Disqus - Latest Comments for Rhology

Re: Here’s What Church/State Groups Are Saying About SCOTUS Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Rhology — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:20:04 -0000

Yawn
I could call you a leftist libtard for my part, but what would that solve

Re: Here’s What Church/State Groups Are Saying About SCOTUS Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Rhology — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:18:11 -0000

Those people you listed are centrists.

Re: Owner says business is being harassed by anti-abortion group

Rhology — Sat, 28 May 2016 22:57:30 -0000

It's so sad how you don't know the meaning of the word "harassment". Probably guvmit skule grajeeyat.

They are committing decriminalised murder. That's the problem. But harassment is a crime. And it hasn't been committed.

What lies, specifically, have we told?

Re: Owner says business is being harassed by anti-abortion group

Rhology — Sat, 28 May 2016 13:15:59 -0000

Asking people to follow Jesus, offering forgiveness of sin, and preaching the Gospel is anything but harassment. People say "harassment" because they don't like the message, not because we are actually harassing them.
And I don't see where we attack anyone, either. This "Jim Aroyo" is just a troll that follows abolitionists around and creates sockpuppet accounts by the hundreds to spit hatred toward us and lie about us all the time. If you see evidence of harassment, call the police. If we attack someone, call the police.

Re: Christian contractor quits after learning he was working on abortion center

Rhology — Mon, 23 May 2016 14:14:08 -0000

There are several errors in this article.
For one, the P&P team never once criticised Yarbrough & Sons because they should have known but didn't bother finding out that they were renovating an abortion mill. Rather, the main criticism has been and remains the fact that they were told on 17 March 2016 that it was an abortion mill, they didn't care and in fact insisted that they would finish, they posted a "final statement" on 25 March insisting they would finish, their trucks were seen at least twice at the abortuary after 25 March, and then on 01 May they took down all their statements and started claiming that they had actually quit working on the job on 21 March, which is a bald-faced lie. They finished their part of the project and are now trying to rewrite history.

Re: Is an SBC Church Supporting an Abortion Clinic?

Rhology — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:36:16 -0000

No, you're just trying to obscure your opposition with nonsense.
In essence, you're saying "if you can't do everything, don't do anything." You're wrong to say that.

Re: The pro-life problem is much bigger than you think

Rhology — Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:14:38 -0000

True and amen.

Re: Anti-abortion: Intimidating means DO NOT justify the ends

Rhology — Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:08:26 -0000

The author is so very, very confused. She dehumanises the victim of abortion, for one thing, like everyone else.
She has no idea what hatred actually is.
She minimises the distance between words and actions, which is irrational. Her own words are hateful, as she didn't do the least modicum of research into who abolitionists are and what we stand for before spouting her opinion in a public forum. She just judged us without trying to understand. That's hateful, right there. I don't think she's about to try to burn my house down.
She brings out old canards like "pro-birth", even though she has no idea how much we assist or adopt. She doesn't argue in favor of socialism or the notion that we are inconsistent who say that murder is wrong and the answer to murder is not higher rates of governmental theft from working people.
She's just emotional and whiney, really. Nothing more.

Re: Oklahoma remains aggressive with anti-abortion movement

Rhology — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:30:01 -0000

Everyone knows what those images depict. That's why everyone hates them.

Re: Oklahoma remains aggressive with anti-abortion movement

Rhology — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:29:46 -0000

Abolitionists are not pro-life. Please amend that description in the article.

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:41:42 -0000

nor do I see a Biblical mandate to "obligate" our brothers and sisters in Christ to do so in such a narrowly prescribed manner as AHA promotes.

I think you're making several mistakes here.
First, "AHA" doesn't promote anything. AHA is an ideology, as I've told you before. Until you can get that right, why would anyone think your analysis bears much weight?
Second, do you think the Bible obligates people to share the Gospel?
Third, what is the "narrowly prescribed manner" that you see abolitionists promoting? I don't think you've read us correctly at all.

not everyone is going to present the Gospel in the same way, at the same time, in the same situation

1) Of course not.
2) But we should all ask why we're unwilling to engage the culture in visible ways, and examine ourselves. What are the good reasons why we wouldn't do that? Fear of man? What else?
3) Ephesians 4:11-13 doesn't get you to this conclusion. You're eisegeting.

