have read his diary, and was highly impressed. Brother Mueller didn't do what he did primarily for the sake of the orphans, but to demonstrate to the world what God could do apart from human effort. Once when someone offered to donate, George asked, "Why do you want to donate?" When the man responded that he was concerned for the orphans, George refused to accept the donation. He would accept donations only if he were convinced that God had led the donor to give.

Notwithstanding this wonderful demonstration of God's power, I believe that this is the exception rather than the rule. I am not convinced that God will provide for everyone who trusts Him in the way that He provided for George Mueller's project. I personally know people who have trusted God completely and with tears, asked for the healing of another person. It didn't happen. I know people who have prayed for the salvation of their spouse for decades --- another who has prayed for her children to submit and commit their lives to Jesus. It didn't happen.

I am not suggesting that prayer is of no avail with God. What I am suggesting is that it is unrealistic to assume that if we have sufficient faith, all of our prayers will be answered. We do not yet understand why God sometimes grants the petition that was asked of him, but more often doesn't.

“all things work together for good to them that love God” - Romans 8

This statement has been greatly misinterpreted due to the fact that it has been possibly mistranslated as well as lifted out of context. Obviously it is not true that "All things work together for good to them that love God." Some who love and serve God have had little girls who were viciously raped and killed. I know that God, in His wisdom, is often able to bring good out of such incidents, but I know the parents would rather have sacrificed the resulting good if their daughter had been spared the terror and pain she underwent.

Papyrus 46 is the oldest known manuscript containing the verse. This papyrus is believed to have been written down in the middle of the second century. Here is as literal translation as is possible to make:

And we know that to the ones loving God, God works together everything for good, to the ones being called, according to His purpose

But if we understand this to mean that God works all circumstances together for good to the called ones who love Him, we would be mistaken. This is clearly not the case!

Let's look at the rest of the passage (verses 29 and 30)

For those whom He foreknew, He also pre-appointed to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He pre-appointed, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

God had a plan for a special people to become completely under His authority. This plan was his foreknowledge. He intended to carry out that plan, and what God intends to carry out is going to happen, no matter what choices man makes.

So His special people came into being in keeping with His plan or foreknowledge, the disciples of Christ, the regenerated ones. He had an appointment for them --- an appointment to become Christ-like (conformed to the image of the Son). It is called a "pre-appointment" because God made this appointment long ago, probably long before any of them were even born.

There was a sequence here. First they were foreknown by God, then pre-appointed, then called, then justified, and finally glorified.

It is all written in the past tense, yet we know that none of us has yet been glorified. But when God decides to do a thing, it is as good as done. So we might as well say we have been glorified. This use of the past tense occurs elsewhere in the scriptures. The book of Hebrews states, "God has put all things under his feet... but we do not yet see all things under his feet". We don't yet see it, because it hasn't yet happened. But it's going to happen. So we might as well say that God has already done it. Likeswise, we say that we have been saved. Actually we are not yet saved completely from sin. Salvation is a process. But God is going to finish what He started, so we might as well say we are saved NOW!

So there is a sequence of God working within our minds and hearts to perfect us, and conform us to the image of Christ. He works all things together within us for our good, to those of us who are called according
to His purpose to complete and perfect us. Thus at the time of Christ's return, when we are resurrected, and when He puts the finishing touches upon us, we will be "brethren of Christ". Jesus was the first to reach this perfection, at His resurrection. Even though Jesus was always sinless while He lived on earth, He was not yet perfected (or completed).

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. Hebrews 2:10 NASB

Many people do not understand "perfection". They think "perfect" means "flawless". It doesn't. If a man is in the process of building a house, it is not yet perfect. That does not mean that is is flawed. Rather it is not yet complete. So with Jesus. He was flawless, but until He finished his course, not yet complete.

Homer, I liked your thinking about why it would be right to save the mother, though it meant the child's death. You are right. We are faced with many moral dilemnas in this life, and sometimes the right choice causes harm. Yes, it is morally right to lie to save a life, even though lying is normally morally wrong. But moral imperatives can be arranged in a hierarchy, where some imperatives take precedence over others. In this case, the moral imperative to save a life where possible, takes precedence over the moral imperative not to lie.

Your first paragraph was the only part of your post with which I disagreed.

Wow! Terri Shiavo's death is proof positive that the people praying for her had no faith, or almost none! Couldn't it be that their prayer was not in God's will? Even thwarting God's will?

I believe most of the thousands who prayed for her, did it in faith. They were asking for a miracle. God did not intervene in that particular case.
I don't believe their prayer was "thwarting God's will." I believe that those who killed her through deprivation of water were thwarting God's will.

