IVF is wrong, even in its most carefully constructed “ethical” form. Even when only one embryo is created, immediately transferred, and none are frozen, discarded, or genetically screened. The problem with IVF is foundational, not merely executional. At its core, IVF replaces God’s design for conception, allows humans to own other humans, and voluntarily increases a child’s risk of death by 10X.

Is IVF Necessary?

IVF, or in vitro fertilization, is a medical fertility treatment where eggs are retrieved from a woman’s ovaries, fertilized with sperm in a lab, and then an embryo is implanted in the uterus to achieve pregnancy. It’s commonly used when natural conception fails due to issues like blocked tubes, low sperm count, or ovulation problems.

Embryos undergo preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), where a cell sample checks for chromosomal issues or genetic diseases to select healthy ones. Viable extras (often several from 8 to 10 embryos) are frozen via cryopreservation for future use.

The first thing to understand is that IVF is not the necessary and exclusive fix for infertility. For those that are struggling with fertility, yet still want a biological child (if God wills), there are great alternative treatments, the best of which is NaPro.

IVF operates like a numbers game: spend $12K to $30K per attempt1, plan for 3 to 4 cycles minimum, intentionally create dozens of children knowing most won’t survive, and hope “probability” works in your favor, all while insurance fights you at every turn2. Costs can easily exceed $100,000. It’s a high-tech, high-stakes gamble that assumes your body is broken beyond repair and needs to be bypassed entirely.

NaPro works like actual medicine: it investigates the root cause and restores what’s not functioning properly. It costs (at max) roughly what one IVF cycle would, except it’s treating you as a patient with a medical condition rather than a customer buying lottery tickets with human embryos.

The “Perfect” IVF Scenario

Christians who oppose IVF typically focus on the industry’s most obvious ethical violations: frozen embryos warehoused indefinitely, genetic screening that reduces children to quality-control metrics, the routine creation of dozens of embryos knowing 91% or more won’t survive, and gay couples purchasing children through surrogates.

These objections are valid. They’re also insufficient.

Because even if you stripped away every one of these problems, even if you constructed the most carefully constrained IVF scenario imaginable, the procedure would still be categorically sinful. The issue isn’t merely how IVF is practiced. The issue is what IVF fundamentally is.

Before addressing the core problem, let’s acknowledge what most Christians already reject. If you’re freezing embryos, you’re incarcerating your children. If you’re doing genetic screening, you’re treating image-bearers like defective products. If you’re creating ten embryos knowing nine will die, you’re responsible for their deaths. If you’re using surrogates or donors, you’re bypassing God’s design for procreation.

But some Christians push back here. They ask:

“What if we avoid all of that? What if a married Christian couple uses only their own gametes, creates a single embryo, transfers it immediately without freezing or screening, and implants it in the mother’s womb? Wouldn’t this be ethical? After all, we’re just using technology to overcome the effects of the fall, the same way someone might use surgery to save their life.”

It’s a reasonable question. It deserves a serious answer.

The Fantasy of “Ethical IVF”

A truly “perfect” IVF setup (one that creates only a single embryo, transfers it fresh immediately, never freezes or discards embryos, never uses genetic testing, and operates this way as standard practice) essentially does not exist in today’s market. Why? Because the entire IVF industry is built around the assumption of multiple cycles.3

Biologically, IVF depends on ovarian stimulation to retrieve multiple eggs because attrition is massive at every step. Not every follicle yields a mature egg. Not every egg fertilizes. Not every embryo develops normally. Not every transfer implants. Forcing the system into a “one egg, one embryo, one transfer” model makes success rates catastrophically low and cancellation rates high.

The mechanics work like this: when a clinic retrieves eggs, they don’t know which ones will successfully fertilize. If you start with five eggs, perhaps three become actual embryos. Of those three, maybe one or two develop properly. This uncertainty is why clinics retrieve multiple eggs in the first place. Even if a couple requests “only one embryo,” the cycle success rate drops to 5-20% (just for this stage). This means paying for a new cycle over and over until you successfully can move on, which could take 5-10 cycles.

Economically, clinics survive by spreading high fixed costs (labs, embryologists, equipment, accreditation) over many embryos, transfers, and add-on services like frozen embryo storage and genetic testing. A clinic that never generated surplus embryos, never froze them, and never used screening would sacrifice most of the revenue and success leverage that keeps it profitable. Even if one couple chose an ultra-restrictive protocol, the clinic’s broader business would still rely on conventional IVF practices just to stay solvent.

At best, a couple might negotiate a more constrained version for themselves inside a system whose default remains multi-embryo creation, freezing, and selection. But a clinic structured and committed to operate exclusively under “ethical” constraints? It’s a pipe dream.

But let’s be generous. Let’s assume such a clinic existed. Let’s grant that you could find a way to do it profitably. Would IVF then be permissible?

No. Even in the “perfect” scenario, IVF remains objectively sinful. Here’s why.

1. IVF Replaces God’s Design Instead of Restoring It

God’s Word is clear: there is one exclusive path to creating and receiving children. The marital union.

In Genesis 1:28, God blesses Adam and Eve and commands them:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

Immediately after, in Genesis 2:24, we read:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

This one-flesh union is personal, bodily, and exclusive, so the “fruit” of the marriage naturally proceeds from the embrace God ordained. In other words, the Bible weds the “what” of multiplication to the “how” of marital intercourse. The child is received as the gift that comes from husband and wife cleaving to one another.

To seek offspring apart from that union severs what God joined, whereas receiving children through conjugal oneness honors the shape of creation.

Psalm 127:3 reinforces this:

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,

the fruit of the womb a reward.

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior

are the children of one’s youth.

Blessed is the man

who fills his quiver with them!

He shall not be put to shame

when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

You can actually take this imagery further. The seed (man), the tree (the woman’s womb), and the fruit (children). God designed one process for procreation, and He embedded it in the covenant of marriage. Sexual intimacy within marriage is the means. The womb is the location. Children are the gift. IVF fundamentally alters this design.

Conception Begins in the Lab, Not the Womb

The objection here is predictable: “But we’re still married. We’re still using our own samples. We’re just using technology to help the process along. Isn’t that dominion? Are you saying cars are sinful too?”

The issue isn’t technology, but what technology does.

IVF doesn’t start with marital intimacy. It starts with samples. The sperm and egg are retrieved separately, brought to a laboratory, and combined by a technician under fluorescent lights. Day zero for that child is not in the mother’s womb. Day zero is in a petri dish.

You can’t appeal to the marital act that produced the samples (even though most IVF sperm samples are taken sinfully) because those samples were not connected together in the mothers body via the one flesh union.

Instead, you have a technician who combines these samples and creates an embryo. Now, the child’s existence has begun, not through the one-flesh union of husband and wife, but through a mechanical procedure in a lab.

Dominion vs. Demonic Technology

The purpose of technology matters.

Doug Wilson put it well:

“In order to evaluate a tool, we have to account for the telos, the end, the purpose. Hammers are used to build both brothels and barns.”

Dominion technology works within God’s design to restore what the fall has broken. NaProTechnology, for example, investigates the root cause of infertility and treats it medically. The goal is to restore the body so that conception can occur naturally: through the one-flesh union, in the womb, as God designed. The process hasn’t changed. The design hasn’t been circumvented.

IVF does the opposite. It doesn’t fix what’s broken. It abandons the original design entirely and substitutes a new process. The end result may be a child, but the means by which that child came into existence is fundamentally different from what God ordained.

Consider pornography. The technology that makes porn more accessible isn’t neutral. It’s being used to provide sexual pleasure (a good thing) outside of God’s design for marriage. The efficiency of the technology doesn’t justify its use. The purpose disqualifies it.

IVF operates on the same principle. It creates children (an immeasurably good thing) through a process God never authorized. No amount of technological sophistication changes that.

Jesus Anchors Marriage to Genesis

When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce in Matthew 19:4-6, He didn’t cite a verse about divorce. He went back to Genesis:

Matthew 19:4–6

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus took the principle from Genesis and applied it to a specific situation. The creation account isn’t just descriptive. It’s normative. God’s design for marriage, sexuality, and procreation is the blueprint. Any deviation from that blueprint, no matter how technologically sophisticated, is sin.

IVF asks us to believe that God’s design can be improved upon, that we can relocate conception from the womb to the lab and call it progress. But if God’s design is truly His design, then our job is to work within it, not around it.

The Slippery Slope Is Already Here

If you accept the premise that conception can legitimately occur outside the womb, you’ve opened a door you can’t close. If it’s acceptable to take one piece of the pro-creation process and perform it in a lab, what about:

• A single woman cloning herself and growing the embryo in an artificial womb?

• A married couple using an artificial womb instead of the wife’s body because it’s “safer” or more “convenient”?

The argument that “we’re still using a married couple’s gametes” doesn’t solve the problem. It concedes that the location and means of conception are negotiable. Once you’ve moved conception out of the womb, you’ve lost the foundation to argue it must stay tied to marriage at all.

2. Parents Choose Higher Risk for the Child

Here’s the part most IVF advocates don’t want to acknowledge: the child never consented to being brought into existence with a drastically higher chance of death.

The Statistics Are Devastating

CDC 2022 ART4 data reports about 251,000 egg retrieval cycles resulting in roughly 94,000 live births, a roughly 37% success rate per cycle, but with an average of 4 to 6 embryos created per cycle (from 10 to 15 eggs retrieved, 70 to 80% fertilized, and 40 to 50% reaching blastocyst stage), this equates to 1.0 to 1.5 million total embryos (children) and a 6 to 9% live birth rate per created child.

Long story short: 91 to 94% of children conceived through IVF die.

In stark contrast, natural conceptions in the same year produced 3.67 million live births from roughly 5.5 million recognized pregnancies, yielding roughly a 67% live birth rate per clinical pregnancy after typical 10 to 20% miscarriages5. If we control for abortion (roughly 17% of pregnancies), the natural success rate rises to roughly 85 to 90% carried to term (assuming viable), far above IVF’s success rate.

That’s a 10x higher failure rate.

The Abortion Parallel

The objection here is predictable: “But natural pregnancy has risks too. Miscarriages happen. That’s a part of our fallen world.”

However the question that must be asked is: who decided?

Natural risks fall under God’s sovereignty. IVF risks are your culpable choice. You knowingly subjected your child to a process with a 91% death rate because you wanted a child badly enough to bypass God’s design.

People actually make the same objection with abortion. “Since miscarriages happen so often, the abortion doesn’t matter anyway, let me kill it.” And all Christians should read that and say, “The answer is obvious. God stopped the development of those miscarried children. You, on the other hand, have hired a hitman to murder your child.” We must apply the same logic to this situation.

God’s Design Is Better

NaProTechnology, by contrast, has higher success rates6 than IVF, operates within God’s design, and doesn’t create and destroy children at industrial scale. It restores the body so that conception can occur naturally. The child’s life begins where God intended: in the womb, through the marital union.

The principle is this; God’s design is always better, because it’s His universe.

It’s better to eat food straight from the farm than to bleach it, strip the nutrients, and artificially add them back in. It’s better to breastfeed than to use formula (when physically possible). It’s better to conceive naturally than to manufacture a child in a lab.

Culpability Through Purchase

In natural conception, you don’t control the developmental process. Miscarriages happen under God’s sovereignty. You didn’t choose to create the child in a high-risk environment. You followed God’s design, and the outcome, however painful, was not your doing.

But with IVF, you chose to create your child in a laboratory. You chose to pay for a procedure with a 91% death rate. You chose to subject them to handling, potential freezing, and implantation, all of which carry significant risks.

You made that decision. The clinic made it possible. You’re both culpable.

The Entitlement Idol

The mentality driving IVF is difficult to escape. As much as couples may protest otherwise, the willingness to bypass God’s design reveals an underlying assumption: I am entitled to children, no matter what God thinks.

When natural conception fails, the biblical response is prayer, medical treatment that restores the body (like NaPro), and submission to God’s sovereignty. Infertility is painful. It’s heartbreaking. But it doesn’t grant us permission to rewrite the rules.

Pursuing IVF, even in its “cleanest” form, reveals that the desire for children has eclipsed obedience to God’s design. You want a child so badly that you’re willing to create one through a process God never authorized, a process that statistically results in far more death than natural conception.

And once you’re in the system, the temptation to compromise intensifies. You’ve spent $50,000. Two years of heartbreak. You’ve done one embryo at a time, and it hasn’t worked. Maybe you try ten embryos next time. Maybe you freeze some. Maybe you add genetic screening “just to be safe.”

Hannah vs. Hagar

Scripture gives us two contrasting examples of how to respond to infertility.

Hannah, barren and heartbroken, prayed. She wept at the door of the temple daily. She pleaded with God. And God, in His timing, answered her prayer and granted her a son (1 Samuel 1).

Hagar, by contrast, represents the flesh. Abraham had a promise from God that he would have a child. But when Sarah remained barren, Abraham took matters into his own hands. He went to Hagar, Sarah’s servant, and conceived a child outside of God’s design. Paul uses this as an illustration in Galatians 4, contrasting the child of promise (Isaac) with the child of the flesh (Ishmael).

What Abraham did was sinful. He didn’t trust God. He subverted God’s design because he wanted to force the outcome on his own terms. IVF is the modern Hagar. It’s taking matters into your own hands. It’s saying, “God hasn’t given me a child through the means He designed, so I’ll use technology to make it happen myself.” And to make it worse, Abraham had a promise from God. Modern Christian couples do not even have that, and yet they’re willing to do the same thing.

3. IVF Turns Children Into Commodities

Even with pure motives and no intent to traffic children, IVF still involves purchasing a child. You pay a clinic. The clinic retrieves eggs, fertilizes them, and creates embryos. Once the egg is fertilized, you have a child, no matter how small. The clinic’s job is to produce that child and implant it. Whether the child survives development is another question, but make no mistake: you paid someone to create a human being for you.

Legal Classification as Property

In most U.S. states, embryos are legally classified as property7: chattel or marital assets. They can be disposed of via patient contracts, consent forms, and judicial rulings. Only Alabama and Louisiana treat them differently. Legally, you own the children the clinic creates for you. Can humans own other humans?

The nature of the transaction also shifts how children are perceived. They’re no longer a heritage from the Lord, received as a gift through the covenant of marriage. They’re a deliverable, expected from a service provider you’ve contracted for a product.

The Distinction from Adoption

Someone might object: “But adoption involves money too. Are you saying adoption is sinful?”

No. Adoption is fundamentally different.

Adoption is a response to sin. A child has been abandoned, orphaned, or removed from an unsafe situation. The adoptive parents step in to provide what the child’s biological parents cannot or will not. The fees involved cover legal processes, agency costs, and administrative work. The parents are not paying to create a child. They’re paying to legally formalize their responsibility for a child who already exists and needs a home.

IVF, by contrast, is seeking through money and scientific manipulation to create a child. You’re initiating existence, not responding to abandonment. The clinic’s deliverable is a human being.

Conclusion

IVF is not a gray area. It’s not a matter of personal conviction or disputable opinion. It is, by definition, a fundamental departure from God’s design for procreation.

Even in the “perfect” scenario (where no embryos are frozen, no genetic screening is used, and only one embryo is created), IVF still relocates conception from the marital union and the womb to the laboratory and the technician’s hands. It still commodifies children. It still reduces their survival rate tenfold for the sake of adult desire.

The issue isn’t just the industry’s abuses. The issue is the procedure itself.

God has ordained one method of procreation: the one-flesh union of husband and wife, within marriage, resulting in children as a gift from the Lord. Any process that circumvents this design (no matter how technologically sophisticated or carefully constrained) remains sin.

If you are struggling with infertility, you are not crazy for suffering. That pain is real, and it’s heartbreaking. But the answer is not to bypass God’s design. The answer is submission to His sovereignty, medical treatment that restores rather than replaces, and trust that He is good even when He says no.

Cold Open

Today I’m continuing my 2 part series to answer the question:

Last week we began to unpack ’s progressive theology in regards to homosexuality. We found that just in the levitical verses & Pauline letters alone, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as a sin.

But there is more scripture (and objections) that we need to cover to further analyze the progressive view. Let’s dive in.

AI to the Glory of God

Trained on 4.5M words of apologetics and theology content, BahnsenAI is a faithful clone of the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. Ask it anything about theology, politics, apologetics…even hyper-specific personal situations you’re dealing with.

Table of Contents

• 1. Genesis 1-2

  • A. Genesis IS normative

  • B. What is Marriage?

  • C. “But Polygamy Was in the Bible!”

• Romans 1

  • A. Idolatry & No Excuse

  • B. “It’s Their Nature, Not Nature Itself!”

• The Sin of Sodom

  • A. “That’s not Sodom’s sin!”

  • B. Mentioning the genders

  • C. “Lot was just being hospitable”

  • D. Further Clarification from 2 Peter 2:6-8

  • E. Further Clarification from Jude 7

• “God is Trans”

• “Sexuality isn’t covered in the Bible”

• “Jesus Never Said”

• Conclusion

The Creation Account

In Genesis 1-2 we see God creating Adam and Eve, and showing us an example of God’s design for marriage and the natural order of the family.

Justin quoted Peter J. Gomes in his book about Genesis:

...the authors of Genesis were intent upon answering the question ‘Where do we come from?’ Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a woman...The creation story in Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem” (pages 49-50).

A. Genesis IS Normative

For one, there are many passages in Gen 1-2 that are entirely normative, not just historical accounts. To write them off as only a descriptive story of what happened with no tie to how we ought to live is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:27–28

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24

In fact, in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus explicitly affirms the creation narrative as the foundation for marriage when asked about divorce. He didn’t say “Divorce is okay, Adam and Eve were bonded but that was descriptive”, he used the normative principle that is given to us from the text, and then applies it to a specific situation.

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matthew 19:4–6

This also completely refutes the claim that Justin made later in the article saying:

The issue addressed in this passage, however, is divorce. Jesus is responding to a hard-hearted test of his authority. Extending his response to a blanket denial of homosexual marriage goes well beyond the text. Moreover, it is uttered by a single Christ who did indeed leave his mother and father to engage in his Incarnate mission. So long as we are dealing with a single Christ who left father and mother for a different reason, we must be open to other possible options, especially options that fulfill the ends of Christian marriage traditionally understood.

1. Why is divorce not okay? Because God has joined husband and wife together. The proof? The Genesis account. The implication is that ANY sexually immoral act outside of what God has specifically joined together (you can guess what that is) is sin. Jesus didn’t quote a divorce verse, he took the principle from Genesis and applied it to a specific situation.

2. Jesus had a specific role and duty while he was on earth. Jesus has already spoken in the rest of the Bible for what our commands are as people. For example, Jesus was not a governor, he did not decree laws. And yet under the inspiration of the holy spirit (who only professes what Jesus says according to John 15:26, John 16:13-14, John 14:26, John 14:16-17, and Acts 1:8), Paul writes that the civil magistrate is a terror to evildoers. Jesus could not have fulfilled that command while he was fulfilling his mission, but the governors could.

B. Marriage is a Picture of Christ & the Church

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 5:31–33

Paul calls this a “mystery”, which in biblical terms refers to something that was previously hidden but is now revealed by God. In this case, the mystery is that marriage was always intended to point to the covenantal relationship between Christ and the church. Just as a husband and wife are united as “one flesh,” Christ is united with His church in a bond of love, sacrifice, and covenantal faithfulness.

This truth elevates marriage far beyond a mere human institution. It shows that marriage is not just about companionship, procreation, or societal stability (though it includes those things). At its core, marriage is a living parable of the gospel, reflecting Christ’s sacrificial love for His people and the church’s loving submission to Christ.

C. Marriage as a Reflection of the Gospel

Paul elaborates on this in the surrounding verses of Ephesians 5:22-33, where he describes the roles of husbands and wives in light of Christ’s relationship with the church:

• Husbands are called to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). This is a sacrificial, self-giving love that seeks the good of the other, even at great personal cost.

• Wives are called to submit to their husbands “as the church submits to Christ” (v. 24). This is not a demeaning or oppressive submission but a joyful recognition of the husband’s loving leadership, modeled after Christ’s care for His church.

The relationship between Christ and the church is the ultimate reality, and human marriage is a reflection of that reality. A homosexual relationship distorts this picture, and does not give glory to the bond between Christ and the church.

D. “But Polygamy Was in the Old Testament!”

Another objection John brought up to the Genesis narrative was this:

They like to say that the Bible declares that marriage is strictly between one man and one women, while the Old Testament, as early as Genesis’ fourth chapter is teeming with bigamy, polygamy, and extra-marital sex practiced by the lauded pillars and Patriarchs of the faith (Abraham, Gideon, Solomon, David) - not as cautionary tale, and not with rebuke, but simply as the story of God’s people. There are no definitive statements on marriage spanning the breadth of Scripture.