Are you trying to suggest that AHA does NOT want to stop abortion?

Except for the fact that ideologies don't want things, since they're ideologies and not agents, no, I'm not saying that abolitionists don't want to stop abortion. Why would you ask this question?

If not, then why are you making this distinction? If so, then why is "abortion" part of your movement's name. It smacks of a "bait and switch" tactic.

I make the distinction b/c the PLM is like "save a baby or two at all costs!" which is counterproductive - many times it involves using sinful means to bring about a desired end.
Abolitionists say: Never do evil that good may result. We say that b/c the Bible says it. The PLM, which you have thus far preferred rather than abolition, says it's OK to do evil that good may result. That's sin.
Unless you think that God wouldn't be glorified in abolishing human abortion thru the Gospel, I don't see how it's a bait and switch. It's uncharitable of you to speak in these terms.

PART OF THE ABOLISH HUMAN ABORTION MOVEMENT

Yes, a movement, an ideology. Not an organisation, as I've repeatedly told you.

The AHA makes it clear these "societies" are at least ostensibly autonomous

What is "the AHA"?
And yes, since the Bible has no knowledge of a papacy, these societies and churches that adhere to abolitionist ideology are autonomous.

so I will stipulate that AHA is not an organization in the strictest sense of the word.

Then you're simply being dishonest. You should repent.

Are you suggesting that true Christians need to stick to our local churches to fight abortion *unless* that local church doesn't fully subscribe to AHA ideology, in which case a t rue Christian ought to begin their own Abolitionist Society?

Finally a question whose premises aren't false!
Ideally a Christian ought to help provoke his local church to love and good deeds and to believe true things, and to spread those true things and good deeds to everyone in the community and the world. If a local church disputes AHA ideology, then that believer ought to do their best to engage the church with the Scripture and help them see that AHA truly represents what the Bible teaches about what vital Christianity looks like in a culture that practices child sacrifice. If the local church resists a lot, it's a tough call as to what to do next. Leave? Do like the early abolitionists and excommunicate the church? Exhort them somehow? There are lots of choices and it can be hard to know a general rule in the abstract. The situation has to be discerned on a case by case basis.
One may find that the church is sorta OK with abolition, and the believer may not want to leave or directly challenge the apathetic leadership (yet), so to be faithful and do the work, the believer might put together an abolitionist society so that at least they can be with others who want to be faithful in a given locality and serve the Lord and try to exhort and encourage others in their churches and other churches to abandon apathy and be salt and light in their community. When you get right down to it, anyway, a group of Christians in a given locality who meet regularly and serve and worship the Lord together is a lot like a church anyway.

Are you suggesting that there are NO PL groups worthy of support or that can be worked with by a Christian?

Some orgs that adhere to abolitionist ideology that have not taken the name "abolitionist" would be OK, like Operation Save America. But not most PL orgs.

Therefore, according to you, if one does not bring the Gospel to the fight against abortion then that is sin.

Hold on. Let's rephrase.
If one does not bring the Gospel to the fight against sin, then that is sin.
Do you disagree?

So then, no, AHA does *not* seem to agree that there are "tons of ways" but really only one: fight abortion thru preaching the Gospel

Part of your confusion may arise in the fact that you probably define "the Gospel" more narrowly than I would.
Preaching and proclaiming it, yes, but that's not all. How familiar are you with what abolitionists around the country are doing?

it seems that AHA is essentially saying, "there are tons of ways to fight abortion - as long as they comport to AHA ideology"

AHA ideology accurately represents Scriptural teaching, so yes, that's what I'm saying.
We should all obey the Scripture at all times. Don't you think so?

which dictates the presentation of the Gospel in some way shape or form that involves activism beyond the donation-box."

I'm honestly not sure what you're after with this statement.

If you truly agree that there are "tons of ways to fight abortion" then among those ways can be a secular one

That is a major non sequitur.

But what if some folks can't fly?

That's not a good analogy - inability to pilot an airplane is not like being lost in love of sin.

I’m not suggesting fighting sin with sin.

Then you're not looking at this issue rightly.
A decree that does not establish justice for all oppressed is sinful.