Post by **_Steve** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:31 pm

Just a point of clarification: George Mueller's orphans were never on the verge of starvation. In fact, they never missed a meal in the over 50 years that Mueller ran the orphanages. Sometimes there was no money and no food on hand until just before mealtime, but the orphans never went to bed hungry. That was Mueller's testimony at the end of his life.

Post by **_loaves** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:04 pm

Paidion wrote:I believe that those who killed her through deprivation of water were thwarting God's will.

Paidion, as sad as that sounded, it was so true!! This was basically what I was getting at when I said that people try to take matters into their own hands.

Paidion wrote:I believe most of the thousands who prayed for her, did it in faith.

I must disagree with you here. “whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matthew 21:22). I must add that whenever Jesus asked for, he got it immediately. So, while I do believe some may have prayed for Terry, and some may have even prayed to the true God, I also conclude that those people didn’t pray “believing.” It was not God’s will for her that people killed her by deprivation. But, of course, things happen all the time that are not God’s will. People are murdered. That is not God’s will. People are raped, like Paidion mentioned. That is not God’s will. But we shouldn’t stop trusting God, simply because things happen that aren’t God’s will.

The Calvinists claim “the sovereignty of God” as they go rushing off to battle with the Muslims. But if I understand Calvinism correctly (and I know I don’t), if the Muslims come and destroy your towns, then because of the mere fact that it happened, means that it is God’s will. And God is sovereign, they say. If Muslims raid your town, then it is God’s will, and we shouldn’t question the sovereignty of God. And so why do they battle the Muslims, if it is God’s will for the Muslims to destroy their towns to begin with?? It beats me.

Paidion wrote:We are faced with many moral dilemnas in this life, and sometimes the right choice causes harm. Yes, it is morally right to lie to save a life, even though lying is normally morally wrong.

I don't think the God of holiness endorses sin anywhere in the Bible, for any reason, period. Yeah, those words may sound cold and hard, but they are truth.

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19)

I don’t remember Jesus saying it was okay to sin if certain imperatives take precedence over others. Could you show me one? If I was lost in the woods, for example, and God specifically tells me not to brake into anyone's house and steal; I should think that I shouldn't steal. Remember, it's not necessary for us to survive, it's only necessary to obey God. And if that obedience causes me to starve to death, then I guess I'll starve to death. You wouldn't brake into a house if you weren't hungry, would you? Why does being hungry change that mentality?

When Jesus spoke of David and the showbread (Matt. 12), He never said it was what David should have done. He was simply making the point that the “Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”

I do believe, however, that when Jesus came there was “made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb. 7:12). That’s why I don’t believe we should be sacrificing animals anymore. Jesus was “offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9). That’s why I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “Christian Nation” anymore. The kingdom of heaven is made up of individuals. The kingdom of heaven is completely different than the kingdom of earth.

King David didn’t have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. So I’m not surprised when David broke the law. David committed fornication, but does that mean we should do the same thing. “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives” (Matt. 19). But Jesus doesn’t tolerate Christians putting away their wives (“except for fornication”). I would be chary of comparing ourselves with Old Testament saints. Why? Because we as Christians have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit which is the source of our spiritual victory. That is something Old Testament saints simply didn’t have. And because of that spiritual strength, God expects more from us.

“except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20)

Our righteousness cannot exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, by us trying harder than the Pharisees. It is the spiritual power that flows from the River of Life, which makes us more righteous than the Pharisees.

Just like we are new creatures and not a “better” old man, the New Covenant is not an improved version of the Old Covenant. It is completely new.

Post by **_loaves** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:19 pm

Steve wrote:Just a point of clarification: George Mueller's orphans were never on the verge of starvation. In fact, they never missed a meal in the over 50 years that Mueller ran the orphanages. Sometimes there was no money and no food on hand until just before mealtime, but the orphans never went to bed hungry. That was Mueller's testimony at the end of his life.

Bro. Steve: Thank you for the correction. By “verge of starvation” I meant basically what you said, that they almost began to starve because they had no food for the next meal.

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:00 pm

Paidion wrote:
We are faced with many moral dilemnas in this life, and sometimes the right choice causes harm. Yes, it is morally right to lie to save a life, even though lying is normally morally wrong.
I don't think the God of holiness endorses sin anywhere in the Bible, for any reason, period. Yeah, those words may sound cold and hard, but they are truth.

Loaves, I didn't suggest that God endorses sin. Lying to save a life is not "sin". If you think it is, how do you personally deal with moral dilemnas? If a killer entered your house to kill your wife and children, and demanded to know where they were, would you tell them the truth, and allow them to be killed? Would you feel that you had done the right thing since you "told the truth"? I believe that if you should do so, you would have committed a greivious sin in allowing the killer to take the lives of your wife and children.