As we’ve already seen, Genesis 2:24 & Matthew 19:4-6 clearly declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. You can also take a look at Proverbs 5:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12, Ephesians 5:31-33.

It’s true that some of the patriarchs and kings of Israel, like Abraham, David, and Solomon, practiced polygamy or committed sexual sins. But to claim that these actions are presented without rebuke or as morally neutral is simply false. The Bible doesn’t shy away from recording the sins of its central figures, but it also doesn’t endorse those sins. In fact, the consequences of polygamy and sexual immorality are consistently shown to be disastrous:

• Abraham: His relationship with Hagar (Genesis 16) led to strife and division in his household, as well as long-term conflict between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.

• David: His adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) and subsequent murder of her husband brought severe judgment from God, including the death of their child and ongoing turmoil in David’s family.

• Solomon: His many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:1-8) turned his heart away from the Lord and led to the eventual division of the kingdom.

Romans 1

Romans 1:18–32 were the next verses for John to cover since it is one of the most explicit passages condemning homosexuality. From the progressive viewpoint, it’s very important that this passage is handled because it actually connects idolatry with homosexual activity.

Verses

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Here’s what John had to say:

They’ll quote Paul in Romans Chapter 1, describing people consciously “trading their natural attractions” for same-sex desire and corresponding physical acts), failing to connect the dots, that for most members of the LGBTQ, there is no such exchanging taking place. They aren’t feeling one thing, and choosing an alternative simply to choose. They aren’t acting in opposition to any primary inclination. Their same-sex orientation is their natural. (If pressed, these Christians need to admit that this passage refers to a specific sex act tied to pagan worship practices, and cannot be superimposed over identity and orientation—and it’s certainly not appropriate to use it to categorize committed, loving relationships by people along the full LGBTQ continuum.) When trying to use Paul’s references in this way, they’re trying to separate LGBTQ people from the capacity to love and be in mutually beneficial relationships—and that’s simply wrong.

1. Idolatry & No Excuse

The first portion of this text is crucial, because it connects the following truths

• All people know God exists

• People decide to not glorify him regardless

• People worship the creature rather than the creator, and exchange the truth for a lie

So people worship something else besides God, even though they know he exists. But notice, in verse 18 it says that people “suppress the truth,” and what can be known about God has been shown to them in the things that have been made (creation). They KNOW something is true, but they push it down and self-deceive themselves.

Whatever the natural, objective order of things God has already made, that is what is given to man as a testimony of God’s existence and attributes. Considering God also gave us a mandate to be fruitful and take dominion (Gen 1:28), it doesn’t take a lot of intelectual study to conclude that homosexual relationships (whether long term or exploitive), go against that very created order.

It is against God’s natural design for pro-creation, and prevents more image bearers from being born, not because of fallen world consequences (miscarriages, empty wombs), but because of a morally wrong decision by the person. The following verses will further clarify this.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:26–27

Same-sex intercourse is what follows, and it’s incredible how explicit Paul is about it. Paul is defining “dishonorable passions” by saying “for their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature.” However, we still have objections to answer.

2. “It’s Their Nature Not Nature Itself!”

Immediately, our progressive responders will rush to tell us “No Joe, Paul is talking about what is contrary to THEIR nature (orientation), not nature itself!”

This is entirely false. The greek used here (φυσικός χρῆσις) directly translates as “natural use”, and is used to describe the objective, natural and repeatable way things are in the cosmos. The ancient greeks used both of these terms in the objective sense in many disciplines including medicine and philosophy. Paul then says this natural use was exchanged for what is contrary to nature. But what was he talking about specifically?

Paul continues “and the men likewise.” With Paul using the word “likewise”, whatever he says next is going to be the exact same thing the women did. And what does he say? “(they) gave up natural relations with women...” The KJV version even translates “leaving the natural use of the woman.”

What is the natural use of the women? To have intercourse with a man. How do we know? Because it is the opposite of what the men exchanged it with. Paul says “and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” They were consumed with passion for one another, men consumed for men, and this is seen as “contrary to nature.” Paul is talking about homosexual intercourse, as a creation level sin, without qualification, and using the term likewise, he universally condemns homosexuality in the male and female context.

John threw one more objection at us at the end:

If pressed, these Christians need to admit that this passage refers to a specific sex act tied to pagan worship practices, and cannot be superimposed over identity and orientation—and it’s certainly not appropriate to use it to categorize committed, loving relationships by people along the full LGBTQ continuum

To try and make this passage be hyper-specific to pagan worship practices is more than an astronomical leap. The context of Romans 1 is an indictment on all of mankind at the creation level, and as we’ve discussed already, Paul is using terms to describe the objective natural order, which are applicable to all people. No pressing needed. It is the progressive who is being pressed to show, in the context, original language, and the plain reading of the text, that this is not a universal indictment on all same-sex activity.

The Sin of Sodom

Next up we have the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, who was destroyed for several reasons, one of which being their sexual immorality.

Verses (shortened)

Genesis 18:16–19:29 is the full passage, for the sake of brevity, here is what God did to the city:

Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Genesis 19:24–25

To refresh your memory, when the angels visited Lot, the men of Sodom surrounded his house and demanded to have sexual relations with the visitors (Genesis 19:4-5). This act of attempted homosexual gang rape is a vivid demonstration of the city’s moral depravity.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Genesis 19:4–5

A. “That’s Not Sodom’s Sin!”

Some argue that Sodom’s sin was primarily pride, gluttony, and neglect of the poor, citing Ezekiel 16:49:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.
Ezekiel 16:49–50

However, Ezekiel 16:50 clarifies this further, and says they “did an abomination before me.” The word abomination (to’evah in Hebrew), is a term often used in the Old Testament to describe sexual sins, including homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). This is used in the singular, meaning that God witnessed them commit a specific abomination, and then goes on to say “so I removed them, when I saw it.” Ezekiel is talking about the events of Genesis 19, further defending the notion that this was at the minimum, a major part of the sins that God judged them for, and likely what we can call “the final straw.”

Some may argue that “the sin was merely fornication (rape, sex outside marriage, adultery for some of them)”, not the principle of homosexual acts in general. They may even argue “all of those men could have had consensual homosexual marriages, but they broke their covenant by wanting to rape someone else” But this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

The Bible consistently presents marriage as uniquely between one man and one woman. Sexual immorality is defined as anything outside of that context. This includes adultery, homosexual intercourse, beastiality, etc.

Even if we grant that ALL of these men in Sodom were in consensual homosexual marriages and tonight, and only tonight, they went off the rail and wanted to rape someone else that was still in their same orientation, those homosexual marriages are sinful by definition because they are already outside of God’s design as we’ve seen in the creation account above. The fornication following is the wicked fruit of a debased mind that falls farther and farther as God gives it up (Romans 1).

B. Mentioning the Genders

Justin had this to say regarding the sin primarily being rape

First of all, in interpreting this event we must take into account the entire situation. Whatever is happening here it is a form of rape. The crowd of men wished to sexually assault or “gangbang” the angels. The situation is also sewn through with appalling violence

The text mentions the gender of both the perpetrators and the victims. If God was highlighting the act merely being rape, there would be no reason to specify. It could have just said “the people of sodom asked for the angels”, however we see men specifically who are asking for men. After Lot offers his daughters, the men of Sodom reject it, and insist on men. This is clearly highlighting homosexual desires, and when you couple this with the Levitical passages that already call this action an abomination, and that same word is also used in Ezekiel…it’s clear.

Once again, this was not the only sin that Sodom was destroyed for, but Sodom had an idolatry problem, and we’ve already seen what happens in Romans 1 downstream from idolatry; sexual immorality (which is defined as anything outside of the marriage design that God has instituted in Genesis). Everything connects together.

C. “Lot Was Just Being Hospitable”

Justin had this to say regarding Lot:

Many assert that Lot’s offer of his daughters instead of the male angels implies that homosexual sex would have been worse than heterosexual sex, but Lot himself gives his reason for his action: “Don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” In our time, this does not make entire sense, but in Lot’s time, hospitality was a nearly sacred concept, and it is that distinction that Lot expresses: the visitors are his guests.

Lot offers his daughters in response (which was wicked). Some may argue and say “hospitality was so important in the ancient near east, that households were expected to defend their guests, even at personal costs, so Lot offered his daughters.”

This is true, but it doesn’t account for the breadth of the passage. If Lot wanted to protect his guests, he could have offered himself. This would have satisfied the homosexual sin, and protected his guests. But instead, he offered his daughters, the only people in the house that would make unnatural intercourse a natural one. He was so grieved that a homosexual rape would happen, it would have been better in his eyes given the natural order of things, for the rape to at least be heterosexual.

This further demonstrates that homosexual behavior was one of the primary sins of Sodom, and also, that sexual immorality as a category, includes homosexuality. To say Sodom was judged for rape or fornication exclusively, is to also say that they were judged for homosexual relations; they are all sins from the same root; sexual immorality.

D. Further Clarification from 2 Peter 2:6-8

Justin did not mention the clarification we get from 2 Peter and Jude 7 regarding Sodom in his article.

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);
2 Peter 2:6-8

“Sensual Conduct of the Wicked”: The Greek word here is aselgeia, which refers to unrestrained, shameless, and debauched behavior. This term is often associated with sexual sin. Lot was “greatly distressed” by the pervasive sexual immorality in Sodom, which aligns with the account in Genesis 19. Peter is confirming the focus on sexual sin.

E. Further Clarification from Jude 7

...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 7

Here, Jude explicitly identifies the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as sexual immorality and the pursuit of unnatural desire (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας), literally “strange flesh”. Let’s break this down:

Sexual Immorality (porneia): The term porneia in Greek refers broadly to all forms of illicit sexual behavior, including adultery, fornication, and homosexuality (deriving from God’s created order in Genesis which Jesus quotes in Matt 19:4-7). The text highlights that the cities were characterized by pervasive sexual sin.

Unnatural Desire: This phrase literally means “different flesh” or “strange flesh.” It points to desires that deviate from God’s natural design for human sexuality. In the context of Sodom and Gomorrah, this refers to homosexual acts, as seen in Genesis 19, where the men of Sodom sought to sexually assault the male visitors (angels) in Lot’s house. This pursuit of “strange flesh” is a direct violation of God’s created order for sexuality, which is exclusively between a man and a woman in marriage (Genesis 2:24).

Furthermore, Jude writes that they “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire.” He is coupling the general category of sexual immorality (which could include heterosexual rape, adultery, etc), but then clarifies it further and now adds the “unnatural desire” (or “different flesh”).

Although it is still a violation of God’s law, heterosexual sexual immorality is not unnatural. You can live in God’s intended design biologically (man and woman) but then be sexually immoral by committing adultery, raping someone else, etc. But in Jude, we specifically add this category of unnatural sexual immorality as one of the things that Sodom was destroyed for. You need a blindfold to say this isn’t talking about homosexual intercourse (whether consensual or not).

“God is Trans”

John made the argument in the beginning of the article that God is actually trans. So we should affirm transgender people and their new identity in light of this:

Christians love to say that, by the way—that all human beings are “made in the image of God.” Yet they also contend that these same made-in-the-image-of-God human beings, are either created male or female; that any other non-binary expression of gender identity is against God’s will; some unholy bastardization of the original plan…

…Which ones were created in God’s image, the males or the females?

If our answer is both (which it must be), then God is decidedly non-binary, God transcends a single gender identity—God is by nature trans-gender. We cannot have God be a He and also make women in His image—and we can’t have a God capable of creating men and women, unless God is equally made of both. These Christians wouldn’t dream of excoriating God for the fluidity, would they?

A. God’s Image is Not About Physical Gender

The claim assumes that being made in God’s image must mean that God possesses or reflects gendered characteristics. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about the imago Dei.

Genesis 1:27 says:

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Notice that the text does not say God is male and female. It says God created humanity in His image, and humanity is expressed in two distinct sexes: male and female.

The image of God is not tied to physical characteristics like gender or sex. Instead, it refers to the unique spiritual, moral, and rational capacities that humans possess as God’s representatives on earth.

God is also spirit (John 4:24), and as such, He transcends physical and biological categories like male and female. To suggest that God is “non-binary” or “transgender” because He created both sexes is to impose human limitations and categories onto God.

B. God’s Transcendence Does Not Make Him “Non-Binary”

The argument also conflates God’s transcendence with gender fluidity. Yes, God transcends human categories, including gender, but this does not mean He is “non-binary” or “transgender.” To say that God is transcendent is to affirm that He is not limited by the distinctions of male and female, not that He embodies or fluctuates between them.

The Bible consistently uses masculine pronouns and imagery to describe God - not because God is biologically male, but because this language communicates His authority, power, and relational role as Father, King, and Lord. For example:

• God is called “Father” (Matthew 6:9), not “Mother” or a gender-neutral parent.

• Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, became incarnate as a man (John 1:14).

• God is referred to as “He” throughout Scripture, never as “they” or “she.”

C. The Logical Fallacy of the Argument

The argument also commits a logical fallacy by assuming that because both men and women are made in God’s image, God must somehow be a composite of both genders. This is like saying that because a painter creates both landscapes and portraits, the painter must be part-landscape and part-portrait. It’s a category error.

God’s ability to create male and female does not mean He is “made of” male and female traits. God is the source of all things, but He is not composed of the things He creates. As the Creator, He is wholly distinct from His creation (Isaiah 55:8-9, Acts 17:24-25).

D. The Biblical View of Gender

The Bible teaches that God created humanity as male and female, two distinct and complementary sexes (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:18-24). This binary distinction is part of God’s good design and reflects His purpose for human relationships, procreation, and stewardship of creation. Jesus Himself affirmed this in Matthew 19:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Matthew 19:4–6

This passage reaffirms the binary nature of human sexuality and its connection to God’s design for marriage. Any attempt to redefine gender or introduce non-binary categories is a rejection of God’s created order.

Furthermore, as we already saw earlier in the post, marriage is a picture of christ and the church. That is the mystery that has been revealed. So to say you’re gender fluid, non-binary, or whatever is contrary to your biological gender at birth, is a distortion of the design God created. Our biological makeup is a part of our identity. Plenty of horrible things happen to people when they try to change their identity & responsibilities.

E. If God Designed It, Let No Man Alter

Now I can already hear the progressives in the back yelling:

We do live in a fallen world. The fallen world we live in distorts things. But the difference is when someone has a distorted mental state where they think they’re supposed to be another gender or even another type of being, the answer is not to redefine their physical body to match up with their mental state. The answer is to find Christ and to renew their mind, so they can step into what they were originally designed for:

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Romans 12:2

If they were a biological male wanting to be a female, their renewed state would be them identifying as a biological male as God intended. In Psalm 139, 13-15, we see God carefully assembling every child in the womb, including their gender, intimately making them for a specific purpose.

For you formed my inward parts;

you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works;

my soul knows it very well.

My frame was not hidden from you,

when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

Psalm 139:13–15

“Sexuality is too complex for the Bible to cover”

John also said this in a 2020 video regarding sexuality:

sexuality is a vast and complex idea, it involves gender identity and sexual orientation and sexual activities, so the way I see myself, the people I’m attracted to, the places I seek intimacy, and the tangible physical expression of those things. That complex idea of sexuality can’t be contained in a word or a phrase or a verse of the Bible and it’s really intellectually dishonest when we try to claim that the Bible addresses this because it simply doesn’t

First off, the claim that “it’s intellectually dishonest to say the Bible addresses sexuality” is itself intellectually dishonest. The Bible repeatedly addresses human sexuality, both in its design and its distortions (as we’ve already seen so far). From all of the verses we’ve gone through scripture affirms that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 1:27), instituted marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24), and designed sexual intimacy to be enjoyed exclusively within that covenant (Hebrews 13:4).

It also condemns sexual immorality in all its forms, including adultery, fornication, and homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:18, Romans 1:26-27, and all of the verses we’ve already covered). To claim that the Bible is silent on sexuality is to ignore the plain teaching of scripture, in it’s original language & context.

Secondly, just because our modern culture adds new words and definitions to topics, doesn’t mean that it is now exempt from an ethical standard. Abortion is another great example of this. We can use words like “abortion” “fetus” and “pregnancy”, it doesn’t change the fact that God finds it so repulsive, He instituted that an accidental abortion was a capital crime in Israel.

“Jesus Never Said…”

Another objection John brought up was this:

They’ll try to say that Jesus opposes the LGBTQ community, when he never once corrects, cautions, or condemns anyone based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. In this case, we’re supposed to believe the unspoken damnation is implied, when in reality these people are making Jesus say things he never said—simply because they want him to say it.

A. This Is an Unsustainable Principle of Ethics

Jesus never said in the gospels that it was wrong to shoot your uncle Greg with a gatling gun, does that mean we should? Of course not, everyone applies God’s law (or satan’s) to specific and relevant issues in their life, even if it is not explicitly covered in the gospels. Jesus does not cover every particular item, he provides us principles and also upholds the previous revelation given in the Old testament.

Muslims try this too, when they ask “Show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus specifically says the words “I am God, worship me”

To them I reply, “Show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus specifically says the words “I’m not God, I’m just a prophet, don’t worship me“”

B. The Wrong Jesus

Underneath this statement is the presupposition that Jesus is not God. Many unbelievers (and progressives) will naturally assume this, so if Jesus didn’t say it in the gospels, it must not be a Christian principle. What they’re missing of course is:

1. Jesus is God, and God inspired the entire bible, and God has plenty to say about homosexuality, as we’ve already seen. Jesus in the gospels and YHWH at Mt Sinai are one.

2. Christianity is not exclusively following the 4 gospels, it’s obeying the entire counsel of God as documented in the Bible, cover to cover.

C. Cuts Both Ways

For the sake of argument, let’s grant for a moment that:

• Jesus wasn’t God, and was just a really good prophet

• Claiming Jesus condemns LGBT behavior would be “silent damnation implied”

The same argument would work against John’s own position. A Christian could merely ask John “We’re supposed to believe that silent affirmation is implied? Especially given the fact that Jesus upheld the law and quoted it throughout the gospels? Find me anywhere in the gospels where Jesus said “I affirm of homosexual relationships as long as they’re consensual, and you can change your gender identity to.”

Conclusion

As I said in part 1, I want nothing more that John to repent to the true Jesus revealed in scripture. John, if you bow the knee to him, and put your faith in what he did on the cross, you will be saved. When Christ is truly Lord, and you obey him rather than what is culturally acceptable, you will make enemies (on both sides of the aisle), but you will be with the truth. And what a testimony it would be for you to transform and influence your audience!

I pray that God would open your eyes if he so wills:

Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day…”

John 6:43–44

Cold Open

A few weeks ago, posted about his time at a PRIDE festival in NC, and explained how ‘Christians’ ruined it by showing up to street preach. Here’s what he had to say:

“As they did last year, a sullen, stone-faced cadre of almost exclusively young white men from local (and out of state) Evangelical churches descended upon the festival, wielding signs promising an afterlife in Hell, shouting cherry-picked Leviticus quotes through megaphones, accosting people upon entering with warnings of the perversion they were contributing to be attending, and rudely breaking into the path of hundreds of strangers who they had to work hard just to be there to interrupt.”

The Beautiful Mess by John Pavlovitz

Our Town's PRIDE Festival Was a Beautiful, Joyful Celebration of Community. Then, The "Christians" Showed Up.

“And they’ll know we are Christians by our love.” - Christian hymn…

Read more

7 months ago · 697 likes · 55 comments · John Pavlovitz

In case you don’t know, John Pavlovitz has emerged as one of the most influential voices in ‘progressive christianity’ over the past decade, with a combined social media following of nearly one million across Facebook, Twitter/X, and Instagram, as well as 100K+ subscribers on his Substack.

Since John is a self-professing progressive christian, his core belief here is that if you’re Christian, you should support LGBT because ‘Jesus affirms it’. In fact, in a 2017 post, he was so bold as to say this:

“Being gay is not a sin.
Neither is being lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
The Bible never claims that it is.
It really doesn’t.”

In his 2017 article, John pointed his readers to this article from gaychurch.org to get a deeper dive into the subject. The article aimed to show that the Bible does not condemn consensual same-sex relationships.

John concluded with this statement:

No, being LGBTQ is not a sin.

The sin, is the hatred that refuses to let go of that notion when evidence requires it.

So John believes that the entire umbrella of LGBT is not sinful. On the contrary, he believes that:

• Christians only call LGBT sin because of their internal hatred.

• Christians are not following the evidence. If we just examined it, we would see an affirming Bible.

So…does Jesus affirm LGBT? Does the entire counsel of God support homosexual relationships and transgenderism? Have we been pinned down by tradition rather then God this entire time?

Today, I’m going to go through John and Justin’s arguments and see if they have any weight. But why write this?