When you say "their", are you talking about the PL movement in general, or specific PL groups?

Most of the individuals, forming the larger movement as a whole. There are always exceptions.

Consider Phillipians 1:15-18,

Yes, and the PLM has both the wrong Gospel AND the wrong motives.
Galatians 1:6-10

AHA is approaching abortion from the sinful *nature* side and seeks to change the heart thru the proclamation of the Gospel - which I fully support

Hopefully you'll forgive me my skepticism that you really mean that, since you've spent most of your comments in this debate militating against that proposition.

Therefore a secular police force composed of unbelievers is the same as fighting the darkness (of theft and murder) with darkness (law enforcement by unbelievers).

Not so; the decree against murder is righteous. In general it is attempted to be adhered to by the police. Etc.

Taking your arguments to what seems to be the logical extent would mean AHA cannot champion *any* legislation whatsoever until such time as our government is comprised in whole by born-again Protestants who uphold the AHA ideology.

You're simply misunderstanding.

If that is incorrect, then please help me understand how AHA can lock hands with unbelievers in passing legislation

How is it locking hands with unbelievers by persuading them to vote for righteous decrees?

Abortion is not just a spiritual issue.

Nobody ever said it's JUST a spiritual issue.

Also Romans 14 teaches us that there *are* such things as preferences - which would mean that X is wrong in your conscience, but not wrong in mine and so X is not (necessarily) a sin. AHA *prefers* to address the sinful nature behind abortion with the Gospel.

Twisting Romans 14. Your proposal is that Paul would say "It's Christian liberty for a Christian politician to pass unrighteous decrees." I think that's nonsense.

Principled incrementalism – Laws that do not ban all abortion, but are designed to incrementally restrict abortion without including explicit exceptions in the language of the law.

This idea is bad. Call it "principled" all you want. I can call a tail a leg. Dogs still have four legs.

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:24:04 -0000

But AHA seems to have "agitated" PL groups, so IMHO you've gotten what you wanted.

Wellllll, not really. I wanted them to repent. :-)

I don't have a problem with that specifically.

It's good to hear that you don't have a problem with being first and foremost about the Gospel.
I'm kind of unsettled that you seem to have reservations about that, though. You're a Christian, right?

what is causing (IMHO unnecessary) strife is that AHA is presenting themselves in the opposite order (Abolish Abortion via the Gospel) and claiming that other groups who do not place a premium on the Gospel ought to be denounced.

So... groups that do not place a premium on the Gospel ought NOT be denounced?
Dude, keep talking. You're doing a great job showing why AHA is so necessary.

Are you suggesting to stick to your local church *unless* you are part of AHA?

No. There is no "part of AHA", AHA being an ideology and not a group, as I've explained before.
I'm saying that everyone ought to adhere to the AHA ideology b/c it is biblical.

Similarly AHA proponents seem to allow for no difference in approach to combating abortion

That's a mistaken impression, so I'm glad to correct it. There are tons of ways to fight abortion. Incrementalism is, however, sin. You don't fight sin with sin.

I do not agree that the Gospel is the *only* approach to addressing abortion.

Yes; you seem to think that the Gospel shouldn't even necessarily be at a premium.

In fact the current reality is that the *only* avenue to change the (secular) laws in the USA is thru passing secular bills

You're forgetting that which underpins passing laws. And if a culture changes, the laws can stay the same (for a while; they would eventually be changed BECAUSE the culture was changed), people will voluntarily do righteously and won't need law.
That's why 1 Timothy 1 says this:
8But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

But it will be a secular Legislature that will pass the law

What does "a secular legislature" mean? I'm not sure why that matters.

Therefore I see no reason to try to alienate secular pro-life groups

Quite a reach. Further, we're not intentionally alienating them but calling them to repentance b/c they omit the Gospel. If that alienates them, so much the better and glory to God for making that much clearer the distinction between His kingdom and the servants of darkness.
2 Thess 2:10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

When I say "acceptable," I do *not* mean "something that anyone OUGHT to strive for," but rather, from a Christian Point of View, something is "acceptable" that is not counter to Biblical principles.