Let me give you a scriptural example of a woman lying to save the life of two men, in which the scripture commends her.

Two spies sent by Joshua came to the house of Rahab. The king of Jericho sent some messengers to inquire about the spies. When the messengers came to Rahab's house, she had already hidden them on her roof. When they inquired about the men, Rahab said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went." Joshua 2:4,5

Lies! She knew wheere they were from, and the men didn't go out at dark. They were hidden on Rahab's roof.

And now the commendation:

Hebrews 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.

"By faith, Rahab did not perish along with those who were disobedient."

In what way was Rahab obedient? She welcomed the spies and saved their lives. What were her means of saving their lives? She hid them and lied to those whom the king of Jericho sent. The author of Hebrews stated that she did this act by faith!

James 2:25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

James stated that Rahab was justified by works when she "received the messengers and sent them out another way". What "works" did Rahab do? She lied and told the messengers that the two men (the Israeli spies) had already left, and James seems to have suggested even more. She told them, "They went that a way."

It seems clear that moral hierarchalism was the "moral theory" of both the writer of Hebrews and of James ---- indeed of many others also, of whom the scripture reports. Yes, I would say of God Himself!

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:07 am

Loaves,

We are getting off on a tangent but I can't leave it alone. It must be admitted that there may be cases where we can not obey one command without disobeying another. This is why it is important to obey the higher command (hierarchicalism).

Do you agree that the scriptures teach that children are to obey their parents? What if a Jewish teen comes home and informs his parents he is going to be baptized and follow Jesus and they forbid him to do so? Would he sin by being baptized?

It is no sin to lie to someone who will use the truth to kill. In this case, the one intent on murder has no right to the truth.

You who doubt this, do you leave a light on when no one is home? Your intention is to deceive potential burglers, is it not? How do you excuse this?

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:36 am

I might add a medieval example, and one from our modern age of strong Christians who lied to save lives ---- the first one his own life, and the second the lives of others..

Menno Simons, (from which the word "Mennonite" comes) deceived those who wanted to capture him and kill him. Menno was the driver of a carriage which carried a number of people. He was stopped by his enemies and asked whether Menno Simons was on the carriage. Menno called down, "Is Menno Simons down there?" The answer came, "No."
Those who sought him rode on.

Richard Wurmband, a Lutheran minister and fervent disciple, who spent 14 years in Romanian prisons, actually taught that it was "right" to lie to the Communists. Richard determined that he would never inform as to the whereabouts of other disciples under any conditions. When the torture became unbearable, he gave names. But they were either names of people who had already died, or else of those who had already been captured.

Richard also carried hidden poison with him, in case he had to choose between revealing the names of other Christians, or committing suicide.
It never came to the point where he had to take the poison.

Post by **_loaves** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:30 pm

Yeah we are going off on a tangent, but let me get up on my soapbox and share. Please forgive me, Steve.

Paidion wrote:Lying to save a life is not "sin".

Could you please tell me what Bible verse you are referring to? I can’t seem to find it … Let me put a twist on those words: would it be lawful to rape a woman to save a life? Would it be lawful to sacrifice your children to the Woombetoombe god of the Aztecs, just to save a life?

Paidion wrote:If a killer entered your house to kill your wife and children, and demanded to know where they were, would you tell them the truth, and allow them to be killed? Would you feel that you had done the right thing since you "told the truth"? I believe that if you should do so, you would have committed a greivious sin in allowing the killer to take the lives of your wife and children.

If a killer enters my house a forces me to squeal on my wife and children, am I obliged to say anything at all? In a case like that I would probably keep my mouth shut until the killer beats me to death, and until I know my wife and chilluns’ are safely on their way. No sin is involved on my part. And that selfless, altruistic attitude is what, I think, God is looking for in men today.

Homer wrote:Do you agree that the scriptures teach that children are to obey their parents? What if a Jewish teen comes home and informs his parents he is going to be baptized and follow Jesus and they forbid him to do so? Would he sin by being baptized?

Yes, I agree that children should obey their parents. But only to the extent that that obedience wouldn’t cause him to sin. The same goes for our government. We must obey our authorities. But only to the extent that that obedience wouldn’t cause us to sin. So that Jewish boy wouldn’t be sinning by being baptized, because Jesus commands it. If our parents tell us to do something that is sinful, to disobey wouldn’t be sin.

Paidion wrote: Two spies sent by Joshua came to the house of Rahab. The king of Jericho sent some messengers to inquire about the spies. When the messengers came to Rahab's house, she had already hidden them on her roof. When they inquired about the men, Rahab said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went." Joshua 2:4,5 Lies! She knew wheere they were from, and the men didn't go out at dark. They were hidden on Rahab's roof.