Given that John has a large influence online, as well as in the NC area, and claims to be a progressive ‘christian’, it’s important that Christians following him understand what the Bible really says about LGBT.

The point of this series is not to call John names or hate on him as a person, I’m sure he’s a hospitable person who would have coffee with me. The reason for this series is to see if he’s correct about his beliefs, and educate his followers about what the Bible truly says about this issue.

With that out of the way, let’s get into the content.

Table of Contents

• 1. John’s View on the Bible

• 2. “The word homosexual was inserted into the bible in 1946”

• 3. Leviticus 18 & 20

  • a. “We’re not under the law”

  • b. “This was just a ceremonial law”

  • c. “Christians just cherry pick Leviticus, what about stoning teens and adulterers!”

  • d. “This was a patriarchy abomination, not a modern one”

  • e. “The text is unclear”

  • f. “Abomination doesn’t mean that”

  • g. “This is talking about exploitive relationships, not consensual same-sex relationships”

• 4. 1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10

  • a. “Arsenokoitai is a word Paul made up, we don’t have a clear definition”

  • b. “Malakoi just means soft!”

John Does Not Believe the Bible is Inerrant

As a Christian, my ultimate authority is God’s word (the Bible). It’s crucial to understand, however, that John himself does not hold to that standard. John will use the Bible to support his theology, however he does not believe all of it to be true. In fact, he will likely hand-waive many of my arguments below simply because I hold the Bible to be inerrant.

Here were some of his conclusions in a 2016 article:

Regardless of our best intentions, we all end up making the Scriptures yield to our biases and agendas; clinging tightly to those parts which reinforce our beliefs, discarding those which prove problematic. Some passages we decide are literal directives, while others a product of their cultural context, demanding nuance.

I’ve long ago given up the need for a Bible without error or blemish. I believe the Scriptures to be the work of the hands of a faithful, earnest, striving Humanity seeking to understand, know, and honor God in the place and time in which they lived and documented life. The writers and believers then (just as in these days), bring that flawed humanness to their endeavors no matter how greatly seeking to avoid it.

A. John’s Method for Biblical Arguments

After reading through many of John’s posts, I’ve identified 3 mechanisms he uses for interpreting the Bible.

1. If the reading of scripture agrees with him, he will use it to justify his position

   1. Example: “Jesus said love your neighbor, that means no street preaching!”

2. If the out of context reading of scripture doesn’t agree with him, he will find a scholar that says just enough to conclude “we really don’t know what that means in context”

   1. Example: “Paul made up that word, we’re really not sure what it means, he definitely wasn’t talking about consensual homosexual relationships”

3. Finally, if he cannot get any support from those 2 fronts, he’ll write it off altogether and say “That particular part of the Bible is not true and binding, it was a product of its ancient culture” Unfortunately, he will do this without letting us know what standard he uses to determine what parts of scripture are true and which ones are local to ancient culture.

   1. Example: ”Leviticus is just an ancient cultic ceremonial law given to Israel. We’ve learned a lot since then”

B. The Danger of Half-Truths

John’s view of scripture is also full of half-truths. For example, it is true that people can misinterpret Scripture or approach it with biases.

It does not then follow that the Bible itself is unclear or flawed. The problem lies with human sinfulness and fallibility, not with the Word of God.

It is also true that the writers of the Bible had their own personalities and focus points.

It does not then follow that therefore God was not powerful enough to still inspire them to say what He wanted them to.

C. Breaking His Own Rule

John claims that interpreting scripture itself is a largely subjective discipline. Basically, we’re all doing our best to find out what truth is in the Bible. By his estimation, we all have an equal opinion and cannot necessarily hone down on a specific set of truths.

Our ability to make a decision or to have peace or to navigate the world as “proper Christians”, all becomes contingent upon us “properly understanding” the supposed clear, irreducible truth of God’s Word. And since no two of us can agree completely on what that truth is or means, this makes such a task largely subjective

It sounds reasonable, but interestingly, it is also John’s belief that bible-believing Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant are following themselves / their teachers, and not God himself. That we have made an ugly idol out of our idea of God instead of God himself. By contrast, of course, him and the progressives are the ones truly following Jesus:

These people are going to have to admit that ultimately the only authority they’re yielding to in these matters is their own (or the teachers or parents who have passed these ideas down to them.) It is their fear, their prejudice, their lack of knowledge that causes them to lash out in hurtful words, violent rhetoric, and abject cruelty.

This is inconsistent. What knowledge are we lacking? What do you mean by hurtful? Can you define prejudice? A minute ago you said this interpretation game was subjective, and now you’re saying that Christians who don’t agree with you are objectively wrong? By what standard?

Once you tell John that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, he will transform into the same person he regularly critiques; a person who has convictions that they believe to be objective standards, fighting for the glory of their god. All people operate like that, no one truly believes in subjective truth.

He also claims that our interpretations are subjective, and we find “some” truth in it. But how does John know what he’s found is actually true? What if the Bible is totally right about homosexuality being an abomination?

The truth is, John is not really a moral relativist, nor does he think truth is subjective. He thinks it’s objectively wrong to

• Call homosexuality a sin

• Call abortion a sin

• Call transgenderism a sin

But from where does John get these unquestionable pillars of belief? Why is it absolutely wrong to not affirm LGBT or abortion? As we’ll see, this position does not come from scripture, but from the humanistic culture that John follows.

With that out of the way, let’s get into some of the arguments that John and Justin proposed.

“The word homosexual was inserted in 1946”

The article John linked (from the author ‘Justin’) begins with this:

Homosexual: The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same”, and the Latin term sexualis, meaning sex. The term “homosexual” is of modern origin, and it wasn’t until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible was the first translation to use the word homosexual.

Modern terminology wasn’t in the original text of the Bible. The Bible explicitly describes the behavior it condemns, such as ‘a man lying with a male as with a woman’ (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) and ‘men committing shameless acts with men’ (Romans 1:27). The lack of a modern label, or the very use of a modern word to describe an action in a modern language, doesn’t change the meaning of what it’s talking about.

If someone wrote a story 1,000 years ago about their “small dog”, and then in 1946 a translation had the word translated as “puppy”, we wouldn’t rush to say “The term puppy wasn’t even used until 1946, there really is no clear meaning here, we cannot identify what the author is trying to say here.” We simply have put a word that is more contextually relevant to our audience to describe the same meaning.

Leviticus 18 & 20

The first verse that we need to deal with is Leviticus 18 & 20.

The Verses

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
Lev 18:22

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Lev 20:13

1. “This was the Ceremonial Law”

The law of God, for learning purposes, can be divided into 3 categories.

• The moral law is God’s unchanging standards that guide Christian ethics (10 commandments)

• The civil law was a specific application of the moral law for civil / public usage in Israel.

• The ceremonial law was a pointer and shadow towards Christ who, after his death, burial and resurrection, has fulfilled the law.

The ceremonial laws concerning temple sacrifice, dietary restrictions, and ritual cleanliness were indeed fulfilled and superseded in Christ - they were typological, pointing forward to Christ’s atoning work. But the moral law, which governs human relationships and conduct, remains binding (ie. lying is still wrong, Jesus didn’t destroy that law by coming)

But here’s the problem; the civil law is an application of the moral law. These laws show how the ten commandments apply in concrete situations for ancient Israel in the civil sphere. For example:

• Exodus 21:16 (kidnapping carries the death penalty) is an application of “Thou shalt not steal”

• Exodus 21:12 (murder carries the death penalty) is an application of “Thou shalt not murder”

• Leviticus 19:35-36 (honest weights and measures) is an application of “Thou shalt not bear false witness” and “Thou shalt not steal”

Civil laws cannot be copy-pasted into America in 2025, however the general equity behind them is a guide for our political theory. So how can we know what is ceremonial and what is moral?

Well the very fact that Leviticus 20:13 is a civil crime is already an indication it is a moral issue. Civil penalties are not given for breaking ceremonial laws.

Breaking ceremonial laws leads to people being ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 11, Numbers 19:11, etc). Civil penalties, however, are for violations of the moral law in the public or civil sphere. If we hold that burning babies on an altar is a moral offense that deserves to be a civil crime, we must hold the same for public homosexual activity, because they are in the same passage.

Even as we all agree these laws (and their penalties) are not copy-paste into America currently, just taking the general equity and idea behind them, God obviously does not affirm an activity that he calls a civil crime.

B. “It says ‘unclean’, ceremonial confirmed”

Some respondents may object that in Lev 18 verses 19-23, the word “unclean” is used, and therefore the entire passage (including the verse on same-sex intercourse) are merely ceremonial. They will also simply group Lev 17-26 as “that pesky ceremonial stuff that no one is bound to”, simply because it is considered apart of the holiness code. Here is verses 19-23 mentioning “unclean”

You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
Leviticus 18:19–23

The word “unclean” (טָמֵא) can refer to both ritual impurity and moral defilement, depending on the context. In this passage, it is used to describe the consequences of sexual sins, such as adultery (v. 20) and bestiality (v. 23). These are not ceremonial infractions, there are violations of God’s moral order. The presence of “unclean” here does not reduce these sins to mere ritual impurity.

Even worse, verse 21 explicitly prohibits giving children to Molech. These nations were burning their born babies alive on an altar while drowning out their cries with loud drums. What do you think, is this an acceptable practice today? Was this a pesky ritualistic law? Was this just exploitive child burning as opposed to that consensual burning where the baby agrees?

Our intelligent, ethical affirming responders will respond “No Joe, it is absolutely wrong to burn children because it is a moral issue” To which I respond “Then why don’t you use that standard in context with the very next verse?”

C. Applicable to Other Nations

Another thing to keep in mind is the nations surrounding Israel did not have the ceremonial statues Israel was receiving, nor is there evidence they were given a prophet. However, they were accountable to following all of God’s moral laws because of general revelation. They knew, deep down, that all of these wicked practices were detestable to God, and did them anyway.

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD...

...Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
Leviticus 18:1–5, 24–28

The result? The land vomited them out. God specifically says he “punished its iniquity.” God did not hold Canaan accountable for breaking ceremonial laws that they did not have. God judges ALL people and nations because they have transgressed his eternal moral law that is written on our hearts (Romans 2:14-15). This is derived from what we read in Romans 1:20, where we read that all people know God exists, but suppress that truth, so they are without excuse.

2. The Meaning of Abomination

Justin moved on to try and redefine “abomination” as well as argue that this pointed to this being a ceremonial law and not a moral one.

The Old Testament was initially a part of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jewish people. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the Old Testament from its original Hebrew into Greek. It was the “version” of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from when they cited Old Testament scriptures. The Hebrew word in this specific law we are looking at that was translated into English as “abomination” was translated in the Septuagint into the Greek word bdelugma. A quick search through a lexicon for the word bdelugma brings up the following definition:

-a foul thing, a detestable thing

-of idols and things pertaining to idolatry

This seems to point to the idea that this specific law has more to do with a matter of ritual purity and with the Hebrews not being like the idolatrous Babylonians or Canaanites.

Claiming “abomination” (תּוֹעֵבָה, to’evah) is merely pertaining to idolatry or ritual impurity is a severe distortion of the biblical usage. While to’evah can sometimes refer to idolatrous practices, this is far from its only usage. The word appears throughout Scripture to describe moral abominations that God abhors:

• Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that are to’evah to the Lord, including “hands that shed innocent blood,” “a lying tongue,” and “a false witness who breathes out lies” - these are clearly moral, not ceremonial matters.

• Proverbs 11:1 declares “Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD” - a moral issue of justice and honesty in business dealings.

• Deuteronomy 25:16 states “all who behave unrighteously are an abomination to the LORD” - explicitly addressing moral behavior.

• Proverbs 3:32 says “the devious person is an abomination to the LORD” - referring to moral character.

When God calls something an abomination, He is declaring His moral revulsion at the act itself, grounded in His holy character. The suggestion that this only refers to pagan ritual practice is exegetically bankrupt and ignores the broader biblical usage of the term.

3. Stoning Teens & Adulterers

John further critiqued the law in his post:

They’ll frequently refer to the book of Leviticus, claiming it says that “homosexuality” an abomination (a flawed talking point as we’ll discuss later)—and ignore the surrounding verses commanding that disrespectful teens and those having extramarital sex be stoned to death—along with hundreds of requirements and punishments, most of which they declare irrelevant to their present lives. It’s becomes a highly selective use of the text.

As discussed already, the Lev 20 verse was a civil law, which are applications of the moral law, therefore homosexual activity is a moral issue.

The civil laws John brought up about adultery and rebellious sons are exactly that; civil laws. The general equity of these laws should guide our political theory in America, but it does not copy-paste onto America. So with that said, this is not a meaningful objection to claim Christians cherry pick these verse, it is a category error.

The ironic thing about the rebellious sons law (that I’m sure John would likely reject himself given how he quoted it) is that Jesus quoted it in Matt 15 and simply took it for granted. Even crazier, he called it a commandment of God. There is no room for grouping these laws in as local, ancient laws that have no teaching power to us today.

He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!

Matthew 15:3–7

4. “Ancient Patriarchal Abomination”

Additionally, Justin did go on to say the real abomination here was a man being lowered to the status of woman based on the ancient context of Israel.

For one of the men in the sexual encounter to be treated as one would treat a woman, the man would have been taking a lower status. To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered. To fully understand this law, we must consider the historical context in which it was written.

Even if we grant for the sake of argument that the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 is really about one man being ‘lowered to a female status,’ how does that exempt a consensual homosexual couple? Both parties are still consenting to an act that violates God’s standard. If this was God’s mechanical reason for calling it an abomination, then it is still condemned anyway.

Moving further, if abomination is being applied morally here (as we've seen above with the civil application), and God’s reason for calling it that is irrelevant (“lowered status”, “patriarchal abomination”), the only other route you can go here to make this moral law not applicable at all today, is to claim that God himself did not command this, and that all of these laws were generated from men.

Unfortunately, you would be calling Jesus a liar, since he not only held to the OT law, but in the last section we saw he actually quoted a civil law and called it a “commandment of God.” If you call Jesus a liar, the rest of the things you think he stands for could be false, so why follow him?

5. “The Text is Unclear”

Justin claims this about the passages

First of all “lay lyings” has no clear interpretation. The only way of making sense of this is to insert something to produce a smoother, more commonsense English translation

The claim that Leviticus 18:22 is unclear or ambiguous is demonstrably false. The verse plainly states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

The argument suggests that the phrase “lay lyings of a woman” (mishkevei ishah) is unclear and that we must “insert something” to make sense of it. This represents either profound ignorance of Hebrew or willful deception. The Hebrew phrase “mishkevey ishah” (מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה) literally means “the lyings of a woman” or “as one lies with a woman.” This is a standard Hebrew idiom specifically denoting sexual intercourse.

It is used elsewhere in Scripture, such as in Genesis 49:4, where Reuben is condemned for defiling his father’s bed (mishkevei avikha). The construction is perfectly clear to anyone with basic Hebrew literacy: it prohibits a man from engaging in sexual relations with another man in the manner one would with a woman.

6. “This Was Exploitive Relationships, Not Consensual Ones”

Some other progressives online have also argued that here in Leviticus (as well as in other passages we’ll get to), this lying with a male was simply an exploitative practice (pederasty as seen in other ancient cultures). Perhaps men taking advantage of younger boys, as some of the nations did around them.

A. The Act, Without Qualification

However, in the Lev 20 passage, it specifies “If a man lies with a male as with a woman...” This phrase is critical because it clarifies the nature of the prohibited act. It refers to sexual relations that mimic the natural sexual relationship between a man and a woman. The focus is on the act itself, not the context or power dynamics involved.

The text does not include any qualifiers or conditions that would limit the prohibition to exploitative situations, such as pederasty or coercion. It also does not offer qualification for men who go against their “orientation” only. Instead, it categorically condemns any sexual act between two males that parallels the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. The absence of contextual qualifiers indicates that the prohibition is universal and applies to all forms of homosexual behavior.

Furthermore, the law does in fact offer qualifications for other things. Your penalty for murder can vary depending on your intentionality (Exodus 21:28-29). God could have said “if they both consent” or “if they usually lay with woman but then lay with a man in the same way.” Interestingly, he decided to offer no conditions here.

B. Male, Not Boy

Even more specific than that, the Hebrew word for “male” (זָכָר) used in this verse refers to a male of any age, not specifically a child. If the text intended to address pederasty or exploitative relationships, it would have used language to specify such a context (the word na’ar (נַעַר) or yeled (יֶלֶד) could have been used to indicate a younger male).

C. Both Are Accountable

Finally, you’ll notice something in the last part of the Lev 20 passage; both participants are accountable.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

If this was God trying to shield the helpless boys from these exploitive men, the boy obviously wound’t be guilty of a crime, he would be a victim. But in this passage, it is both parties that God says “their blood is upon them.” This is mechanically a consensual same-sex act.

7. Love and Law Are Inseparable

Justin wrote this in regards to the law of ‘love’

Christian tradition has distinguished Old Testament laws that pertain to “purity” and those that pertain to “morality,” the latter of which still apply. If love is the true fulfillment of the law, then for Christians should not love be the measuring stick for determining by which laws we are to abide (i.e. which are “moral laws”)?

The author appeals to Jesus’ teaching that the greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40). However, this does not mean that love is a subjective standard that overrides God’s moral law. This is dangerously circular reasoning that makes human sentiment the judge of God’s Word rather than God’s Word the judge of what love is.

Love is defined by God’s law, not the reverse. Jesus says that all the law and the prophets depend on the commandments to love God and neighbor. This means that the moral law is an expression of love. To obey God’s commands is to love Him, and to avoid harming others is to love our neighbor. When Jesus and Paul say love fulfills the law, they mean that genuine love for God and neighbor will naturally obey what God has commanded. Love does not override the commandments - love keeps the commandments.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 5:3

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
John 14:15

A. Paul Affirms the Moral Law

Justin also cited Romans 7:4-6 and Galatians 3:23-26 to suggest that Christians are no longer bound by the law. However, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding. Paul is addressing the ceremonial and judicial aspects of the law and our justification, not our sanctification.

How do we know? Because he’s discussing justification, which we know can only be found in Christ (which the ceremonial aspects of the law pointed to). When Paul declares we are “not under law,” he is saying we are not saved by keeping the law. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. But those who are saved are called to obey God’s moral law out of love and gratitude.

In Romans 13:8-10, Paul explicitly affirms the moral law:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:8–10

Romans 6:15 & Romans 3:31 explicitly addresses and refutes this antinomian misuse of grace:

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Romans 6:15

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 3:31

B. Homosexual Behavior Is Not Loving

Rape, stealing, hating, etc. are immoral because they are not in line with the Law of Love, which Christ frames so perfectly when questioned about the law. Is a committed homosexual relationship in violation of this law? We could become like the Pharisees and Sadducees trying to pick apart this law forever, but if we look closely, Christ’s life truly reveals the Spirit of the Law

Justin suggests that a “committed homosexual relationship” is consistent with the law of love. However, this ignores the fact that homosexual behavior is a violation of God’s design for human sexuality and therefore cannot be truly loving. True love seeks the good of others, which includes encouraging them to live in obedience to God’s will.

To claim that “love” permits what God has explicitly called an abomination is to call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). It is to worship an idol of our own creation. The ironic part is, that is the very idolatry Paul calls out that leads to homosexual behavior in Romans 1 (We will hash out this verse in detail later on):

...because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:25–27

True love for the homosexual person means speaking the truth: that their behavior is sinful, that it brings them under God’s judgment, and that they can repent and be saved. To affirm them in sin is not love - it is hatred, consigning them to destruction while making them comfortable.

C. Autonomous Reason vs. Biblical Authority

At its root, Justin’s entire argument rests on humanistic presuppositions rather than biblical authority. He begins not with “What does God say?” but with “How can we reinterpret this to align with modern sensibilities?” This is the essence of autonomous human reason setting itself up as judge over God’s Word.

The question is not whether we will have law, but whose law - God’s or man’s. This article advocates for man’s law, man’s definition of love, man’s determination of what is moral. It is humanism dressed in Christian language.

Justin appeals to “context” and “interpretation,” but his context is modern Western culture, not Scripture interpreting Scripture. His method would equally justify reinterpreting prohibitions against adultery, theft, or any other sin that contemporary culture finds acceptable.

Once we accept the premise that clear biblical commands can be set aside based on “love” redefined by human sentiment, there is no stopping point. If Leviticus 18:22 can be dismissed, so can Leviticus 18:23 (bestiality), Leviticus 18:6-18 (incest), or any other sexual prohibition. Indeed, we are already seeing this in contemporary culture -polyamory, “consensual” incest between adults, and other perversions are being normalized using the exact same arguments.