Bro, just stop. Look how you're striving for exceptions. You're like a 15 year old boy asking his youth pastor how far he can go with his girlfriend without sinning. French kissing OK? Petting on top of clothes? Can I put my hand on her thigh?
Is it Christian to aim sorta for the minimum? Or to magnify God in ALL things?

Many (probably most) Christians have jobs in secular society and work for companies that have no Gospel focus whatsoever.

Sure, but that's totally different.

I will agree with you that Christians ought to call for Just Laws in all cases.

Then you disagree with most of what you've said so far in this conversation.

What would be your take on the following:
http://www.personhood.org/inde...

Jay Rogers sometimes says good things, and other times acts and speaks inconsistently with his good messages.

if there were a perfect argument that would convince everyone (Christian & atheist), it would have been presented by now.

Pragmatism. Duty belongs to us; the results belong to God.
But very, very few pro-lifers have been faithful to fight abortion biblically these past 42 years, so it stands to reason that God hasn't blessed the nation with repentance. The churches are full of false professors and apathy.

Ought we *not* try to educate them via secular means that human life starts with conception?

Sure, I don't see why not.
Don't omit the Gospel; it's what they really need. And most PL orgs DO omit it. So they ought to repent. You see, such a powerful and entrenched evil is not going to end without massive revival (or possibly war). Teaching lost people about DNA is not going to bring about massive revival. that's not the means God has chosen to bring revival. Why not focus on that which WILL? Unless you're making excuses and are embarrassed or are relying on human wisdom, or both?

I *am* suggesting that if one approaches the problem of abortion from a secular angle one does not necessarily have to separate from an atheist, Muslim, or Catholic, whose aim is the same as ours

You think our aim is to stop abortion.
I think it's to glorify God in all things.

To extend AHA's approach to the policing of the sin of murder would mean all Protestant Cops must disavow their affiliation with the police-force entirely and go spread the Gospel to folks in the process of murdering their neighbor.

Why? I don't see how that follows at all.
Murdering born people is against the law. And nobody has ever suggested that we don't want the laws of the nation changed.

As I have stated before: abortion is a sinful behavior that comes out of a sinful nature. The former *can* be moderated thru secular means, the latter can *only* be changed with the Gospel.

And yet you keep arguing for the permissibility and expansion of using the former. You don't seem to care at all about the latter or the fact that nobody is focusing on the latter. You're excusing their sin.

I didn't realize Live Action's founder had converted to Catholicism - but that is still 5 out of 11.

Just imagine how much else you don't know about them!
You think they list all their donors exhaustively?

You are mentioning CPCs - does that stand for "Crisis Pregnancy Centers?"

Yes.

Can you give *any* citation that can back up that *any* Pro-life group (let alone "most") is actually trying to pro-long the existence of abortion for their own self-serving purposes. If not, I would ask you to do the honorable thing and retract it.

Of course I don't mean that they'd say that out loud.
You have to have a little bit of wisdom and see through the deception.

I do NOT want to give our human/secular government the authority to legislate how I practice worship to God or even whether I am in obedience to Him.

I didn't say I wanted that. I don't know why you're saying this.

I DO want that same government to only pass laws that are conducive to an orderly, moral society

What is "moral" apart from God's law? How do you or anyone else know what that is and means amd looks like?

but there is a great distinction there which we, thankfully have firmly in place I our bill of rights

Yes, the same Bill of Rights that didn't say that black people are humans and not animals.
We can do better than the Bill of Rights. We could follow the Scripture.

Can you cite a source that shows drug-induced abortions are actually greater than what the CDC reports?

No. I'm casting doubt on how the CDC has any idea whether they have gotten sufficient data to be relied upon in the way you are.

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Fri, 29 May 2015 09:59:44 -0000

When I stated that sinful behaviors can be moderated through secular means, you commented, "But not abolished." This implies you agree that secular means are acceptable to moderate sinful behavior.

Going back to this now that you have defined "secular means" (thank you for doing that), I don't think they are acceptable, no, if by "acceptable", you mean "something that anyone OUGHT TO strive for". What we ought to be striving for **and calling for** is JUST LAW in ALL cases.
The debate here is whether we call for just laws every time or whether we do market research to see if we "have the votes" to pass that just law, and if we don't, whether we should pass a less-just law just b/c that's what we can get at the time.
Less-just = unjust.