When Rahab said “I did not know where they were from”, it was a truthful statement. In reality she didn’t really know where they came from. From Egypt? From America? From Neptune? From the bottom of the ocean? Although the men may have looked like they came from the bottom of the ocean, she really didn’t know the exact location. When she said that “the men went out; I do not know where the men went” was a completely true statement as well. We don’t know if after spending some time with Rahab, the spies went out of the house and then got a ladder and climbed up to the roof that way. But the ladder seems a little unlikely. So, they could have “gone out” and then come right back in, and then up to the roof they go. The account never mentions how long ago and how long a duration. And where they had “gone out” from is not clear either. They could have “gone out” from the presence of Moses, months earlier (or whatever the timeframe was). But that is farfetched as well. There are countless ways to affirm Rehab’s truthfulness.

But in any case, Rahab was 100% truthful, depending on how certain key words are defined and interpreted. And so, in my humble opinion, the account of Rahab is questionable if it can support your beliefs.

Rahab’s truthfulness wasn’t praised and commended, but her acceptance God’s messengers without opposition was. And so, in turn, she was actually accepting God himself.

Paidion wrote:Menno Simons, (from which the word "Mennonite" comes) deceived those who wanted to capture him and kill him. Menno was the driver of a carriage which carried a number of people. He was stopped by his enemies and asked whether Menno Simons was on the carriage. Menno called down, "Is Menno Simons down there?" The answer came, "No." Those who sought him rode on.

Menno was completely truthful. When Menno said “Is Menno Simons down there?,” in reality Menno wasn’t “down there” but “up there” on the carriage. Technically the words “down there” connotatates (sp??) “below” the speaker. Menno can’t be below himself. You see, it really depends on how you interpret and define key words.

Paidion wrote:Richard Wurmband, a Lutheran minister and fervent disciple, who spent 14 years in Romanian prisons, actually taught that it was "right" to lie to the Communists. Richard determined that he would never inform as to the whereabouts of other disciples under any conditions. When the torture became unbearable, he gave names. But they were either names of people who had already died, or else of those who had already been captured.

Richard Wurmband was gravely wrong, I’m afraid. “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5). I can’t judge his eternal destiny, but he was wrong. I’m not a big fan of Martin Luther. He was a good man and taught many truths that we can glean from. But the bulk of his teachings, I believe, were very misleading and questionable and illusory. After all, some of the fundamental facets are missing from his theology; transubstantiation, the mass, sin, among many others. Martin Luther is not my role model. And I wouldn’t use him as an example. Let me give you some quotes from Luther:

Marty wrote:“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not a dwelling place of righteousness”

“No sin will separate us from the lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day”

“The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves”

“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham'”

(speaking of the peasant revolt) “They should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everybody who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog”

Now, I can’t judge Luther, but he seemed very cruel. He was basically a Calvinist and taught “OSAS,” which gave people grave misconceptions about God and salvation and sin and Jesus.

Jesus is my example. What did Jesus do and say on the subject? Did He ever lie in order to save a life? In many, many different places, the Bible tells us that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6). And if God is to be our example (1 Pet. 2:21), we should never lie.

The Bible tells me in several places that Satan is the father of all lies (John 8:44). “All” is not conditional.

The Book of Revelation informs us that “all liars” will burn in the lake of fire (Rev. 21). I don’t think God really cares if our motivation to sin is to save life. He has said that they “all,” regardless of the impetus, will burn eternally.

Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit to save their own lives, and they dropped down dead (Acts 5). It was the first sin judged publicly in the early Church (as far as the Bible goes).

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free … Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John Eight)

Jesus says that whosoever commits sin is a servant of sin, regardless of the stimulus, and without any stipulations.

And it goes deeper than just lying. It is giving conditions for obeying God.

Some people say they will only obey God on their terms, and when it is convenient, and when I’m not being persecuted. That kind of rationalization is not healthy.

Paidion wrote:It seems clear that moral hierarchalism was the "moral theory" of both the writer of Hebrews and of James

I do agree with you to some degree on that one. While I believe that sins are “moral hierarchal,” meaning that sins have different levels of importance or magnitude; I don’t believe they should be obeyed hierarchically. Christ says in John 15:10 that we are to keep His commandments just as He kept His Father’s. He kept His Father’s commandments perfectly, without partiality, without proclivity, and without “Lying to save a life.”

He expects nothing less of us, by His grace.

A good tape (it’s free) I recommend to everyone here is “Lovers of the Truth” by Zac Poonen.

http://charityministries.org/tapeminist ... index=2524