The logic is identical: “The Bible was written in a different cultural context,” “Love is what matters,” “We’re not under Old Testament law,” “Traditional interpretations were based on patriarchy/prejudice.” The same approach that dismisses the prohibition against homosexuality has already been used to dismiss child sacrifice in America.

The “Arsenokoitai” Verses

In the following verses, many progressives will try to dance around the greek term Arsenokoitai, and conclude “we don’t know what it means overall, so we’ll have to really dive deep.” In fact, here is a quote from Justin’s article:

Arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai) – This Greek noun is formed from the joining together of the Greek adjectival prefix for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). Literally then it would mean, “male beds.” It is found in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. This is the first appearance of the word in preserved Greek literature and outside of these two verses this word does not appear in the New Testament. The Greek word arsenokoitai is mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 and its meaning is debated. Because of the obscurity of this word and the lack of outside sources to shed light on its meaning, we must derive its meaning from the text.

Justin also later concluded this

Keeping this in mind, let’s look back at what we have so far: the enslaved male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoitai as being the one who sleeps with the prostitute, the man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying, “male prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure them…” Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoitai itself.

So, is this talking about “male prostitutes”, “slave dealers”, or any other specific exploitive practice that would exempt a modern, consensual, same sex couple? Let’s find out.

A. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9–11

In verse 9, Paul mentions that “men who practice homosexuality” are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. This does not mean they cannot be saved, Paul is just illustrating that those who practice these things currently (unregenerate people) will not enter the kingdom. He will of course clarify in the rest of the passage about how one does enter the kingdom.

Immediately, our progressive responders come to attack the greek word so that they can interpret it to include homosexual relationships. So let’s break this down.

Arsenokoitai is a compound word that means “ἄρσενο” (Male) and “κοῖται” (Lay with in bed). Paul was combining these 2 words, which are derived from the greek translation of the Leviticus 18 & 20 passages (which we already saw defines practicing homosexuality as a moral abomination).

Here it is in greek:

Koitai has a strong sexual connotation to it, it’s not just talking about sleeping in a bed. If you were reading your scripture in 1st century Corinth, and were familiar with the words used to translate Lev 18:22, you know what Paul was referring to; men who have sex with men, or “male-bedders”

Why wouldn’t Paul use the other potential words for homosexuality? The answer is simple; Paul is a Jew, and he knows his audience. Given the levitical translation context of the corinthians, this term was the best framed to use.

Paul also uses Malakoi (μαλακοί), which in Greek simply means “soft men”, and is actually much more broadly used in greco-roman literature. This term more descriptively means men who effeminate themselves in order to attract male sex partners. Interestingly enough, its specifically used in context for adults, not boys.

The apostle Paul, when using these 2 words, is covering both the active and passive homosexual act of 2 voluntary individuals. Wes Huff explains it well here:

By using Arsenokoitai and Malakoi together in the same sentence, the way that they’re framed in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the Apostle Paul is identifying the active and passive partners in a sexual act. By the prefix arson, we have the gender and the morphine koitai, where we actually get the kind of archaic English term “coitus” from, meaning to have sex with. Those two words combined, arseno combined with koitai, and then added with Malakoi, what we’re given is a very direct meaning. You have described two participatory individuals engaged in a sexual act where one is doing the giving in the act and the other is doing the taking. There’s no hint in the terminology or the context that this is exploitative or between anything other than two consenting adults.
“Does the Bible say that?” - Wesley Huff

The bottom line is this; to try and make these 2 terms in context to mean prostitution, slave dealers, economic exploitation, sexual abuse, or to say that we “just don’t really know what it means,” is intellectually dishonest.

B. “Homosexual Lifestyle Isn’t in the Bible”

John had noted this in his post:

They’ll refer to a “homosexual lifestyle,” when the Bible is devoid of such terminology—for the simple reason that the concept itself is ludicrous and nonexistent (as proven by the fact that a “heterosexual lifestyle” makes absolutely no sense when applied to straight people.)

For obvious reasons, the Bible doesn’t contain modern terminology. However, the way language works, we can take the meaning of a text, and then use appropriate words to describe it (we covered this principle when talking about the word “homosexual” being added in the 1940s).

We just went through how this verse is indeed talking about “men who practice homosexuality”, so this is not a one time act. Although John himself likely rejects original sin based on this article, Christians who believe the bible actually uphold it, which means that we are by nature children of wrath until we are washed with the atoning blood of christ.

…among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved…

Ephesians 2:3–5

This is why after laying out these sinful lifestyles, Paul ends with “such WERE some of you.” He does not say “such are some of you.” You were once sinners, practicing a sinful lifestyle (because unregenerate hearts can only live that way). What sins are we referring to? Well, one of them was the active and passive behavior of homosexual sex.

You were like that, but you were washed; and now you’re not. Once you realize Paul is referring to any homosexual activity in principle, you have to hold the rest of the verse that those who are saved by the blood of Christ should no longer walk in that behavior.

There is no such thing as a saved Christian with the holy spirit indwelling in them, that does not recognize at some point early in their walk that homosexual behavior is a sin that must be defeated. Everyone’s sanctification is different and not a lightning bolt, but eventually it will come to the surface. It is not a hopeless biological condition God has forced you into, and even if we grant that it was biological, God commands us to fight it regardless.

C. 1 Timothy 1:10

The next verse that uses the term ἀρσενοκοίτης is 1 Tim 1:10

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Timothy 1:8–11

Paul starts telling us that the law is good if one uses it lawfully and then he...walks through the law, in order, starting at verse 9:

“for those who strike their fathers and mothers” - The 5th commandment

“for murderers” - The 6th commandment

“the sexually immoral”, “men who practice homosexuality” - The 7th commandment

“enslavers” - The 8th commandment”

“liars, perjurers” - The 9th commandment

The interesting thing is when Paul gets to the 7th commandment, he actually elaborates a bit. Both “the sexually immoral” and “men who practice homosexuality” (which was rampant in Rome), are included as examples of law breaking. The word used for “men who practice homosexuality” is the same as we saw in 1 Cor 6:9-11; ἀρσενοκοίτης.

So we not only get clarification from 1 Cor that this is a consensual act, but that those acts in themselves are actually listed under the category of adultery, which is a moral issue, not a ceremonial one.

How Could John Respond?

This was only part 1 of 2, but before continuing next week, there are a few responses John might have to these arguments based on his previous writings, so I wanted to proactively cover them to give some clarity ahead of time.

A. “The Bible has errors”

John can and most likely will write off all of my arguments by saying “that’s a cool opinion on those verses Joe, but the Bible has errors, we’re all learning things.” He can always appeal to

1. “That’s your interpretation”

2. “I know a scholar who disagrees”

3. “That scripture was just for that culture at that time/it’s just a 6,000 year old poem”

And this is consistent with John’s current hermeneutic, because he does not hold the Bible to be inerrant. Unfortunately, like we’ve already discussed, this won’t hold up because he has not presented his standard for defining what parts of the bible are absolutely true, and which ones are not.

B. “Joe is a Hateful White Christian Spreading Hate”

I certainly hope John doesn’t respond with this, but based on a recent article he posted, it’s something I want to address.

The Beautiful Mess by John Pavlovitz

Dear Hateful White Christians,

Dear White Hateful White Christians…

Read more

6 months ago · 587 likes · 40 comments · John Pavlovitz

Since I am white, and hold that the Bible defines homosexuality and transgenderism as a sin, it could be argued that I’m “just a hateful white Christian.” John himself even mentioned in a 2020 video that Christians like me (who believe what the Bible says) “need to stop saying it (calling LGBT sin) because it’s reckless and it’s irresponsible and it’s killing people.”

This of course would not hold any ground because, it is a personal attack. This would have nothing to do with the arguments I presented. I am a Christian who believes the Bible, and if the Bible clearly articulates something, being its God’s word, it is true. It is my obligation to stand up for truth, even if it isn’t popular. I can be called hateful, or discriminatory, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this ideology is true.

C. “Here’s my arguments for why I disagree”

John could also look at my post and respond back with clear and logical arguments as to why I’m wrong on all of these fronts. I would of course welcome this, and think some back and forth would be helpful for others to analyze the arguments and conclude themselves.

John, I want nothing more for you than to repent to the Jesus revealed in scripture. If you bow the knee to him, and put your faith in what he did on the cross, you will be saved. When Christ is truly Lord, and you obey him rather than what is culturally acceptable, you will make enemies (on both sides of the aisle), but you will be with the truth. And what a testimony it would be for you to transform and influence your audience!

I pray that God would open your eyes if he so wills:

Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day…”

John 6:43–44

BahnsenAI (AI to the Glory of God)

Trained on 4.5M words of apologetics and theology content, BahnsenAI is a faithful clone of the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. Ask it anything about theology, politics, apologetics…even hyper-specific personal situations you’re dealing with.

For the last century, America has been conducting a massive social experiment, tearing down every boundary that held society together for thousands of years.

"Love is love," they said. "My body, my choice," they insisted. "Gender is just a construct," they declared.

Well, the results are in…and they’re ugly.

The statistics don't lie, the bodies don't lie, and the broken families littering our streets don't lie. When you look at the data - not opinions, not feelings, but hard numbers - you see a nation bleeding out from self-inflicted wounds.

Mental illness at unprecedented levels. Suicide rates that would have been unthinkable two generations ago. Children turning to crime and addiction at rates that should terrify us all. Murder, disease, anxiety, abuse…and so much more.

• What happens when you break up the family and "liberate" women?

• What happens when children don't have their fathers?

• What happens when homosexuality spreads like wildfire?

• What happens when children cut off their genitals in exchange for a “new gender”?

• What happens when parents decide that having sex does not mean “consenting to pregnancy”?

A nation once built upon Christian principles, America has now become an apostate, and God has given us up to our own destructive desires.

As it is written:

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
Romans 1:28–32

For the non-Christians in America…some of the most sobering proof that Christianity is true is seeing what happens when society rejects its principles. If everything is just stardust bumping around, then none of these things matter.

But if God designed creation in a specific way, and everything he made is interconnected (family, relationships, society)…changing even one detail has catastrophic consequences. This is a wake up call to everyone in America.

• For the Christians; we need to be bold and teach our nation the whole counsel of God and what it says about all areas of life.

• For the non-Christians; Repent and turn to God. Look at what’s happened to our society when it’s built on godless principles, and put your trust in the King of the cosmos; Jesus Christ.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. The Consequences of Feminism

2. The Consequences of Homosexuality

3. The Consequences of Transgenderism

4. The Consequences of Surrogacy and IVF

5. The Consequences of Murdering Children via Abortion

1. THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEMINISM

The first area I’m going to cover is women’s liberation; basically, when we decided that women didn’t need to be attached to a family unit, and that they really aren’t any different from men.

To be clear: this isn't going to be a comprehensive history of feminism (there are plenty of substacks that cover this). I want to focus on what's happened to our country as a result.

The Feminist Blueprint of Death

Kate Millett, a huge feminist influencer in the 1960s, laid out the plan clearly. As Joy Pullmann notes in her book False Flag1, Millett's "feminist catechism declared that the feminist goal was to make cultural revolution by destroying the American family, which they would accomplish by destroying monogamy."

How would they do this? By "promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion2, and homosexuality."3

Right from the start, second-wave feminists declared these things were connected. They argued that patriarchy was historical, not natural, that femininity and womanhood were not biological conditions but socially constructed ideals that could and should be reconsidered.4

They wanted nothing less than the eradication of patriarchy.

But here's the thing: if gender roles and family structure are just cultural constructs with no biological basis, then there shouldn't be any consequences for changing them, right?

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Commitment Destroyed

The statistics tell a devastating story:

• In 1960, only 5% of US babies were born out of wedlock. By 2010, that number had risen to 41%5

• The number of children living with only their mother has doubled in the last 50 years6

• The United States has the world's highest rate of children living in single-parent households: 23%7

When you're not married, the commitment isn't there. People can argue "it's just a piece of paper," but if it's just paper, then get it. You're making a covenant before God to be with this person for life.

Children pick up on this. They understand the difference between parents who are committed and those who always have one foot out the door.

Children Being Abused by Predatory Men & Their Own Mother

Here's where it gets dark. Children with two married biological parents have the lowest rate of domestic abuse by far. It's not even close.

The worst rates of abuse (mental, physical, sexual) occur when children live with one parent whose unmarried partner is in the house. Think about it: biological mom, dad leaves, she gets a boyfriend who's not married to her. That's the worst-case scenario for abuse.8

These men aren't committed to these children. They're dating the mother, maybe for sex, maybe for a relationship, but the children aren't their primary concern. When you remove the natural protector, the biological father, you leave the household as sitting ducks for predatory men.

But here's what will flip everything you thought you knew: mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers.

According to 2021 data from the US Department of Health and Human Services:

• 38.0% of child victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone

• 23.9% by the father acting alone

• 20.0% by both parents (co-perpetration)

The feminist agenda has pushed this narrative that mothers are always the safe option, the default parent. But look at what actually happens. When you remove the balancing influence of a father, mothers are more likely to abuse.

That quarter of American children in single-parent households? They're not just susceptible to abuse from random unmarried partners. They're more susceptible to abuse from their own mothers.

The testimony of one woman, Maggie, raised by a single mother, captures it perfectly:

"The absence of my father in my life has led to so many awful things. I constantly felt unloved, unworthy, and abandoned. I craved a father figure and protection. This led to me seeking out unhealthy and abusive relationships with men who simply didn't care about me. Men cannot mother. Women cannot father. Kids need, crave, and benefit from having the right to both."9

Broken Home = Future Degenerate Adults

Joy Pullmann's research reveals the broader impact:

"People who do not grow up in the homes of their two married biological parents make, on average, worse citizens than people who do. Children afflicted by their parents' and communities' lack of sexual self-discipline have more trouble regulating their emotions, refraining from violence, following logical arguments, providing for themselves, achieving their potential, and respecting others' rights."

Think about that list:

• Can't regulate emotions

• More violent

• Can't follow logical arguments

• Can't provide for themselves

• Don't respect others' rights

Sound familiar? Turn on any news channel covering a riot or pride parade. You've seen these people.

These children are also:

"far more likely to demand public resources than to contribute to them and to accelerate sexual chaos. Look into the background of a transgender person and you'll almost always find parental divorce or another serious childhood trauma.”

When you have a large portion of America full of complacent, lazy people relying on the state, completely dependent on what the government may or may not do, that's the fruit of broken families. They're looking for mommy and daddy everywhere, including in their voting booth.

It’s simply natural law that men and women are different and have specific, distinct roles. We all know this because God designed it that way.

If you decouple women from the family unit, you break down the family unit. If you do that, you destroy the child. The child grows up broken, demanding the state be their parent, supporting authoritarian policies that promise safety like a "substitute mommy”, and functions as a consumer citizen, not a producer.

2. THE CONSEQUENCES OF LGBT

So we’ve seen how "liberating" women destroyed the American family. Children without fathers. Mothers overwhelmed and abusing. A quarter of our nation's children living in broken homes, susceptible to predators and dysfunction.

But that was just the beginning.

Think of liberating women as step one. We still had the potential for a heterosexual unit. Sure, women were "liberated," roles were confused, divorces skyrocketed, but at least there was still the possibility of a man and a woman together. Even if it wasn't ideal, even with step-parents and broken homes, there was still some semblance of the natural order.

Step two asks a darker question: If women are exactly like men, if they should be "liberated" to do the same things with no distinct family roles, then what about sexual relationships themselves? Must you have a man and a woman to form a family unit? Or can you have woman and woman, man and man?

And if you have a gay relationship, which obviously cannot procreate biologically and exists outside God's design, what do you do? Try to have children through surrogacy or IVF? Just not have children? Marry someone who already has a child?

This is step two in the destruction of America: degrading the sexual ties themselves against God's design.

God Is Clear

Let's start where we should always start: God's Word.

The Bible affirms that marriage and sexual intimacy are ordained for one man and one woman.

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Genesis 2:24

Notice the specifics. A man leaves his father and mother (already implying the natural order) and holds fast to his wife. They become one flesh. This is a specific, designed union from the beginning of creation, woven into the fabric of reality itself.

Jesus affirms this when asked about divorce:

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 19:4-6

Jesus takes this for granted as the created order. God has joined man and woman together in the unit of husband and wife to procreate, be fruitful, multiply, and take dominion. This is in the creation mandate itself.

Contrasting this, Romans 1:26-27 shows what happens when we reject God's design:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

This couldn't be more explicit. Paul is referring to homosexual relationships as an extension of God's judgment. When God gives a nation up, homosexuality is one of the pivotal sins we can visualize as a sign of that judgment.

People try to perform interpretive gymnastics with these passages, claiming Paul meant something else. Don't waste your time. Any reputable translation, any serious scholar who isn't a deconstructionist fraud will tell you the same thing: Paul is talking about homosexual behavior.

Higher Rates of STDs

Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for a disproportionate share of serious sexual diseases. Although MSMs comprise only about 2% of the US population, they represented 67% of all new HIV infections in 2022.10 The rate of syphilis among MSM was 46 times higher than that of heterosexual men.11

The very nature of these acts, because they're outside God's design and misuse the body in ways it wasn't created for, naturally leads to disease. It's like putting water in a car's gas tank instead of gasoline. It's not just that it won't work; it will break other systems.

Higher Rates of Cancer

Gay men have significantly higher rates of certain cancers such as anal, colon, and testicular cancer, partly linked to higher rates of HIV and lifestyle factors.12 Lesbian and bisexual women have higher risks of breast and ovarian cancers, possibly related to lower childbirth and breastfeeding rates.

Makes sense, doesn't it? When you reject God's design for procreation and family, the body itself rebels.

Suicidal, Depressed and Broken

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth have significantly higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts, major depression, anxiety, and conduct disorders than their heterosexual peers.13 A US twin study found that men with same-sex orientation were much more likely to have attempted suicide, even after controlling for depression and substance abuse.

Here's the crucial point: these alarming health disparities persist even in socially accepting environments like Canada, undercutting the claim that stigma alone causes the poor outcomes.

Why? Because they're living against their design. They're trying to force their bodies and souls into patterns God never intended. Romans 1:27 warns they would receive "in themselves the due penalty for their error." This isn't just about eternal judgment; they're receiving penalties in real time through destroyed health.

More Domestic Abuse

Here's something the media won't tell you: domestic violence is notably higher in same-sex couples. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association itself recognized this "hidden epidemic."14

• 37% of lesbians have been physically abused as adults or children

• 32% had been raped or sexually assaulted, often by their partners

Think about that. We're talking about two people in a relationship, and their own partner is sexually or physically abusing them at these rates.

Gay male relationships also experience significant domestic violence, but notably lesbian couples have the highest rates of all.

Remember earlier when we learned that single mothers had higher abuse rates? Now put two women together without the balancing the influence of a male presence. The abuse rates skyrocket. It's taking one of the worst situations (a woman not tied to a man in marriage) and doubling it.

Shorter Relationships, More Cheating

Homosexual relationships, particularly male partnerships, tend to be shorter-lived and less monogamous than heterosexual marriages. Gay author Andrew Sullivan himself noted that male couples are more likely to accept "extramarital outlets."15

The data backs this up:

• 79% of heterosexual married couples valued complete sexual fidelity

• 79% of lesbian couples valued complete sexual fidelity

• Only 50% of gay male couples valued fidelity

Think about it. Men already struggle with lust as visual creatures. Without the balancing influence of a female partner, you put two men together with those same struggles. Of course infidelity rates explode. They're both fighting the same temptations with no complementary influence.

What Happens to the Children

This is where it gets heartbreaking. These children didn't ask for this.

Biology matters. Children fare best when raised by their married biological mother and father. Any deviation from this structure introduces risks.16

You cannot go to any intellectually rigorous institution and find data with a different conclusion. Children need their biological mother and father. End of story.

Same-sex parenting arrangements deprive a child of either a father or a mother. Two lesbians raising a son cannot provide a male role model. Two gay men raising a daughter cannot provide the unique nurture of a mother.

The Devastating Statistics

According to the Regnerus study17, children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers were:

• 3–4x more likely to grow up on welfare (59–69% vs 17%)

• More likely to have lower educational achievement

• More likely to report depression

• More likely to have been arrested

• Rated their childhood family life as less secure

Alarmingly, daughters of homosexual parents reported far more sexual partners in adulthood and were much more likely to identify as non-heterosexual themselves.

Why? Because of the instability. The Regnerus study found that only 2 out of 248 children with a gay parent had lived with that parent and their same-sex partner from birth to age 18. It's a revolving door of relationships and partners.

10X The Sexual Abuse

Perhaps most disturbing: 23% of those with lesbian mothers reported having been touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver during childhood, versus only 2% of those with an intact biological family.18

That's a 10x increase in child sexual abuse.