So to simplify - should we call for unjust laws because they are less unjust than the current law? The rationale, the excuse, doesn't matter.

Should we call for unjust laws? No.
Isaiah 10:1Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, 2So as to deprive the needy of justice and rob the poor of My people of their rights, so that widows may be their spoil and that they may plunder the orphans.

That smacks of being "all or nothing."

Please allow me to correct your mistaken reading.
http://blog.abolishhumanabo....

Or perhaps more like "my way or the highway."

I don't know what you mean by that.
Jesus DOES say "My way or Hell". Are you a follower of Jesus?

But that doesn't make the Gospel the *only* way. Abolishing abortion is not the same as Salvation.

No, but regenerate people love their neighbor. Thus, abolition.

My daughter uses several strategies to solve her math problems

Math is not a good analogy to national sin.

Isn't that the point in the case of abortion - to get the "right answer" of ending the practice altogether?

Kinda. The right answer is to glorify Jesus Christ in all things at all times.
And the thing is, this is God's universe. Using the means of unjust laws to arrive at a righteous conclusion... do you think that's going to "work"? Will God honor it?

You ask why I assume we will never be able to "totally" abolish abortion until Christ's return. It is this: Man is basically evil.

God is basically good, and He regenerates and transforms people.

The abolitionist opposition to Prolife seems to be saying Prolife isn't going far enough

More fundamentally, we would say that their foundation is entirely wrong, which is why they head in the wrong direction (when they head anywhere at all).

when most Prolife Organization Mission statements are to END abortion altogether which is the same goal as AHA

With all due respect, there's a difference between real goals and stated, ostensible goals.

The "distinction" between immediacy and incrementally is virtually meaningless when both recognize that it will take time and change will happen incrementally.

Then why are you debating? And why are all the PLM people debating us?

So, no, abortion will not be totally abolished until He comes again.

Again, with all due respect, you don't know the future, so please refrain from making such confident assertions about it.

being careful not to enact laws that are against God's will.

I'd say that's the very definition of pro-life laws.
For example, the "you have to anesthetise babies before you murder them" bill that Fr Frank Pavone endorses. That's just wicked.

Do you want to legislate worship to Christ

Obedience, yes, to a great extent.
And you think so too - I bet you think that rape should be outlawed. You're already on my side if you do think so; we just differ in quantity, it sounds like, not in principle.

"writing ... bills that call for the nation to bow the knee to Jesus..."

May I call to your remembrance the book of Jonah and the response of the city of Nineveh? Or of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?
Psalm 33:12 - Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.

can we not be thankful for those measures that do get enacted that protect even a few?

I hear you. Here's the distinction I'd make - I am thankful the Lord uses evil for His good purposes. But that doesn't mean I want more evil to be performed.

I mean do not be a part of such a group. Don't actively support with either time or money.

I think that's more or less impossible unless you are sticking to only your local church.
And if you're doing that, you'll have zero objection from me. That's what everyone ought to be doing.
Otherwise, Rome's fingers are everywhere.

Abortion can also be addressed from a non-religious (aka secular) angle

Let's test that.
Prove to me, without referencing God, that abortion is bad.
And let me give you a preview of how I'll reply once you attempt, and maybe it will be accurate and thus advance the argument. If not, don't worry about it. :-)

Many will say "abortion is bad because it hurts women" - that's a "secular reason" why abortion is bad.
I now ask: Why is hurting women bad?

Your last response leads me to conclude the difference for you between theft & post-born human murder (or at least vs. slavery & rape) is one of scale

I think I agree, yes... I mean, abortion takes away ALL of one's rights and life. Theft removes a thing from someone. Quite different.

The church isn't enforcing those laws - it is our secular government.

Well, sure, but the gov't doesn't enforce them b/c the church lets them off the hook.

Instances of abortifacients *are* increasing but still overall number of abortions are decreasing

Not when you take into account drug-induced abortions.

Four out of hundreds is far from "most".

Four out of five of which I am aware. THat's 80%. Not 4 out of hundreds.
But do your own research - contact those CPCs and ask thenm specific questions along these lines.

Live Action

Lila Rose is a Romanist.
See what I mean?

Did I miss the citations documenting your accusation? If so, can you please send me the link or the date that I missed?

Afraid not; I don't keep an exhaustive list.

However, I'm not sure what a community agitation project is

An example would be www.projectfrontlines.com
Or, yes, like Project Nineveh.

I presume this has happened with a Christian PL group since you cite it as an example. Has this been used by non-religious groups?

I'm only aware of this explicit waiver in the case of the Center for Bio Ethical Reform, an ostensibly Christian org.
How long do you think an evangelist will last, sharing the Gospel and Bible truth in the midst of a bunch of papists?

However, I find the vitriolic rhetoric against pro-life groups to be unwarranted

With all due respect, it's not vitriolic, and you show little understanding of the reasons why we say what we say.

It is one thing (and IMHO acceptable) to point out that a 20 week abortion ban bill doesn't go far enough - but another (and IMHO UN-acceptable) to demonize a movement that is doing much of the same work but with different means.

If you could stop thinking of those laws as "not far enough" and start thinking of them the way God does - unjust laws - you'd be on the right track.

Our stance on it is not an unforgivable sin,

I say this with as much love as I can - any sin you excuse is not forgivable, because above all God desires a contrite heart.
If you are knowingly in sin, repent. NOW.
If you are not knowingly sinning, the discussion is entirely different.

our brethren in Christ.

False professors, of which there are tons and tons, are not brethren. It does no one any good to pretend like the differences are not foundational.

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Tue, 19 May 2015 15:45:09 -0000

A majority of pro-life leaders and organizations argue that one need not convince a person that God exists or that abortion is sin in order to convert them to the pro-life position. While this may be true, abolitionists never choose to remove God or the gospel from the conversation. Abolitionists believe that abortion exists because men deny that God does. The pro-life movement argues that we should talk less about sin and more about science. Less about salvation and more about “saving the babies."

http://abolishhumanabortion...

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Tue, 19 May 2015 13:17:09 -0000

I’m not sure what “secular means” are. Could you please clarify?

Do you mean laws that govern a society that is trying to jettison God? I mean, sure, it’s less bad for a country to make a law against murder than to not make a law about that at all. I don’t know about “better”, though.

I’m not talking about not addressing abortion through laws. I’m saying that you don’t short-circuit God and you don’t skip to a partial solution when you could be focusing on the total solution by addressing the issue with the Gospel and calling for immediate, total REPENTANCE rather than playing it like it’s politics.

Christians do have Hope that through Christ we can affect a great change but abortion will not ever be "totally" abolished until Christ returns.

Why do you assume that’s the case? Slavery was abolished in the UK and the USA, after all. Rape still happens from time to time, but society universally looks with disgust at rapists.

Since we do not live in a theocracy

This seems like you’re throwing up your hands and saying “Well, the courts and Congress are against God’s law. I guess there’s not much that the servants of Almighty God can do!”

I think that’s faithless. Don’t appeal to how bad the culture is now to make an excuse about how revival can’t happen. Look at Jonah and Nineveh!

we must work with the unbeliever to enact laws prohibiting it.

It’s one thing to “work with” unbelievers to enact laws, and QUITE ANOTHER to agitate the culture with the Gospel, call everyone to repentance, and enlist their help in writing and originating bills that call for the nation to bow the knee to Jesus Christ in repentance and submission.

Human trafficking - which is slavery by another name - is alive and well in this country, just illegal

It’s alive, sure, but it’s hardly “well”. It’s harried by police and other law enforcement. It’s routinely prosecuted and punished.

Meanwhile, 3500 babies EVERY DAY are dying.

ABORTION is alive and well. Sex trafficking is barely a blip compared to abortion.

But you must also recognize that you will never convert "every" heart to understand the Gospel.

Welllllll, postmillennialism might be true. :-)

So why not give the Gospel to those with an ear to hear it *and* simultaneously constrain the rest with laws as passed by a majority in our secular republic?

Yes, let’s do that, but those laws should not be incremental and abandon children that we don’t have to abandon.

I have tried to make clear that I agree with separating from those who preach a false Gospel.

With all due respect, I see you taking back with the one hand what you gave with the other. What does “separate from” mean when you say it?