When your entire outlook on sexual relations is scattered by habitual sexual sin, when you've already rejected God's design for sexuality, why wouldn't that deviation extend to other areas, including age?

Jesus takes children seriously. Why don’t we?

"Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned"

Matthew 18:6

Fertility & Fatherlessness

When marriage is redefined as an emotional union of any two adults, it sends the cultural message that children are optional and procreation is unrelated to marriage.19 Countries leading in same-sex marriage (Netherlands, Sweden, Canada) also suffer some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, well below replacement level.

We already have a fertility crisis from abortion. Add in gay couples who biologically cannot have children, and society accelerates toward collapse.

To make it worse, if society says two women can raise children just as well as a mother and father, then a man might more easily rationalize: "My kids don't really need me. Their mom can do the job or find someone else."

Same-sex marriage institutionalizes the idea that children don't need both a mom and dad, further eroding paternal commitment even in heterosexual contexts.

The Propaganda Machine

<10% of the US population has historically identified as LGBT20, yet close to half the country supports LGBT policies. Why? Elite money and propaganda have been shoving this down our throats for 50 years.

A moral truth held for millennia (marriage is between a man and a woman) was labeled bigotry overnight. Those who dissent face legal jeopardy. If you don't want to provide services celebrating this lifestyle, you're labeled a bigot who deserves to be destroyed.

Joy Pullmann summarizes it perfectly in her book False Flag:

"Sexual Marxism is not love. It's hatred. It's hatred of fatherhood and motherhood, children, and all natural human connections. Without family, people go insane. They are only fit for mental institutions. It's no coincidence that's what our nation's streets increasingly resemble."

She's right. We started with liberating women, which alone could destroy a nation. Then we progressed to same-sex couples and sodomy. The bad fruit is visible everywhere: health crises, abuse epidemics, mental illness, destroyed children, societal collapse.

Even secular studies and LGBT-authored reports acknowledge many of these facts. This isn't disputed. They can see it too. Yet increasing societal acceptance hasn't eliminated these problems; it's spread them. When you keep telling people sin is okay, they will find more creative ways to sin.

3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRANSGENDERISM

We've traced the downward spiral. First, we "liberated" women from God's design for the family. Then we normalized sodomy, pretending two men or two women could replace a mother and father.

Now comes the inevitable conclusion: If gender roles don't matter, if sexual distinctions are just preferences, then why should gender itself be fixed?

Let's define terms. Transgenderism refers to identifying or living as a gender different from your biological sex. We're talking about chromosomes here: XX, XY. Your actual, God-given gender. Not just switching to the opposite sex either. People now claim to be different species, multiple genders, no gender at all. The rebellion has no limits.

Before we dive into the devastating statistics, I need to address two objections people always raise:

Because we already know the biological family is what makes humanity flourish, any deviation from that will always cause the same issues. Children need their biological mother and father. Period. Any deviation from this causes harm. So when Dad decides he's now "Mom," it doesn't matter if society is accepting. The fundamental structure God designed has been shattered.

All of the data I’ll share can be traced back to rejecting God’s normal order in family, marriage, parenting, childhood, etc.

This is wrong for multiple reasons. First, the data shows problems persist even in accepting environments. Second, God uses all means to bring judgment, including societal rejection. When someone feels like the "odd one out" for denying reality, that discomfort is part of God's mercy, warning them to turn back.

Whether consequences come from biology breaking down or society rejecting delusion, God is sovereign over both. He's given us up as a nation, and these are the fruits.

Marriages Destroyed

First off, only around half of romantic relationships survive through a partner's gender transition21. Think about why. You're a woman who married a man. That man, his masculinity, his role as husband and father, that's part of who you married. When he decides he's now a woman, he's becoming a different person entirely.

The person you made a covenant with before God is essentially abandoning their identity. Even if the marriage doesn't end in divorce, it faces breakup, loneliness, and relational conflict. Why? Because one spouse has placed a massive psychological burden on the family so they can chase a delusion.

Americans think individualistically: "I can do what I want as long as I have my career, my money, my family." There's no concept of ties, responsibilities, duties that come with being a husband or father. People think we're all just interchangeable units that come together for fun.

That's not reality. As a man, I have specific responsibilities as a husband and father. If I "transitioned" to a woman, I couldn't just change my responsibilities. That's not how God designed it.

When Dad becomes "Mom," you don't have two moms. You have a broken family structure that mirrors the homosexual dysfunction we covered in Chapter 2. All those abuse statistics, mental health crises, and developmental problems? They're back, but worse.

Children Becoming Infertile

Research shows that roughly 80% of pre-puberty children with gender dysphoria eventually desist22, meaning they stop identifying as transgender by adulthood. In one study, 61% had reconciled with their birth sex.

Let that sink in. The vast majority of kids who think they're transgender at age 8, 10, 12, or 14 grow out of it. Yet what are parents doing? Taking their children to doctors to mutilate their genitals. Putting them on puberty blockers. Permanently altering their bodies for what is overwhelmingly likely to be a phase.

These drugs pause normal development23, but studies show they cause loss of bone density during crucial growth years24. Teen patients on blockers had bone density scores below average, with the longest users showing the worst outcomes. Weaker bones, higher fracture risk, and unknown long-term effects on development.

Worse, puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones may prevent normal maturation of sperm or eggs, effectively sterilizing the patient. We're talking about 11 and 12-year-olds being made infertile because they said they felt like the opposite sex.

These are weighty consequences for adolescents, many of whom cannot grasp the impact on their future ability to have children. Critics correctly argue that children cannot give truly informed consent for treatments that sterilize them and impair their physical development.

Higher Rates of Prostitution & 100X HIV

Due to discrimination and employment difficulties, roughly 13% of transgender respondents reported engaging in sex work25. Transgender women (male to female) are twice as likely as transgender men to have done sex work. In some international studies, 24–75% of trans women reported involvement in the sex industry26.

Even as fake women, biological men transitioning to female can't escape the male disposition toward sexuality. They're still twice as likely to enter sex work compared to women transitioning to men. The biological differences between men and women persist even through the delusion.

Transgender sex workers face especially high rates of HIV infection and physical assault27. A CDC survey of 1,600 transgender women in seven major US cities found that 42% tested positive for HIV28. Compare that to 0.3–0.4% in the general population. That's over 100 times higher.

19X Death by Suicide

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) is the largest survey examining the experiences of transgender people in the United States, with 27,715 respondents. The findings were:

• 39% of transgender respondents experienced serious psychological distress in the past month (vs. 5% general population)29

• 40% have attempted suicide in their lifetime (vs. 4% general population)30

A landmark long-term study in Sweden31 tracked all transgender persons who had sex-reassignment surgery in the country over several decades and found:

• Post-surgery transgender individuals are 19 times more likely to die by suicide

• Trans people are nearly 5 times more at risk of suicide attempts

• Trans people are almost 3 times more at risk of psychiatric hospitalization

When you deny the gender God gave you, when you rebel against something so fundamental it stares you in the face every day, it's hard to have a foundation for hope. You're saying to God, "I know better than you. I'll be my own god."

This spiral devastates the transgender community. Mental health issues lead to transition. Post-transition brings new problems. Regret sets in. But they're still denying God, so they have no foundation for hope. Despair deepens until suicide seems like the only escape.

Cutting Up the Body

A Dutch study examining five decades of data found transgender women (males on estrogen) had 1.8 times the mortality rate of normal men and 2.8 times that of women32. They died at higher rates from cardiovascular disease, blood clots, lung cancer, HIV, and suicide.

Despite 50 years of medical advances and massively increased social acceptance, mortality rates haven't improved. The problems are inherent to fighting against biology.

The surgeries are horrifically complex33 with astronomical complication rates:

• Phalloplasty (creating a penis for women): 76% of patients experience complications. Over one-third develop urethral fistulas. About a quarter get urethral strictures. Multiple follow-up surgeries are common.

• Vaginoplasty (penile inversion): notable complication rates include wounds coming apart, narrowing requiring dilation, and functional issues needing corrective procedures.

These aren't simple operations. They're complex attempts to remake what God designed, and the body fights back. Chronic pain, infection, difficulty with urination, sexual dysfunction - the list goes on.

The Full Picture

Let's sum up what transgenderism accomplishes:

• Destroys marriages

• Destroys parenting relationships

• Confuses and harms children

• Has an 80% regret rate in youth

• Destroys fertility

• Encourages prostitution and sex trafficking

• Causes HIV rates over 100x normal

• Results in astronomical suicide rates

• Requires complex surgeries with majority complication rates

• Demands lifelong hormone dependence

• Reduces life expectancy

It’s like God is saying:

4. THE CONSEQUENCES OF IVF & SURROGACY

Now we arrive at the inevitable conclusion: if family structure doesn't matter, if sexual boundaries are meaningless, if even biological sex is optional, then why should children come from families at all?

Welcome to the world of IVF and surrogacy, where children are manufactured, frozen, bought, and sold like commodities. Where the adult desire for offspring trumps the child's need for their biological parents. Where we've turned procreation into a business transaction.

Definitions

Variations of surrogacy:

• Traditional surrogacy: The surrogate provides the egg, making her the biological mother

• Gestational surrogacy: An embryo created via IVF is implanted into a surrogate who has no genetic link to the baby

The Entitlement Complex

All IVF & surrogacy arrangements flow from the same poisoned well:

God gives us the natural desire for children, especially the women who bear them. That's normal and good. But when natural barriers arise (infertility in a heterosexual couple, or the obvious barrier in homosexual couples), we see an underlying thread of entitlement emerge.

Just because God's design includes the command to be fruitful and multiply doesn't mean you can circumvent His sovereignty when He closes the womb. You can't go around God to fulfill His commands on your own terms. Here's Brian34, a child of surrogacy, reflecting on his experience:

"I don't care why my parents did this. It looks to me like I was bought and sold. You can dress it up with as many pretty words as you want, but the fact is that someone contracted you to make a child, give up your parental rights, and hand over your flesh and blood child. When you exchange money for something, it's called a commodity. Babies are not commodities. They're human beings."

Brian captures it perfectly. We've taken the glory of a child being born to parents who will raise them in God's natural order, and we've turned it into a sterile transaction.

So, let’s go through all of the different combinations and scenarios where these transactions occur.

Scenario 1: The Infertile Christian Couple

A husband and wife, perhaps even Bible-believing Christians who want to fulfill God's mandate to fill the earth. They're infertile. What are their options?

They could adopt. They could pursue legitimate medical solutions if there's an identifiable, fixable problem. But here's the key: God gives children. Period. It doesn't matter what natural means He uses to give them or block them. The blockage might even be a judgment, or discipline, for a time. Ultimately, God is sovereign.

Scripture is full of barren women crying out for children. What's the consistent message? God opened the womb. God gave the child. Not technology, not human ingenuity. God.

Scenario 2: The IVF Route

When couples choose IVF, here's what they're actually choosing:

• Mass incarceration of children: About 1.5 million embryos are currently frozen in the United States35. Human beings suspended in liquid nitrogen.

• Mass murder: The CDC reports that only 2.3% of IVF embryos result in live birth36. That means 97% die during freezing, thawing, implantation, or early development.

• Eugenics in practice: The IVF industry grades embryos37. If they don't meet certain criteria, they're discarded. Killed because they might have Down syndrome or aren't “perfect.”

• Even “safe” IVF is deadly: Some argue for using only one embryo (not common). But even then, you're intentionally putting your child in extreme danger for your own desires.

This is essentially abortion with a scientific wrapper that makes people feel justified.

Scenario 3: Two Dads and a Surrogate

With two dads, you need:

• Sperm from one dad

• An egg from a female donor

• A surrogate to carry the baby

The result? A child with at most 50% relation to one dad, 0% to the other, and a complete absence of a mother.

Katie Faust38 puts it beautifully:

"When a child is born, this is supposed to be the day they meet the mother they already love. Newborns are put on their mother's chest because we are igniting the existing bond that is already present. The mother's voice, smell, and characteristics soothe the baby. Exclusively the mother herself lowers the baby's cortisol levels. Not strangers, not even the child's father can do this."

When a surrogate hands over that baby for money, trauma is immediate and lasting.

Scenario 4: Two Moms and Missing Fathers

With lesbian couples, you might have:

• Sperm from a male stranger

• IVF using one mom's egg

• Either mom or a surrogate carrying the baby

This fragments motherhood into three pieces: genetic, gestational, and social. God designed them to be one.

Heather Barwick39, raised by two moms, shares her experience:

"I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn't need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary."

The truth can be suppressed but not destroyed. Children long for their father and mother - not substitutes, not social arrangements, but their own parents.

The Marxist Endgame

The biblical model is clear: hierarchy, family ties, responsibilities, connections, community, nations. Father as head of household, mother, children.

The Marxist model seeks to flatten everything. Make everyone interchangeable. The result?

• Women's liberation → destroyed families

• Homosexuality → destroyed sexuality

• Transgenderism → destroyed identity

• IVF/Surrogacy → destroyed procreation

The endgame? No family ties at all. Every child manufactured and distributed by the state or market. No biological connections. Just interchangeable units in the machine.

5. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MURDERING CHILDREN VIA ABORTION

We've traced the descent step by step. First, we "liberated" women from their God-given roles. Then we normalized sodomy. Next, we pretended gender itself was changeable. After that, we turned children into manufactured commodities.

Now we arrive at the inevitable conclusion: disposable children.

When you've destroyed every aspect of God's design for family, sexuality, and procreation, what's left? Kill the children who survive all your other rebellions. Murder the ones you couldn't prevent through your perversions. Sacrifice the inconvenient reminders that actions have consequences.

I've done extensive work on abortion specifically. During last year's election season, I focused on it for three to four months straight. But for this series, I want to stay on theme: What are the consequences? What happens when a nation commits child sacrifice on an industrial scale?

The Mental Health Apocalypse

A 2011 meta-analysis in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that women who had undergone induced abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of developing mental health problems compared to women with no abortion history40.

This analysis of 22 studies covering over 160,000 women suggested that nearly 10% of all mental health problems in the population were attributable to abortion.

Think about that. In a group of 160,000 women, one in ten mental health issues could be directly traced to abortion. That was the only factor that could explain the problem.

The issues include anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. When you kill your child, whether you try to rationalize it or not, regret follows. This isn't like other mistakes we make in daily life that we can forget. This cuts deeper.

There's forgiveness in Jesus Christ. If you've had an abortion and don't know Jesus, there's forgiveness and reconciliation available. But if you continue to rebel against God, there will be regret over your sin.

No matter how young the mother, no matter how crazy the situation, at bottom, women still have the natural desire for children. As depraved as some might become, it's still in their bones. There's always going to be a lingering, deep regret that bubbles up because they intentionally discarded the life of their own child.

If this really was just "a woman's choice," if there were no problems, if "when life begins" was just a religious question, then this should be a happy day. "Hey, I don't need to be a mom right now!" (Even though she already is one)

But the regret proves we all know that's nonsense. We know what we're really doing. If we didn't, if it really was just a clump of cells or a simple procedure, there wouldn't be this regret.

The Suicide Epidemic

The same 2011 meta-analysis reported that women with a history of abortion were 4 times more likely to die by suicide than women without abortion history.

Let that sink in. If Woman A has had at least one abortion and Woman B has never had one, Woman A is 400% more likely to commit suicide.

Additionally, 34% of suicides among post-abortive women could be associated with their abortion experience. A third of all suicides among women who've had abortions are directly linked to that decision.

Suicidal behavior and substance abuse showed the strongest correlations. Just like with the transgender situation we covered, when you have no hope, no Christ, nowhere to turn, suicide becomes your final "hope."

PTSD Symptoms

We usually think of PTSD in terms of military service or extreme violence. But a 2010 study in the Journal of Pregnancy found that 52% of women who had early abortions met criteria for PTSD at some point afterward41. For late-term abortions (after 20 weeks), 67% met PTSD criteria.

Symptoms include nightmares, flashbacks, trouble sleeping, and hyperarousal. A 2004 US study reported that 65% of women experienced some PTSD-like symptoms after abortion, with risk heightened when women felt pressured, ambivalent, or had later-term procedures.

So far, we have women who get abortions (legally, whether pressured or not, even if brainwashed by media that it's "just a procedure") and afterward:

• Become depressed

• Become suicidal

• Suffer PTSD symptoms

That alone should be enough. If abortion clinics told women these risks beforehand (which they don't, because they want your money), many might reconsider.

Think about pharmaceutical ads: "Here's the magic pill that cures this disease!" What do they always say at the end? "May cause death." They legally must disclose risks and get consent.

They don't do that with abortion. If they told women these statistics, many would have second thoughts.

But it gets worse.

Cursing Your Future Children

A 2009 meta-analysis found that women with one prior abortion had a 35% higher risk of preterm birth42. If a woman has an abortion, then years later wants a baby, she has a 35% higher chance of that baby being born before 37 weeks.

The risk nearly doubled (93% risk) for women with multiple abortions. And by the way, multiple abortions are increasingly common, especially with the mass distribution of the abortion pill making it very easy to kill your child.

Some analyses estimate that 31% of premature babies in NICUs are born to mothers whose only known risk factor was a prior abortion.

Walk into a NICU with 30 babies. Ten of them are there because their mother had an abortion. That's the only identifiable risk factor.

Annually, US hospitalization costs for abortion-related prematurity exceed $1.2 billion43. They're profiting from this destruction.

The mechanisms include cervical trauma from dilation, uterine scarring or inflammation, and higher risks with surgical abortions.

Believe it or not, when you're pregnant with a baby in your womb, God has a particular process that He designed. If you interrupt it with surgical tools halfway through, you curse yourself biologically. Your future babies will likely be premature.

Abortion = More Breast Cancer

A 1994 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported that abortion increased breast cancer risk by 50% before age 45.44

How many abortions are we having every year? Over a million documented ones, and we can't even track the abortion pills taken. It's well over a million annually.

The highest risk groups were:

• Teen abortions: 150% increased breast cancer risk

• First abortion after age 30: Double the risk

• Teen abortion plus family history of breast cancer: Nearly 100% increased risk of developing breast cancer by mid-40s

A 2014 Chinese review confirmed a dose-response relationship:

• One abortion: 44% increased breast cancer risk

• Two abortions: 76% increased risk

• Three abortions: Even higher

Having multiple abortions is incredibly common. You have almost a 50% chance of getting breast cancer before age 45 after just one abortion. They won't tell you that at the clinic.

The explanation? Abortion interrupts breast cell differentiation, leaving vulnerable, undifferentiated cells exposed to cancer risk. When you interrupt the natural process of pregnancy, all the interconnected systems break down.

Now What?

I hope by now you see the point I've been making throughout this series; We live in God's universe.

People hear that and say:

But that doesn't coincide with reality. Our culture says all these things are good:

• Women's liberation? Good!

• LGBT? Celebrate it!

• Transgenderism? No problem!

• Manufacturing children? Sure!

• Killing unwanted children? Your choice!

If these really weren't problems…if they weren't going against divine design, we wouldn't see all of these consequences.

God’s Design for Family

The man is head of household, loving his wife sacrificially, protecting and providing. Wives submitting to husbands as we all submit to God, being homemakers (not 1950’s housewives, nor working for a corporation), raising children, leading in childbearing. Together as a family, bringing everyone up in the knowledge of the Lord.

God’s Design for Relationships

God made men and women distinct and different. They go together specifically. Screw up that relationship, and consequences flow.

Gender Reality

God made you male or female. You can't change your gender.

Children as Gifts

You're supposed to have children with your spouse. If you can't, pray to God. Don't circumvent Him with IVF, freezing embryos, or surrogacy. That's against His design.

Life is Sacred

If you have sex and conceive a child, but selfishly don't want that child, tough. Killing them is murder, and God sees it.

The Choice Before Us

America is falling. As I finish up editing this, it's been 2 weeks since Charlie Kirk’s assassination attempt. We're starkly divided between good and evil in our country, and people are waking up.

Many of you listening might not be Christians. Maybe you're unsure, maybe you're atheist. Whatever your belief system is, you can't deny the reality in front of you.

All the leftist principles running through America lead to:

• Death

• Mental illness

• Suicide

• Cancer

• Children being abused

• Children becoming criminals

• Societal breakdown

When you follow God's way in all these areas, mankind flourishes:

• Lifespans increase

• Mental health improves

• Children are born and raised well

• Society flows like water

This is the most powerful testimony that Christianity is true.

If you're not a Christian, go read your Bible.

God made the world. Deep down, when your head hits your pillow at night, you know this. You know God exists and made everything. But instead of bowing the knee and following Him, we disobey him because WE want control.