I do not agree with you that Christians can not nor should not work with *secular* Pro-Life groups

Thus fighting darkness with not-the-Gospel, teamed up with people who hate the Gospel.

I just don’t think that makes Jesus very pleased.

they all demonstrably show that abortions have decreased since 1990

While abortifacient drugs have made a huge leap forward.

No, the “reduction” is merely eyewash and deception from the devil.

Is that a real statistic from some poll that you can cite or were you just using hyperbole? How are you using "normal?”

The 80% refers to how many people think abortion is acceptable in at least some case, for example if the baby’s father was a rapist or an incestuous person.

There certainly ar e some Catholic-founded Prolife groups but I would be surprised to find that "most" (> 51%) can be said to be "Romanist or beholden to Rome.”

I’d be surprised if they weren’t. Here’s a sample.

https://prolifeacrossameric...

http://www.priestsforlife.org/

http://www.standtrue.com/

Even Klusendorf’s site links to Priests for Life, for crying out loud.

http://prolifetraining.com/...

can you back this claim up with any facts?

The AHA Facebook page has been documenting it for a few years now, yes.

But to just say this without evidence is irresponsible.

I agree, and said it anyway.

Trying to convince a (desperate?) woman not to abort her child is the right thing.

…by saying “your baby can feel pain”.

…by saying “he won’t even have any anesthesia.”

…by saying “not past 20 weeks.”

…by saying “unless his father was a rapist. We don’t have enough votes to try to save that baby yet.”

…by not sharing the Gospel or calling abortion sin and murder.

If a Pro-Life Group is advocating these statements as a means to Salvation - Christians should not be partner with them.

I’d call that progress. :-)

what about when a pro life group doesn’t address sin and salvation AT ALL?

What about when that PL group makes it a side issue?

What about when that PL group makes its volunteers at a community agitation project sign an agreement saying they will not give a spiritual answer unless asked a spiritual question?

I certainly don’t want unnecessary conflict, but I think all of this is very, very necessary. PL groups’ existence, among other things, allow local churches to assuage their consciences by passing off their responsibility to love their pre born neighbor onto well paid professionals. Abby Johnson gets a $6000 honorarium to speak, for example, and churches bring her in, or CPCs do that are funded by churches, and she talks about how bad Planned Parenthood is and how we ought not compromise except every 4th year when we should so that the Democrat won’t get elected, and everyone goes home happy and satisfied, nobody changes his behavior, the culture remains unengaged, and the churches’ consciences are assuaged. This and many more reasons are why the PLM must be ended.

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 034 – Wonky Contemporary Christian Music

Rhology — Mon, 18 May 2015 15:21:04 -0000

Secret Church is neat and all, but did Platt's church carry out their conviction all the way and
1) make the format of Secret Church their only format for any church gathering they do?
(If not, do they think it's God-honoring and right, or don't they?)

2) actively call other congregations to forsake their garbage?
(I know they don't, because I listened to Platt speak at Bellevue Baptist Memphis in November 2014 and he went out of his way to commend and backslap Steve Gaines, who had one of the most entertaining worship services I've ever seen.)

I'm sorry to be a bummer, but partial repentance is not exactly repentance.

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Mon, 18 May 2015 13:26:11 -0000

Surely you are not suggesting that the only cops be Christian ones are you?

No. You are, however, making an analogy that is disanalogous.
You see, abortion is SIN and that sin has infected the entire culture. It is accepted as normal by 80% of the population of the USA. To get to a place where total abolition can happen, the nation needs to repent and experience revival. To get there, the church needs to repent. Papists and atheists don't know what repentance is.
This is not going to happen through a few bills here or there.

Sin-nature is only going to be overcome with the Gospel, but sinful behaviors (e.g. theft & murder) can be moderated through secular means.

But not abolished.

Why would we not want to do whatsoever we can to save as many lives as possible?

We do. But why do you think that joining arms with people who hate the Gospel to oppose the kindgom of darkness with the Gospel is a good idea, is going to work, is going to be a good means to "saving some"? Based on what?