Every disobedience heaps judgment on our heads. Every lie, every lustful look (which Jesus says is adultery in the heart), every selfish outburst…These "little" things we think are normal? Each one is active rebellion against God.

Judgment is coming.

God will judge every work and secret thing we've done, whether good or evil. The judgment for the wicked who won't bow the knee is hell: being tormented day and night forever and ever.

he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night...”

Revelation 14:10–11

You might think that's harsh. But tonight when you go to bed, think about never escaping God's judgment. How horrible that would be.

But here's the good news: Hell isn’t the only thing that lasts forever.

How do you escape the judgement to come? You have to bow the knee and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Turn to God in remorse and plead for forgiveness.

Two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ came as both man and God. He lived a perfect life, died on a cross, and rose from the dead. God poured out all His wrath on Jesus instead of on his people.

If you turn to Jesus in faith, acknowledge Him as Lord, and follow Him because He first loved you, God won't put that judgment on you. Jesus’s death on the cross will be the payment for your sin.

Now Christ's perfect righteousness gets applied to you. You're good, and you'll live with God forever instead of going to Hell. While you await your life in eternity, you’ll strive to do good things on earth, not so you get into heaven, but because you love the God that saved you.

If that's news to you, think about it. Read your Bible. Find a local church. Message me.

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil

Ecclesiastes 12:13–14

This lie, who’s origin resides in the deepest pits of Hell, has justified nationally sanctioned child sacrifice, what we moderns call “abortion.”

This child sacrifice is no different in spirit as was the rituals of the ancient Canaanites. These tribes would place their newborn baby on a molten statue, hoping that this false god would bless them in return. The child would be burned alive.

God even says this in the book of Jeremiah:

“…and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind”

The scene was so horrific, that the tribe would play loud drums to drown out the cries of the helpless babies burning on the scorched hands of the Moloch statue.

Legend has it, if you perk your ear up to the abortionists door, you can still hear the drums of Canaan in the distance

All of this evil, resting upon the shoulders of one single lie; human life does not begin at fertilization. It’s time to execute this ideology without pity. To do anything less would be ignoring the cries of the dead children who have been sacrificed in our country.

What We’ll Cover

• The Non-Existent Debate on Life's Beginning

• Scientific Evidence for Life Beginning at Conception

• The Nature of Human Value

• ‘Personhood’ and Its Absurd Implications

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh at you. You’re seen as one of those Bible thumpers who believes Noah and the arc, talking donkeys, and resurrected men really existed.

“They didn’t teach you this in high school?” they’ll mock. “Are you one of those anti-vax home schoolers with social issues who was taught about a sky daddy?”

Because of comments like these, many Christians are very fearful of the theory of evolution. Heck, the Bible is clear that all creatures in creation were made in 6 literal days, but secular scientists who are “smarter than us” are saying otherwise. What do we do?

In fact, some Christians are so terrified of the prospect of disagreeing with mainstream science, they run as fast as they can towards a figurative interpretation of Genesis to play both sides.

“Maybe it wasn’t literally 6 days”

“Maybe there’s a gap of time between the beginning and creation”

“Maybe the first few chapters of Genesis are just figurative, a sort of “mytho-history”

Most of these Christians trust scientists so much, they consider their work as an extension of God’s revelation. Some swallow the “14-billion year old universe” pill & “65 million year old dinosaur fossils” without a second thought.

The evolutionary story is the bedrock for modern atheism. What once might have seemed to be a ridiculous worldview, now appears to finally have a cosmetic of respectability. If we concede to some of these claims, we are also conceding that the Bible might be wrong?

But what if I told you that evolution wasn’t a proven scientific fact?

What if I told you that evolution wasn’t even a good theory?

After a closer look, the theory of evolution is found to be nothing more than a fairy tale. Religiously motivated scientists simply rush to defend it so that it maintains a veneer of credibility.

Enough is enough. Christians have been beat down long enough with this theory. We have not boldly fought this dragon at all, in fact we’ve put our weapons down altogether with a hand-waive.

In this piece, I’m going to show you that given the raw observable scientific evidence, coupled with God’s word, the theory of evolution is nothing more than an adult fairy tale that helps unbelievers sleep at night by suppressing the truth that they already know deep down; God’s righteous judgement will be revealed.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse…Claiming to be wise, they became fools…

Romans 1:18–22

Table of Contents

1. The Religion of Evolution

2. Big Bang Billions-of-Years Nonsense

3. 2,000 Zeros Between Life & Non-Life

4. The True Terror of the Fossil Record

5. Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old

6. Sex for No Reason

7. Natural Selection Kidnapped

8. The Death of Atheism

Chapter 1 - The Religion of Evolution

Evolution Defined

First off, let’s define our terms. The evolution I’m talking about is what most call macro-evolution. This is the view that one species of animal transforms completely into another. Imagine a dinosaur turning into a bird over millions of years in order to survive. That’s what I’m talking about.

We are not talking about micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is when there’s a change of form or function within a species. Imagine a species of bird gets a sharper beak based on having kids with sharp beaks, that would be micro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is just what happens when some species of animals have more kids. But what about macro-evolution?

From Fish to Philosopher

When we talk evolution, most people think of Charles Darwin. But evolution did not come from Darwin, it was already present in ancient Greek philosophy. Anaximander, one of the earliest ionian philosophers was an evolutionist.

“For Anaximander (611 - 546 B. C. E) believed the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish…”1

Evolution was, and always has been, a philosophy, not a scientific theory. Nobody observed something in nature scientifically and said “That’s it, its gotta be evolution!”

The truth is, every human from birth understands, without question, that God created the universe. We are without excuse:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

With Darwin’s work coming to a finish, later scientists had to work day and night to give the theory a cosmetic of respectability. If they could just make it look legit, they could go to bed at night telling themselves that God didn’t exist.

Evidence?

Do you remember science class when you were in high school? Do you remember some of the things that make a scientific theory a strong one?

Well, firstly, you would need evidence, right? If I went to my teacher and said “I think germs don’t exist, its all just a lie”, would he take my word for it? Of course not, he would ask me for evidence.

To the embarrassment of the evolutionists, there is no evidence for macro-evolution.

We will explore this deeper later, but let’s take the fossil record2 for example. Do we find evidence of gradual development of species?

No, on the contrary we find:

1. Sudden appearance of a fully complex life-form (no simpler versions prior)

2. Stasis - that species stays the same form and doesn’t evolve or change.

In fact, there’s no evidence for the other parts of evolution either (we’ll get to that). But that’s no fun is it? I thought we had something? I thought we had a way out of that whole “I have to obey God because he made me” thing.

So what are the evolutionists to do if science can’t help them? Politics.

One great example of evolution politics in high definition is the British natural history museum. In 1981, the museum created an exhibit around Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

The label included in the text that it was "one possible explanation" for the origin of life, as well as "not strictly scientific because it has not been empirically demonstrated"

Because of those 2 expressions, enough political pressure was produced that the museum had to remove any acknowledgement of the problems with Darwin’s theory.

That’s right, they were bullied into shoving Darwin’s sacred religion into everyone’s brains, as if it were actually a proven scientific fact.

So right off the bat, we’ve begun to see that the theory of evolution begins with the human desire to craft a natural explanation of origins, so that we can be justified in doing what we want without consequence.

This is nothing new, in fact, Paul was dealing with this in the first century.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

With that foundation laid, let’s begin to move onto the observable evidence for evolution and the atheistic worldview as a whole. We’ve got a billions of years old universe, Big Bangs, random life, dinosaurs & pointless mutations to deal with, so let’s get started.

Chapter 2 - Big Bang Billions-of-Years Nonsense

Going deeper into our journey, I’m going to follow a framework to help you understand the folly of evolution. I’m going to start at the beginning, and go through each step of evolution in order. At each leg of the journey, we can look back and see if evolution is still holding up.

The first step of our journey is the Big Bang. Most evolutionists hold to the Big Bang theory, and couple that with the universe being 14 billion years old.

However, in this chapter we’re going to see that the evidence points to a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one.

Violating the 1st Law

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances.3

Basically you can’t create energy, you can only use energy that is already there.

So where did our universe come from? Well, in secular models, the #1 rule is, you cannot have a creator or any purpose behind the beginning of the universe. In other words, our universe must come from nothing.

The problem with this model? You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics at the largest scale at the beginning of your model.

Not only is this theory absurd because it claims something came from nothing, it’s claiming that everything came from nothing.

So the largest amount of energy in the history of the universe is created from nothing, but then for some reason, after that it’s impossible to do?

Violating the 2nd Law

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases. 4

Basically, hot things cool off. Imagine you walk into a room and a hot cup of coffee is on the table. How long has the coffee been there?

Well, not long, since the coffee is still hot. To put it crudely, the hotter something is, the “younger” it is. Let’s hold onto that for a minute.

The moon is not cool inside (yet), we actually see evidence of gas venting5 as well as recent volcanic deposits. This shows that the Moon has recent geological activity.

If the moon was billions of years old, the moon should have cooled off long ago.

Thomas Watters of the Smithsonian Institution said this:

“The whole idea that a 4.6 billion-year-old rocky body like the moon has managed to stay hot enough in the interior and produce this network of faults just flies in the face of conventional wisdom.”

But there’s more. Pluto is currently resurfacing (equivalent to volcanic activity), which means it is distributing material to even out its surface. But where is the source of energy for this?

Pluto does not have tidal flexing going on. According to secular models, Pluto should be cold and dead. But yet, it’s geologically active.

Alan Stern said

“Finding that Pluto is geologically active after 4.5 billion years - there’s not big enough typeface to write that in. It’s unbelievable.” 6

If the universe is thousands of years old, this is not a problem, but if its billions…it’s a huge problem.

The Stars Are Hot

Maybe the universe isn’t billions of years old, maybe its just eternal! Maybe it’s been here forever and we’re just floating in it!

Well, stars have not cooled off. Could stars have been there…forever?

Well no, if they were there forever, they would have cooled off or blew up forever ago.

If the universe was present forever ago, stars would not be here. The fact that we see stars tells us that the universe is not eternally old.

Well can new stars not form? Aside from the secular issues with this theory, star formation requires energy, of which there is a finite amount in our universe. If the universe had been there forever, there would no longer be energy for stars to form in the first place.

So if we can see that the universe is not eternally old with the 2LOT, then what does that mean? The universe had a beginning.

Many Christians actually endorse the Big Bang blindly because it’s one path to show the universe had a beginning.

No one has to hold to the Big Bang model to prove the universe had a beginning. This is great news considering the model itself is infested with holes and errors.

Want to prove the universe had a beginning? Do you see the sun during the day? Do you see the stars at night? Yes? There you go, the universe had a beginning.

The Dilemma

We must ask our secular friends, did the universe have a beginning? Well, how many answers do we have?

1. Yes, the Universe had a beginning

2. No, the Universe is eternal

If you are trying to construct a secular (non-Christian) model of the history of the universe, where there is no creator, both answers violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Yes, It Had a Beginning, with No Creator!

If you hold that the universe had a beginning, and there was no creator, that means everything came from nothing.

So what existed before the beginning? Well the answer has to be nothing, because if everything began, and there was something before that beginning, whatever began wasn’t really the beginning, because some other type of matter existed before it.

So if you hold that the universe began in a secular model, you have to hold that before the universe, there was absolutely nothing. And then, for some reason, there was something.

Before moving forward, I wanted to do a quick lesson on “nothing” just so we’re all on the same page.

• Nothing can only create nothing

• Nothing can do nothing

• From nothing, comes…nothing

Not only can you not go from nothing to everything, you can’t even go from nothing to something.

People like Lawrence Krauss have made books claiming they have a theory about how a universe came from nothing. 7

The problem is, they define nothing very differently than, well, what its definition is. 8

Krauss even admits this problem at the beginning of his book.

Well, that’s not nothing, is it? That’s what we layman people call “something.”

No, It’s Eternal, with No Creator!

The other choice is, that the universe is eternal, with no creator.

As previously mentioned, the 2nd law of thermodynamics blows this theory out of the water. If the universe was eternal, we wouldn’t see stars.

Think about this for a minute, there are very hot stars surrounded by cold space. The heat in the universe is still very uneven.

However, the 2LOT shows us that the universe wants to even itself out equally. If the universe was eternal…all stars would have cooled off or blown up forever ago. Since the universe hasn’t done that yet, by definition, it couldn’t have been here forever.

It would be like me bringing you to a freezing cold room that had 10, currently scolding hot coffee cups simmering and telling you “Oh these have been here forever”

Some people argue the “Oscillating Universe” model. Basically, the theory states that there was the Big Bang, which expanded the universe. Then eventually, the universe will constrict in the opposite direction until it hits a single point. This process continues forever.

This entire idea doesn’t work at the foundation. Thermodynamics shows us that, if you go from a Big Bang, and everything is expanding, and entropy is increasing…

That means the later condition (expanded universe) had more entropy than its original condition (the bang).

To go from where we are today (expanded), to a constricted universe, would require a reversal of entropy, or basically, time moving backward. This is not possible and violates thermodynamics. The universe is not eternal.

No Options?

Well, in secular models, a universe with a beginning is quite problematic. But even worse, an eternal universe doesn’t work either.

With no secular options left, is there a third option?

Yes: The universe had a beginning, but a supernatural creator (the Triune God of scripture) brought it into being.

God is in control of space, time and matter, so he is not constrained to the laws of thermodynamics. This allows the initial creation to form without violating these laws.

Any atheistic theories of the history of the universe are simply not allowed due to their repeated violation of the LOT.

The Boltzmann Brain Paradox

But let’s be generous for a minute. Let’s grant that the Big Bang happened just for a moment and see where it takes us.

Using the 2LOT, we can calculate the probability of how matter and energy is arranged.

1. A low entropy system is less probable

2. A high entropy system is more probable

So we can measure the entropy of a system, and that corresponds to the probability of that particular system actually existing.

Guess which one of these options the universe has today?

Low entropy

With such low entropy, our universe is mathematically improbable. So even if something could create itself from nothing (which we already reviewed is impossible)…

Our universe is still astronomically unlikely to be the result of a random unguided event like that. This is important for our discussion so hold onto that for a minute.

Imagine someone came up to you and said “I was trying to think about where New York City came from, and I think I figured out how it came into existence. I think it popped into existence from nothing.”

You reply “Cities don’t pop into existence from nothing”

They reply “Well I think they can, I think it’s a great explanation”

So to illustrate to your friend how silly the proposal is, you reply

“NYC has buildings, cars, people, highways…you’re saying that the city with everything in it popped into existence. It would be much easier for, say, someone's wallet, complete with the leather back & credit cards to have popped into existence.”

That is far more probable to have popped into existence vs the entire city…and even then, it’s still a ridiculous claim.

So how do we apply this to the Big Bang?

To put it simply, the Big Bang is so mathematically improbable based on the 2LOT, that it’s far more probable that the only thing that popped into existence is your brain.

You are just a floating brain with the right molecules in place to make it feel like you actually had a childhood and are a complete human.

Alan Guth, a cosmologist at MIT, pointed out that some calculations with this paradox result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it ‘infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains’9

This also holds true for the multiverse theory. If you grant infinite universes, you grant you’re a floating brain just by probability.

The conclusion of the Big Bang, as it holds to its own standards, is that the universe doesn’t exist and that the Big Bang did not happen.

Chapter 3 - 2,000 Zeros Between Life & Non-Life

Life from Non-Life

Assuming that the Big Bang happened (which we know from this post and this post that it didn’t), the first step on our evolutionary journey is what’s called abiogenesis.

“the original evolution of life of living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances”

Basically, how did life generate from non-life?

How did life appear randomly from no life at all? That’s a massive jump, especially in the chance universe that our secular friends live in.

Well, Christians don’t have to lift a finger to refute this. Evolutionists' own colleagues don’t even buy it.

The Math Problem

A number of Mathematicians in 1967 published their academic papers under the title Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.10

These mathematicians are applying probability to the theory of evolution. Given a true random force (God is not behind it), there isn’t nearly enough time, even billions of years, for this to have happened.

Here’s a quote from Eden Murray from one of the published books:

“It is our contention, that if the word “random” is given a serious and crucial interpretation, from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible, and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws...”

That’s devastating. Eden is saying, if we’re truly going to say that evolution came from random chance, we need to wait for new natural laws.

How Many Zeros?

Going further, here is what Michael Denton points out in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis11

To get one cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place.

The independent probability of any particular protein appearing is going to be hardly more than 10^-20.

So…it’s a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that one protein appears out of nowhere. But to get one cell, we need 100 of those proteins to appear, simultaneously, all in the same place.

If you gamble at Las Vegas and somebody offers you a probability of 1 in 10, those are bad odds. What about 1 in a 100? Well those are exceptionally bad odds.

Let’s go even deeper, what about 1 in a 1,000? Surely you’d be mad to even touch that game.

Denton pointed out that the maximum combined probability would be 1-in-10^2,000. 2,000 zeros.

To show you how bad that is, I wrote it out below

1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance

And what would that achieve? One cell.

“But Joe, if we DO get 1 cell, then evolution is complete right?

Not at all, this is just for evolution to start.

The Problem of Chirality

Aside from our mathematician friends, there are many origin of life studies that aim to show life could have formed by itself, and without a creator.

To do that, you need proteins, and to make proteins you need amino acids. The problem is, when you make amino acids in a laboratory, you run into the issue of chirality.

Basically, amino acids can appear in left-handed, and right-handed forms. These are named based on the shape they make. 12

The problem?

If life spontaneously generated from a warm pond somewhere, it would be made from the amino acids in a non-living environment.

But for life to form, amino acids are exclusively left-handed form. Yet, in a laboratory setting, making amino acids generates a mixture of left & right-handed forms. This does not support life.

Now some researchers try to construct a “filtering” system that separates the left from the right-handed amino acids. That way, they can have an exclusive collection of left-handed amino acids to create life from.

Well, when these filtering systems separate the amino acids, some of the left-handed amino acids will spontaneously change into the right-handed form.

“In other words? You cannot generate life from non-life.”

-The evidence

An Obsolete View

So, life coming from non-life isn’t looking too good. But this isn’t a new problem. In fact, abiogenesis is so unsupported, it’s classified as an obsolete view in many technical journals today.

From The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms

“the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,”

From the Oxford Dictionary of Science

“The development of living organisms from non-living matter, as in the supposed origin of life on Earth, or in the concept of spontaneous generation which was once held to account for the origin of life but which modern understanding of evolutionary processes has rendered outdated”

When you reject God, you are left with absurdity. Things get so bad, that you become broccoli.

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1 Cor 1:20

---

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition…

Col 2:8

---

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools

Romans 1:21–22

Chapter 5 - The True Terror of the Fossil Record

Evolution in the Fossils?

As we’ve seen…evolution can’t even start. Cosmologists and Chemists certainly can’t help the evolutionists here.

But what about the fossil record? If the theory of evolution were true and there was a gradual change in lifeforms, the fossil record should show any number of connecting links between lifeforms.

Well, does it?

Nothing :/

Unfortunately for the evolutionist, the fossil record shows life happening abruptly and in complex forms. There’s also gaps between different types of lifeforms.

There is also no fossil trace of an ape-like creature turning into a man. There have been many claimed missing links, but upon further observation, they are either man-made hoaxes, or misinterpreted chimp fossils.

Well then, paleontologists would be the first people to give up the theory of evolution, right? If they know the fossil record, they couldn't possibly continue holding to evolution…right?

Well a very prominent academic in evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, knew the fossil record very well. He knows it doesn't support Darwin’s theory.

So in 1977, as a leading advocate of evolution, he wrote an article entitled Punctuated Equilibrium in the journal Paleobiology, volume 3, page 145.13

According to Gould, the fossil record doesn’t support evolution as interpreted in a gradualistic sense. But, since we just know evolution is true (👀), the fossil record must prove to us that evolution took place.

According to Gould, when evolutionary change happens, it doesn’t happen gradually at all. It happens very fast, and then you have long periods of equilibrium (things staying the same).

So we just so happened to only have hundreds of millions of fossils that were laid down during one of those nice equilibrium periods, and not one of those pesky punctuated evolutionary periods.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen had this to say about Gould’s view:

“That amounts to saying; The proof of my theory in the fossil record is that there would be no proof in the fossil record.”

So…the Creation Account?

The main problem with this view is that it turns into a creation account by natural means. Remember, if we assume this punctuated equilibrium is true, that means that:

1. There were different “periods” of evolution

2. These periods were all “very short”

3. These periods were powered by “creative energy and change”

4. There are ‘gaps’ in between these periods

Well, the Genesis account already documents periods of creative bursts, separated by a gap of a day.

The difference with this theory is that, instead of God’s infinite mind powering the creation, its just a random force. This is absurd because, we have to ask…what generic natural force is powering these random ‘bursts’ of evolutionary change?

If the changes in evolution were random, we would expect that change to happen constantly over time, not in short bursts.

To continue, Stephen Jay Gould explains why gradualistic evolution has been preferred:

“The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of western cultures. It is not a high-order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature.”

And moving further on page 147:

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record..."

As stated previously, gradual evolution is a philosophy, not a strict scientific theory. The fossil record simply confirms this.

So if the fossil record doesn’t support gradual evolution, what does it confirm? What can we conclude based on the evidence?

What is a Fossil?

Well, what is a fossil?

fossil

the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.

Basically, fossils are the remains of a once living creature found in rocks.

When you see a dead deer on the side of the road, what will happen in the coming days and weeks? Will it fossilize?

Well no, it’ll be eaten quickly by scavengers and bacteria. Nature will take its course.

So why do we see billions of fossils all over the world, with many of them being well preserved? What could explain this?

Rapid burial. If these animals were buried rapidly, their bodies would be preserved, out of reach from oxygen and burrowing animals. Fossilizing can happen very quickly, in fact, you can literally make a fossil at home, today.

Even evolutionists agree that the fossil record is mostly a history of catastrophe, not gradual development.

However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin's theory that "most evolutionary change was accomplished very gradually by competition between organisms and by becoming better adapted to a relatively stable environment."14

1. Marine Life

So, what kind of fossils do we find in the fossil record? For one, we find marine fossils (sea creatures) in rock layers way above sea level all over the world.

If these rock layers were created over thousands or millions of years, we wouldn’t expect to see sea creatures at this elevation.

Something carried these marine creatures to this height, something that we certainly don’t see today.

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling said this about the marine fossils

These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.15

2. Fossils in Action

We also find fossils of animals who are in the middle of a very temporary state. Take for example the picture above. This is a documented fossil of a fish in the middle of eating another fish.

If this fossil was laid down over a long period of time, it wouldn’t be found in this position. It would have already eaten the other fish by now.

Something happened to this fish that was so quick & abrupt, there was no time for it to even finish its dinner.

So What Happened?

To recap, we know that fossils are evidence of a rapid burial. We find billions of fossils all over the globe, which points to a global event.

We find marine fossils in elevations way above sea level, which means this global event carried them up there. And we even find fossils of animals in the middle of a very temporary state.

The question is…what kind of global, cataclysmic event could have possibly buried this many animals, in such a short period of time, simultaneously, while having the strength & capability of throwing T-Rex’s around like chew toys?

The Judgement of God

It was the global flood, as detailed in the genesis account. About 4,300 years ago, God judged the entire world with a global flood due to the wickedness of humans.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:5

God caused the fountains under the earth to break open with water, as well as torrential rain to pour down to create this flood condition.

…on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 7:11–12

Dr. Terry Mortenson explains more about what this was like:

The language therefore clearly implies earth movements on the deep ocean floor as it broke open (i.e., earthquakes), which would trigger volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, coupled with torrential global rain, all of which would result in unimaginable destruction. 16

The global flood was a historic event that absolutely decimated the planet. The judgement of God was on full display against the rebellion of man.

With the exception of Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark, no other land creature was saved.

He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

Genesis 7:23

Now What?

This reminder of God’s judgement should bring us to our knees in humility. The same God that once judged the earth at the time of the flood, will execute a greater judgement by fire at the end of history.

and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

2 Peter 3:5–7

Chapter 6 - Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old

They Start ‘em Early

It would be weird if you hadn’t already heard the “150 million years ago dinosaurs walked the planet” spiel by now. Most of us get this imported in our brain at an early age when we’re buying our first dino toys.

These are big numbers…100’s of millions of years. Are dinosaurs really that old? Certainly if they were, that would support the evolutionary theory.

Well I’m here to tell you that, no, they’re not. Dinosaurs have been kidnapped by the evolutionists to push their unsupported, pagan philosophy. Today we’re going to see that dinosaurs are quite young.

How Old are Dinosaurs?

How old are dinosaurs? Surprisingly enough, there is no label on fossils when we find them. Scientists can’t just run an experiment and then “Eureka! Its 70 million years old!”

The age of dinosaurs is a historical science question. The problem is, evolutionists just assume the age of fossils by comparing the depth the bones were found with their assumptions about how old those rock layers are.17

To prove to you that these assumptions are incorrect, we’re going to take Mount St. Helens as an example.

Mount St. Helens

In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted18. Here’s a quick description of what it was like:

As the land slid away, molten rock at temperatures reaching 1700° F (925° C) exploded water into steam and blasted out over the northern landscape. Within seconds, this blast cloud destroyed 200 square miles (515 km2) of forests—ripping up some areas and tossing the trees about in the sediment, blowing over other trees and stripping the leaves and limbs off those furthest away from the blast. The blast cloud spread out over the land at speeds over 650 mph (1,040 km/h).19

In 1992, just over 10 years after it’s eruption, a sample was taken on a lava dome at Mount St Helens.20

The dating method the researchers used was the potassium-argon method (widely used in geological circles). The laboratory was not told that the specimen was only 10 years old.

You would think the results should at least come back as a very young age. Right?

Well, they didn’t. The projected age using this method, of this 10 year old sample, ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years.

If we can’t trust this method to date rocks of known age, why would we trust it with rocks of unknown age?

DNA Decay

Moving further, A study21 was done to determine how quickly DNA will decay in bone. They found that, even under the best possible conditions, DNA will only last at max about 10,000 years.

Well…researchers found DNA in a dinosaur skull.22 The “supposed” age of the dinosaur by secular standards was 75,000,000 years old. If DNA can only last at max, 10,000 years…but the “age” of the dinosaur is 75,000,000, how is that possible?

It’s possible because this dinosaur isn’t 75M years old. That number is a guess based off of evolutionist assumptions. The dinosaur was likely buried from the global flood a little over 4,000 years ago, which makes sense of the DNA found.

Evan Saitta with the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago had this to say

These organic materials... are understood to be among the least stable biomolecules over long periods of time and under the heat of deep burial during fossilization. However, it is the extreme age of the samples that is striking. This 75-million-year-old fossil is, at least, one or two orders of magnitude older than the expected preservation limits of DNA and proteins.23

Soft Tissue in a T-Rex

Moving further, a researcher found red blood cells and soft tissue from a T-Rex femur.24 It’s literally still elastic. Could these last millions of years in these conditions? Of course not.

Non-Existent Fossil Evidence

We’re also told about the Dinosaur family tree like the one shown below. This is what the evolutionary storyline tries to portray. The White filling is where there is actual fossil evidence, the grey area is where there are evolutionist assumptions.

What do you notice? There’s no evidence in the transitioning sections. If you remove all the grey, you simply get evidence for the creation account in genesis.

With the presence of DNA in fossils, the fossil record itself, and the unreliable dating methods that evolutionists use, all the data confirms the biblical timeline, not the millions of years we are spoon fed from childhood.

So why do evolutionists continue to push the Dinosaur story of millions of years? Because boy that would be convenient, wouldn’t it?

The reality is, God made dinosaurs at the same time he made all of the other land animals. And as we learned last week, God also judged the world with water just over 4,000 years ago.

This judgement was an image of the judgement to come, where all men will reap what they have sown.

Chapter 7 - Sex for No Reason

Bacteria Are Better

On the theory of evolution, we’re told that lifeforms that are more adept to their environment survive, and those that are not as adept, die out.

That means evolution is preferable to lifeforms who multiply the most. The more kids you have, the more likely you’ll last and survive in the environment you’re in.

Well if that’s true, then why did lifeforms evolve beyond the bacterial stage?25 You see, bacteria multiply very quickly, through division.26 Elementary school children get bacteria to grow in their classroom, it’s not hard.

And yet…there’s all of these animals we see that have very complicated ways of having children. They need to have sex in order to have babies.

What’s the problem? Intercourse complicates having children. Instead of having thousands or millions of children like bacteria can, animals that require sex are now reduced down to a handful of kids. Why was that advantageous?

The reality is, on evolution’s own terms, if lifeforms evolved into complex life solely on the basis for survival, evolution wouldn’t have happened. We would have just stayed bacteria forever.

Useless Sex

But let’s be generous, we don’t want to be too harsh here. Let’s just say that, for some reason, mutations started to happen and bacteria lifeforms began to evolve.

And then let’s go further and say, somewhere along the line, they began to evolve with genatalia (sex organs).

Question; what is the advantage of having sex organs that don’t function?

Remember, these organs evolved gradually over time (otherwise, it’s just a creation account). For example, that means at one point, a male bacteria had partially created male genatalia, without anyway to use it to reproduce.

Why? Why would bacteria keep on with this partially created male genatalia if it served no purpose.

Until the whole sex system is in place and a male and female come together successfully…there’s no use for sex organs.

Male & Female Madness

But let’s keep going for a minute. Let’s say, for some reason, bacteria evolved with non-functioning versions of male and female genatalia.

How long is a female human woman fertile for? Well usually around 40 years right?

Let’s be generous and just say 100 years. We have 100 years for a woman to be able to get pregnant.

Evolutionists want us to believe that in this narrow window of 100 years, a male AND a female had functioning genatalia, simultaneously, knew what to do with that genatalia, had intercourse, and successfully reproduced from it?

And after that random miracle of mutation, they decided, for no other reason, to keep doing it? Do you know what we call ideas like these?

Asinine27
extremely or utterly foolish or silly

So evolutionists tell us that lifeforms that reproduce the most are the ones most adept to survive. But as we’ve seen, if this was true, we should never have evolved in the fist place.

Chapter 8 - Natural Selection Kidnapped

Natural Selection is Real

Before we get too critical of our evolutionist friends, I want to remind you that natural selection is 100% true.

“…Basically, natural selection is the principle that organisms that have traits well-suited to their environment tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than organisms with traits that are not well-suited to their environment. In extreme cases, the organisms that are less suited to their environment are driven to extinction.”28

Here's a fake example, imagine 2 types of dogs. One has short hair, one has long hair.

These dogs live in a very cold environment, so naturally, the dog with the long hair genes survives longer, and the dog with short hair dies. The short hair dog has not left any children, since he died :(

The long-haired dog however left many children, since he did survive. This is a genetic process that God built into his creation, which is responsible for the vast amount of diversity we see.

But did you notice something in the example I gave?

Both dogs were Dogs.

They didn't transform into a new species of animal over thousands and millions of years. They immediately pass down genes to their dog children.

Natural Selection Stolen

Unfortunately, natural selection got kidnapped into the regime of gradual evolution. Using natural selection as a foundation, evolutionists claim that animals evolved based on their environment.

Giraffes started with short necks, but then one awesome giraffe had a 10-foot neck because "why not", and that giraffe ate more food and survived.

At the surface, this might actually make sense too, but the problem is, if the environment sucks, animals don't stick around for millions of years and change their bodies, they move.

Those short-necked giraffes would have just found shorter trees. This is not only more practical, it's actually within the mental capacity of the animal.

If giraffes can't even talk to me, why would I expect them to think "Gee wiz, I need to grow a longer neck" and then even crazier, actually grow longer necks on demand.

Useless Organs

Another thing we're told is that mutations (like long necks) "stick around" because they're advantageous for the animal.

But, the theory of evolution also tells us that it was a gradual process over a long period of time.

So...let's see how this works on the human heart. The human heart evolved over many years slowly and gradually...but the only reason the heart continued to evolve is because the earliest versions of it were still advantageous.

Question...what's the advantage of a 1/3rd developed heart? What would a non-functioning heart do for you? How about lungs? What was the use of the 1/10th developed lungs vs the 1/5th developed lungs?

This idea is ridiculous because all of the systems we observe in nature (including our own bodies) have very specific purposes.

They are designed to do certain things. Many of these systems would be useless if they didn't have every single component functioning all in one shot.

I highly recommend watching this amazing video29 about the 4D design of DNA. This is just one example of how impossible it would be to gradually develop a system as complex as this, via random mutation.

Chapter 9 - The Death of Evolution

Recap of What We've Learned

So far in this series, we've learned that evolution is a religion, not a scientific theory. We then learned that the evidence confirms a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one. We also learned that even if we granted the Big Bang to be true, it wouldn’t have happened.

After that, we found out that it was mathematically and chemically improbable to get life from non-life.

After that, we took a look at the fossil record and saw that it doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms the judgement of God at the global flood.

As if that wasn't enough, we took a look at dinosaurs and found out all of them are less than 10,000 years old, and that secular dating methods are based off of false assumptions.

After that, we learned that if evolution were true, we should have never evolved sex organs. And then, we took a look at how natural selection was stolen to justify evolution.

But, there’s still one more thing that needs to be addressed.

Today, I’m going to assume that I’ve been wrong about everything so far. Seriously. I’m not joking.

Let's Be Generous

I’m going to wave the white flag and give Darwin his temporary victory. Let's say that every single step of the evolutionary philosophy is 100% true.

Let's say that:

1. Once upon a time, there was disorder.

2. We don't know why, but that disorder became orderly.

3. This ordered matter was inorganic, and, for reasons we don't know, it became living matter.

4. Then, mysteriously and without explanation, this living matter which was made up of identical forms, began to diversify.

5. From these diversified forms, for reasons we cant explain, they became varied but unintelligent.

6. After this, the unintelligent life forms became intelligent and articulate, for reasons we do not know.

7. Once this was accomplished, the intelligent articulate lifeforms miraculously began to use language.

8. And of course from there, not that we have an explanation of course, the language using lifeforms, became moral men.

So, if that’s what happened…that means that everything we see in the universe is just matter in motion. There are no supernatural forces in our universe.

No God. No right and wrong. No meaning.

Me and you?

Stardust bumping into stardust.

We're just a part of this great big universe that was here before us and will be here after us. You only live once, so live for yourself, find what makes you happy and don't let anyone stop you.

Let's grant it.

The Problem of Uniformity

Our evolution friends love to tell us that they hold to “science” as their ultimate standard. They even mock Christians, saying we have “blind faith” and despise being rational.

What’s interesting is…science itself RELIES on the universe being repeatable.

Since the universe is consistent, we can observe things in nature, and make a general statement about how that thing acts all the time.

If I drop a bowling ball and measure how fast it falls, and repeat it over and over again, I can confirm that gravity has a certain rate. That’s just good ole observable science.30

You would think if science relies on this principle, we should have a really, really good reason to trust it, shouldn’t we?

Well…on the evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust that the universe is consistent. If everything is just matter in motion, there can be no transcendent order. There is nothing “above” matter on this worldview that would cause it to be consistent day in and day out.

There can be no consistent laws, because consistency involves design and meaning, and there is no design and meaning on the evolutionary worldview.

On the Christian worldview, God not only created the universe, but He also upholds it and manages it, every second of the day.

"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Genesis 8:22

"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Colossians 1:17

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power."
Hebrews 1:3

I can trust that the future will be like the past because God has promised it will be. But if you’re an atheist who holds to evolution as our origin story, the question is…

Why do you?

Why would you expect gravity to stay the same? Why would you brush your teeth assuming your toothpaste will come out of the tube the same way every time?

Why, after burning your finger in a fire, would you avoid touching it again, assuming that fire is always hot?

In fact, if evolution were true, everything is possible. There are no bounds as to what could happen at any second of the day.

Most atheists who cling onto evolution point at Christians saying “You really believe a man rose from the dead? Donkey’s talking? Come on dude.”

Well…on the Christian worldview, God spoke the universe into existence from nothing…I think he can handle raising a few people from the dead?

The question I have for my atheist friends are…why do you have a problem with miracles?

Every second of the day is a miracle on the evolutionary worldview. Nothing to something, something to life, life to intelligence…the amount of miracles that have already occurred is astronomical

In fact, if you hold to the evolutionary view, why would you expect anything to be regular in the first place? You should look outside and say:

“well this is peculiar, where’s the disorder and chaos?”

The Problem of Mind

But that’s just the first stop on our tour of the evolutionary universe.

If everything is matter it motion, that also means that our "minds" are too. Your mind is reduced to your brain. Your brain is your mind.

Let's say I’m chatting with one of my evolutionist friends, and they say this to me:

"God doesn’t exist, we've gotten here from gradual evolution"

Well, on their own worldview, they wouldn't have a reason to believe that, because that statement is just their brain fizzing atheistic chemicals.

It's not an actual belief based on logic or rational thought, it’s just what their brain decided to spit out. It’s not their fault for saying those things, they couldn't help it.

As Dr Greg Bahnsen put it:

“...if atheism is true, there could be no reason to believe atheism is true...My brain just does what it does, and his brain just does what his does…”

So basically, if evolution happened, and we live in an atheistic universe, all logic, thought, rationality, meaning, and everything that you think and speak about…is reduced to brain fizz.

The Problem of Ethics

But we’re not done yet, because there is yet another problem that I think cuts deeper: Ethics

Ethics at its most basic level, is what we ought and ought not to do.31 I can murder 24 people, but should I? I can cheat on my spouse, but should I? These are ethical questions.

Here’s the problem…if we're all just stardust, then who cares about ethics?

Anyone can make an ethical claim like “Don’t do this” or “Do that”, but in a universe where everything is matter in motion…who cares? Those claims are all just opinion.

I hate that I have to write this out…but I want to give you an example so this sticks with you.

Let's say a man breaks into a family's home, kills the husband, rapes the Mom and beats the children in the basement before killing them too.

What’s wrong with this home invasion scenario?

Well, on the Christian worldview, this scene is absolutely horrible. All of those family members were made in the image of God and have value.

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27

Going further, we as humans are called to love one another. This man's actions are a direct violation to God's eternal law, and he deserves the death penalty.

Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed,

for God made man in his own image.

Genesis 9:6

Even further, if he doesn’t repent, upon death he’ll spend eternity in Hell, where he will be tormented day and night forever and ever as a just punishment.

…he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…

Revelation 14:10–11

On the Christian worldview, ethics makes sense, and there is actual justice that is delivered; either to the law breaker in Hell, or on Jesus for those that believe in him. But what about our atheist friends who hold to evolution?

Does a ‘matter-in-motion’ universe make sense of ethics?

Let's ask Richard Dawkins, a consistent atheist:

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

So what's wrong with our home invasion scenario on the atheist worldview?

Absolutely, nothing.

If everything is matter in motion, there cannot be any absolute good or evil. The family in our example didn’t enjoy the home invasion, but you know what, our home invader did!

These are merely 2 opinions pitted against each other, so we can’t really know which is right or wrong can we? Just 2 stardust piles bumping into each other, right?

Even crazier? Hitler was an evolutionist. It was the evolutionary theory that propelled his philosophy.32

“Darwin viewed the “Caucasian” (white-skinned Europeans) as the dominant “race” in an evolutionary worldview. To many evolutionists at the time, mankind had evolved from ape-like creatures that had more hair, dark skin, dark eyes, etc. Therefore, more “evolved” meant less body hair, blond hair, blue eyes, etc.”

Bodie Hodge

Many atheists who hold to evolution are so disturbed by this, that they try to construct systems that can account for ethics while still holding to a naturalistic universe. However, all of these systems fail, and fail for 1 reason; they’re still living in God’s universe.

The Death of Evolution

The harsh truth is that, even if we grant that evolution happened, the Big bang, ape man, the whole shebang, and concede for a minute that God doesn’t exist…evolution still can’t hold up, because the entire system implodes on itself.

Why do people still hold onto it then? If this worldview can’t stand on it’s own 2 feet, if it’s not true even when we grant it to be true, and the scientific evidence doesn’t confirm it but refutes it, you may be asking then why is it “The” theory of our day? Why do people get so emotional when you poke holes into evolution?

Because evolution is what many people hold dear to their hearts, it’s their sacred religion. It’s a convenient escape from the reality of being responsible for our actions here on earth.

“As we studied the natural world we always came up against a barrier that had written upon it, ‘no further exploration by order of Moses.’ Darwin gave us a way around the barrier.”33

Thomas Huxley

When someone concedes that evolution doesn’t hold up, they have to concede that there is another explanation for the universe we see.

And when they concede to that, they have to also concede that, they know deep down, Yahweh created the universe.

And with that, they know deep down because of their conscience that Yahweh has a law, and that they have broken that law.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…

Romans 2:14–15

And if they concede that they have broken God’s eternal law, they also know, in some way, they deserve a punishment or judgement in response.

And instead of facing the reality of God and bowing to him as Lord, unbelievers worship the creation (that God made) to ‘escape’.

because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…

Romans 1:25

But…There’s Good News

But here’s the good news. If you or someone you know is an atheist who holds to evolution…there is still time to repent.

The problem humans have is that we have all broken God’s law and deserve judgement. God could have just given us this judgement already, and that would have been just.

It wouldn’t be any different than when we see a serial killer get sentenced in court. We cheer.