The parable of the widow and the judge applies here

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken about that. The judge in that story is sorta like God, and the widow is the Christian. The pagan does not appear in that parable. You're actually twisting the parable to suit your own narrative. Please take a step back and see what you're doing.

Pro-life groups are trying to do the right thing

Are they? Most of them are Romanist or beholden to Rome. That's far from the right thing.

Most of them are incrementalists, abandoning children rather than calling for repentance and total abolition.

Most of them are self-perpetuating money-hungry beasts who would be out of a job if abortion were abolished.

On what basis do you say they are trying to do the right thing?

Jesus *is* Lord, but we must live in this world until He comes again

... so we should live and speak like He isn't Lord, b/c we "live in this world"?

(again only so long as a false-Gospel is not espoused).

Like Rome's gospel?
Like "repent... sorta'?
Like "you should leave a few of your sins behind"?
I don't mean to be harsh here, so please don't hear that from me, but I believe you are very, very mistaken and if I can I'd like to convince you of God's view of this question.

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Fri, 15 May 2015 16:36:35 -0000

The ONLY answer to the latter question is the Gospel

Why say, then, that we can link arms in substantive ways with others who hate the Gospel to fight sin?

Luke 18:1-5 tells us about the widow who pestered the Judge who did not fear God for justice

Yes, the JUDGE did not fear God. The widow didn't ask others who hate God to help her, or who hate the judge to help her.

Changing a person's heart with regards to abortion is ideal

You mean, with regards to sin? how can that happen when you're working with atheists and pagans?

But if the Pro-Life Group is not overtly of a religious nature - then I don't see any reason a Christian could not or should not work with them toward that end.

Why in the world would a Christian want to fight sin in a "non-religious" context? Is Jesus Lord or not?

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Fri, 15 May 2015 14:31:30 -0000

Do you think that the answer to sin is the gospel?

Re: [Fire Away! Podcast] Episode 032 – Slaughtered Babies and Indifferent Christians

Rhology — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:01:53 -0000

jolnim,

I have a question for you. Is abortion sin?

Re: Why I No Longer Endorse AHA (Abolish Human Abortion)

Rhology — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:18:58 -0000

Hi,
Justin Edwards has taken down his copy of this article. Would you please take it down also?

Re: AHA Attacks Justice For All for “Not Treating Abortion Like Sin”

Rhology — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:21:37 -0000

I don't agree about 1 Cor 13. That is a novel concept you're eisegeting into the text. What would be your evidence that this is true? He's talking about how if he doesn't have love, he doesn't get anything out of those things he does.

\\My point has simply been that if you engage someone who is not ready to
hear the Good News because they don't believe in any of it yet, to them
you sound like "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."\\

I'm sorry, but this is very poor handling of the Word of God. I sound that way if I DON'T HAVE LOVE. Not if "they're not ready". How do you know if they're ready? Does a halo appear over their head? A cross appear on their forehead? You know they're not ready if they hear the Gospel and reject it, and of course by then you've already shared the Gospel.
Please, don't handle the Word of God like that. It's a big deal to interpret it poorly.

Re: AHA Attacks Justice For All for “Not Treating Abortion Like Sin”

Rhology — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:06:26 -0000

\\I think it would be less effective to try to do both at the same time.\\

I encourage you to watch some abolitionist videos of real life interactions on the street, in that case, Brett. And cast aside your notions of "effectiveness". They are human categories, and you are commanded by the Lord Jesus to share the Gospel, not bandy about political games and debate about human law.
1 Cor 1:17For
Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in
cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made
void.

Re: AHA Attacks Justice For All for “Not Treating Abortion Like Sin”

Rhology — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:33:22 -0000

Of course it's not to show Christ's mercy and grace. No one will repent of their sin unless they think they're a SINNER. The mercy and grace is offered AFTER.

If I could, I'd like to suggest you study a little on the distinction between law and gospel.

Also, I won't dismiss your claims. If you really have screenshots, send them to me.

I'll be honest. I suspect you have nothing and you just want to emote your hatred on AHA. Just be honest about it.

Re: AHA Attacks Justice For All for “Not Treating Abortion Like Sin”

Rhology — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:31:20 -0000

Re: this -

\\ if you want to persuade them about an issue, I don't think appealing to them by using the Bible will be effective.\\