But…

God didn’t stop there. God sent himself in the form of a man 2,000 years ago. He lived a perfect life, died on a cross, and then rose from the dead.

What does that mean? It means death has been conquered. Even better news? God has promised us that if we trust in Jesus and what he did for us on the cross, and bow to him as Lord, we will be saved from the judgement of Hell that is coming for the ungodly.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

So, if you haven’t believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, repent (turn in sorrow). You’re not guaranteed tomorrow. The only thing that matters is how you stand before God, because one day, we will all give an account for what we’ve done.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

2 Corinthians 5:10

So what does a Godly society look like? What do fathers and mothers do on a daily basis? What does the local church do? How about the government?

In this episode, I interviewed to explain the puritan framework for family, church and state, and how we as the American church can learn a lot from their model of a righteous society. If you haven’t subscribed to him already, do it now! On his substack, he explores reformed baptist theology, practical Christian living, Christian culture, and family life from a layman’s perspective.

What We Cover

1. Introduction to Family, Church, and State

2. The Family Sphere: Issues and Solutions

3. The Church Sphere: Doctrinal Apathy and Its Implications

4. The Role of Sacraments in Grace

5. Puritan Worship and Preaching

6. The Importance of Doctrinal Teaching

7. The Church's Role in Government

8. Christian Influence in Politics

9. Puritan Views on Government and Morality

10. Moral Relativism and Legal Systems

11. The Family and Societal Integrity

12. Lessons from the Puritans

Key Takeaways

1. The Puritans had a strong understanding of family, church, and state roles.

2. Modern America often blurs the roles of husband and wife.

3. Egalitarianism has replaced biblical patriarchy in many families.

4. Parents are often not the primary educators of their children.

5. The emphasis on work can detract from family time.

6. Family worship is essential for spiritual growth.

7. Doctrinal apathy is prevalent in many American churches.

8. Corporate worship is often neglected for personal spirituality.

9. The husband should lead and love his family biblically.

10. Returning to biblical roles can help address modern family issues. Sacraments are means of grace given by God.

11. Preaching is central to Puritan worship.

12. Doctrinal teaching and church discipline are essential.

13. The church should hold members accountable to scripture.

14. Government should reflect biblical morality.

15. The Puritans believed in a biblically informed government.

16. Laws should be based on natural law and biblical principles.

17. Family integrity is crucial for societal health.

18. The Puritans aimed to glorify God in all spheres of life.

19. Reading Puritan literature provides deep insights into faith.

In this episode, I discuss the inconsistencies in ethical claims made by atheists, particularly in relation to gun violence and morality. I argue that without a belief in Jesus, atheists lack a solid foundation for their ethical standards.

We’ll explore the differences between atheistic and Christian worldviews, particularly in how they approach morality, human flourishing, and the justification for ethical claims.

Chapters

1. Introduction to Ethical Claims and Worldviews

2. The Atheist Perspective on Gun Violence

3. The Basis of Ethics in Atheism vs Christianity

4. Human Flourishing and Objective Morality

5. The Role of Worldviews in Ethical Discussions

6. Conclusion: The Need for Objective Moral Standards

The comment thread I’ll be analyzing can be found here

Takeaways

• Inconsistencies in ethical claims must be addressed.

• Atheism struggles to provide a basis for ethics.

• Human flourishing lacks objective justification in atheism.

• Christianity offers a unique & exclusive foundation for objective morality.

• Subjectivism leads to moral relativism.

• Objective morality is rooted in God's character.

• Gun violence discussions need a moral framework.

• The importance of understanding the 'why' behind ethics.

Today, I wanted to provide a loving rebuttal to my new substack friend . He’s a professing atheist exploring Christianity, and wrote an article regarding his view on faith. He also has a nice looking substack color scheme 🔥

Reason Alone

Why Not Faith?

Sola Fide or “Faith Alone”. Of the original five Solas, this one has stood the test of time and seems to be the defining principle of the Reformation. And the reason for its prevalence I think lies primarily in its exonerative nature. This is why we see religions all over the world, not just Christianity, that have principles rooted in faith. And so tod…

Read more

2 years ago · 3 likes · Michael Doane

The Original Quote

This to me is the perfect example the type of faith that is dangerous to Christianity as a whole. He clearly outlines that the evidence is not the foundation, the faith that the Bible is the word of God is. And that is not subject to change by evidence.

This type of thinking is precisely the reason Christianity is losing followers. What happens is that issues are presented purely as a dichotomy. In the case of Answers In Genesis and Ken Ham, it’s that either evolution is true, or the Bible is true, with no room for other options in between.

And so kids are being fed this information, growing up and being presented evidence for evolution, and as a result leaving the faith entirely. Because they were never prepared to handle the evidence, they were raised to have faith, and then given poor evidence to support it.

Everyone Has Faith

Evidence, and science, assume the uniformity of nature, meaning that our universe is repeatable. You need to have faith in that first before you even present evidence.

On the christian view, we have an accounting because God has promised that the universe is and will be upheld by him, but on the Atheist view, we don’t have any reason to trust in this at all. In fact, every second of the day is a miracle on the atheist view.

Wanting evidence to be your leading source of truth is indeed a religious position from a materialist / empiricist worldview.

Historical vs Observable Science

Historical questions are not answered by observable science. All of the “evidence” that is tried to be brought up to support the Big Bang, evolution etc. are all based off of assumptions that flow from a materialist worldview (uniformitarianism).

Historical questions are solved by eye witness accounts. God’s already revealed to us exactly how the universe began, He is the ultimate eye witness. Stepping onto the christian worldview for a second, why would unbelievers guessing at timelines using non-eye-witness accounts be more authoritative than God himself saying what happened?

This is the same reason you would reject the bible because your foundation being on evidence / empiricism. At best, we can conclude that Christians are being consistent.

Going further, I’ve written 9 articles about how the observable evidence itself does not support an old universe, abiogenesis, macro evolution, etc. I wouldn’t just swallow the pill that people were “never prepared to handle the evidence.” We’ve taken a look at it, it’s not convincing.

Religion, Not Scientific Theory

Moving further, evolution is not a strict scientific theory, it’s a philosophy, and has been around since 500’s BCE. Many times, evolution is tossed around as if “its a closed case.” Interestingly, observing a bowling ball drop at the rate of gravity (an observable scientific fact) is not the same as a secular philosophy invented to escape the reality of God’s judgement.

For more on this, check out my article here

The kicker is; if we assume the evolutionary worldview to be true, metaphysically, then nothing in our day to day life is justified. Ethics, uniformity of nature…in fact, the very act of you writing this article is just your brain fizzing atheistic chemicals, and my response is me fizzing Christian chemicals, we’re all just stardust.

Primary vs Secondary Knowledge

Observable science is a grace from God to explore his creation, as a secondary vehicle of knowledge, but it cannot be idolized and become a primary source of knowledge, else everything leads to absurdity.

When you use observable science in its appropriate context, it opens the floodgates of technological advancement, and thinking God’s thoughts after him. It can be seen as one of the most intimate things we can do in the natural realm, to glory in Gods wondrous design and find out more about just how finite we as humans are.

I had an interesting discussion on substack last week regarding the old “poor widow who steals food to feed her children” situation. What do we do? Let her off the hook, or prosecute her?

In this episode I’ll cover:

1. The Dilemma of the Poor Widow

2. The Relationship of Mercy and Justice

3. Understanding Civil vs. Personal Law

4. The Role of Compassion in Law

5. Concluding Thoughts on Mercy and Law

The Original Thread

Here is the original thread you can read for yourself

“She Isn’t Right But Who is?”

• Let’s apply this to pedophiles. Poor Steve the pedophile, about to be sentenced, he isn’t right, but who is? Why not show him some grace?

• How about the person that she stole from? What about their family?

• We are not innocent, so we need civil protections as given to us by God

  Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.

  Ecclesiastes 8:11

Mercy Without Payment

God’s mercy is available because Jesus actually paid the penalty on our behalf. A more parallel situation would be this women not having any money at the store, and someone came up and offered to pay for it with their own money on behalf of the women.

Forcing someone to have mercy via theft, and then forcing the state to have mercy on you in response would be throwing away God’s standards and inverting what God has put in place.

Personal vs Civil Mercy

Personal mercy is what we can offer other image bearers as a type to the ultimate mercy given to us by Christ. We have been saved as a gift, not because of our deeds that it is owed but because of he who saves and his endless love.

Civil mercy, on the other hand, doesn’t exist in God’s world.

Matt 18

Matthew 18 is at least tangentially relevant here. Maybe she isn't a fellow servant yet, but maybe she could be.

The Passage:

• This passage is about personal forgiveness, this is not about God commanding us to disobey his own law in order to show mercy. God doesn’t command 1 thing and then go back on it somewhere else.

Lack of Compassion

• I have a lack of compassion because you don’t agree with me? Nothing specific was countered here, it’s all personal attack.

• What if a pedophile didn’t have any money to feed his child, so he filmed his child and sold it on a pornographic site. He made enough to buy food and feed his child. Where’s your compassion Jonathan?

• The problem is, the principle is not good that we should be able to disobey God’s holy law in order to fulfill some other “good thing” via our own actions. This slippery slope is steep.

A couple weeks ago, my co-worker in Christ had posted a note regarding our need to help adopt children who were unwanted by their Mothers. Here’s his original post:

I had an issue with the way that it was framed, so I made an entire episode responding to the 2nd Victim Narrative that I felt was assumed at the start.

After this, Lee quickly drafted a response to my episode where he systematically dealt with my objections that I brought up. I thought it was well written, easy to follow, and a good read all in all. You can check it out here:

The Not So Political Protestant

Does it legitimize Abortion if we Acknowledge the Needs of Women Who Get Them?

Thanks for stopping by The Not So Political Protestant, a publication dedicated to correcting the course of the American Church in regard to politics and its place in the lives of Christians…

Read more

a year ago · 2 likes · Lee Lumley

However, I had several issues with Lee’s response that I wanted to deal with, and since we have agreed to publicly debate the issue, I wanted to be thorough so that you can come to your own conclusions.

Connecting Adoption and Abortion

Joe says, “If we tie [adoption] to abortion it sounds like unless we have [adoption] the mom has no other choice but to get an abortion” In other words, it is fine to talk about the need for adoption, just not in the same conversation as abortion. His reasoning for this is it would imply abortion is acceptable if adoption is off the table. This is a very weak argument designed to deflect attention away from a very real problem.…First of all, when would adoption be off the table?…The only time I can conceive of adoption not being an option is if the adoption system is so overwhelmed there is literally no room for more children…

In the book of Romans Paul spends the first few chapters laying out the reality of sin. Then he makes a marked shift and begins talking about grace saying, “but we have been delivered from the law” (Romans 7:6). By Joe’s line of reasoning, Paul was in error here and should not have had a conversation about being freed from the law in the same letter he was addressing sin because some would take that to mean we are free to sin.

1. My point isn’t that you can’t mix topics in one body of communication. My point is, framing a smaller issue at odds with a bigger issue can be deceptive to readers (more on that below).

2. To be specific, if adoption agencies have no room, and no parents that the Mom knows personally are willing to adopt the baby privately, the Mom is still responsible for raising her child because she is the baby’s Mom. If we tie adoption to abortion in the way Lee has, that means if there was no one willing to adopt, even if they had the means to do so, they could be seen a partially responsible for the abortion. That would be crazy obviously, they should only be responsible for not being willing to adopt if God has called them to that. We don’t owe Moms adoption as a wage, it’s a grace we ought to give when we can in light of the grace Christ has given us.

If we merely ban it and ignore the underlying causes of why women choose abortions, we are putting a band aid on a severed head. So no, you cannot separate the discussion of helping women who consider abortion from adoption.

I never said to ignore the underlying causes of why women want to sacrifice their baby, I’m saying we should ban it regardless of how caught up the adoption system is.

According to him only 3% of women have an acceptable need for abortion which includes life threatening medical issues, rape, or incest and the other 97% percent simply don’t want to “face their consequences of their actions”. I have a huge problem with this broad stroke assumption. It is a very smug attitude and shows no compassion for those women who, whether real or perceived, are scared to death and have been told abortion is their only option… Joe operates on assumptions the 97% are purely selfish but I prefer to operate on facts.

1. First off, I never said 3% of women have an acceptable need for an abortion. There is no justification for child sacrifice. See this article I wrote going through the most common objections. I said 3% have a very good case to use adoption services.

2. Since there are no justifications for any baby murder, that means that 100% of all Moms considering abortion are accountable to not murder their child in the face of God.

3. Individually, 100% of Moms have something going on in their life, but none of them can use that hardship (that the church ought to help with) to justify the idea that child sacrifice is okay. I’m not saying don’t help a particular Mom in a particular situation, I’m saying don’t use those situations as ammunition to water down the horror of babies being ripped apart legally. Our culture has already watered down child sacrifice, we don’t need more of it.

4. 97% of abortions are powered by intentional decisions leading up to conception. They made a choice to have sex, sometimes in an already bad situation (that also came from intentional decisions), and instead of facing that decision and living their life how God intends it, they murder their baby.

5. The other 3% are dealing with something out of their control (rape, incest), absolutely, but they’re still not justified to kill their baby. However, my point is, these situations are the cases where I think adoption is really crucial since its truly out of the persons control how the baby was conceived. This is not the case of the other 97%.

Finances

In a 2013 study it is reported that 40% of abortions are because of financial instability with 4% of those women being completely unemployed and having little or no income coming in*.* One unemployed woman with a monthly household income of a little over $1,000 stated “[It was] all financial, me not having a job, living off death benefits, dealing with my 14-year-old son. I didn't have money to buy a baby spoon.”

The cost to care for a baby today on the low end is about $9300 annually. That only leaves this woman with $225 a month for groceries, gas, housing, clothing, and food for herself and her 14-year-old son. This is a very real difficulty, not a simple selfish desire to not face her consequences.

For the sake of being conservative, let’s say 50% of these women find a way to keep the baby themselves, that leaves 229,926 babies who will most likely be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year.

1. Why is she pregnant? Did the baby pop into existence Big Bang style, or did she have consensual sex with someone?

2. Children are a blessing from the Lord, regardless of the situation. Throwing out how “expensive kids are” only implies that if you don’t have enough money, you can’t have one, and if you have sex with someone and do have one, you should be justified to kill it.

3. We can trust God with any situation and be obedient to him. God never puts us in a place where we must sin

   Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
   Matthew 6:31–33

Abusive Spouse

So, let’s say half of these abusive men get gloriously saved and the mother decides to keep the child, that leaves 17,244 babies who will most likely be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year.

Or…none of them are saved, and the Mom and Dad both need to repent, and God works in their life to do so. Maybe 4 years later, after experiencing parenthood, they both find Jesus. The baby still lives, isn’t put up for adoption, and now the baby can be brought up in a Godly household.

Alcohol and Drug Addiction

But for the sake of argument let’s say after an abortion ban, half of these women do get sober and live wonderful lives with their child, we would still have 34,488 babies who will most likely be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year.

Someones life situation has no correlation with another persons value or the requirement to give them away to someone else. The parents are accountable to clean up their act, turn to Jesus, and from the inside out follow his commands about being a good parent. Killing their child so they can keep using drugs is a bad argument.

Mental Illness and Adolescents

In addition to all these issues there were 12% who cited mental illness as the reason and 8% under the age of 17. Again, if half of these women decide to keep their baby, despite these struggles, that leaves us with 114,963 babies who will either be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year.

Why are they pregnant?

“3 Million Babies”

So, with all this, using extremely conservative and outrageously hopeful numbers, we would have on average 396,621 babies a year whose mothers will either put in the foster care system or abort illegally.

To put that in perspective there are currently 391,000 children in foster care in the U.S. and only 115,353 adoptions occur annually. At that rate, in ten years there could be around 3 million orphans in the system, assuming they do not get aborted illegally. Even if we cut those numbers in half to compensate for women who fall into multiple categories we are still talking around 1 million orphans in the system in 10 years.

So yes Joe, we will have a crisis on our hands and the orphanages will be inundated with an astronomical influx of kids unless we come up with a plan to how we are going to respond.

All this math assumes an arbitrary number of children must be put up for adoption if the alternative isn’t a perfectly easy situation. This is a false dichotomy. The ministries I’m involved with have seen countless stories of Moms keeping their babies in horrible situations. Are we trusting God or man?

“Are These Women Ignorant?”

Referring to those who get an abortion Joe says, “They know they are committing murder”.

While that is somewhat true, it is not looking at the entire picture from a biblical sense because the unregenerate mind is incapable of seeing the complete truth of their decision.

“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) … Knowing right from wrong in a worldly since and knowing right from wrong spiritually are two different things. As far as American law is concerned right now abortion is legal. To an unregenerate heart who does not know God, that makes it acceptable. Whether we like it or not, that is the reality.

This does not let those who get an abortion off the hook. Romans tells us all mankind is without excuse (Romans 1:20) and we will be held accountable for our sin. But until a person comes to Christ their knowledge is limited to worldly knowledge and easily swayed.

There doesn’t seem to be a clear stance or point here. If I had to summarize it, here’s what I got:

So, they’re accountable to God for knowing that what they’re doing is murder? Well, that was my original point.

The Inadequacy of Crying Murder

Should we confront their sin? Absolutely, because unless a person knows they are a sinner in need of salvation, they cannot be saved. But merely beating them over the head with their sin is not and never has been effective to bring one to saving faith.

I agree, I never said to not share the gospel, and only share sin. I simply have an emphasis on precisely defining the sin of child sacrifice because the majority of our culture doesn’t.

In the story of the adulterous woman in John chapter 8 the pharisees brought her to Jesus and told Him she was caught in an affair. They asked if they should follow the law and stone her. Jesus’ response was to ignore them. When they persisted, he responded with “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. Notice he did not turn to her with a condemning voice saying, “You wicked adulterer, you need to repent or you’re going to hell!”. He didn’t even speak to her at first. Instead, he brought the hypocritical Pharisees to shame by reminding them her sin is no worse than theirs.

It was not until the pharisees left Jesus said “Go and sin no more” but first he showed her compassion and grace.

I actually covered this objection in my post “Does the Bible Condone Abortion?” This passage is regarding a civil penalty under the Mosaic law, which Jesus wrote himself.

Mosaic law required that there needs to be at least 2 witnesses to confidently declare guilt, and that the man and the women would need to be put to death for the crime of adultery. It also required that the witnesses be the first to cast the stone.

It appears in this passage that the witnesses and the man were not present. Instead of upholding justice without partiality, the pharisees were set on testing Jesus (like they’ve been doing consistently throughout the gospels).

This was Jesus upholding the Mosaic law, not violating it. Jesus didn’t hand-waive the law he wrote to let someone off the hook. Even if the women really did commit adultery (Jesus knows everything, this is likely why he said “Go and sin no more”), the fact is that the pharisees did not follow the correct process of declaring guilt in the presence of men to meet the conditions for the civil penalty to be executed.

Moving further, if we take this to mean that, since we’re all sinners, we shouldn’t uphold justice, then shouldn’t we just remove all of our laws? We can legalize rape again, because hey, you lie to your spouse, right? Aren’t we all just sinners?

Political Christianity makes the mistake of placing the overwhelming majority of their focus on getting in the sinner’s face with condemnation for their sin. In the case of our discussion, Joe spent the majority of his time on the “murderer” subject and then at the end spoke a few sentences about salvation.

How did I get in the sinners face with condemnation? Was there any part in the video I said “These moms have no hope, they’re murderers, and I’m excited for them to burn”? I talked about their sin for more minutes on the episode because thats the very thing we’re arguing about.

In this passage Jesus tells us when we minister to others, we are ministering to Him. Notice the words “I was in prison” which would include murderers. We need to lose this irrational fear that ministering to sinners is condoning their sin. Jesus healed sinners. He ate with sinners. He spoke kindly to sinners. Yet we think we are supposed shout at sinners with condemnation.

The amazing thing about showing compassion first is they will see Christ in us. This causes them to hunger and thirst for Him and when we explain our sin is what separates us from Him, the Holy Spirit will bring conviction and lead them to salvation.

1. If your point is that I don’t speak kindly to sinners and only focus on sin, I’m not sure what basis your making that claim?

2. I’ve never personally called someone a “murderer” at the clinic or online, especially not in an unhelpful, condemning way. But I have absolutely said “Please don’t murder your child.” That’s a true loving appeal.

3. Here’s an article documenting one of my times preaching at a clinic, you might want to see some of the stuff we said

4. Again, I think you’re taking my emphasis on making sure we’re correctly calling abortion murder because of our cultural decay, and taking it as “thats all Joe cares about.” The word “murder” is descriptive. The only reason it becomes offensive is because its drawing out the Image of God in the Mom and her knowledge of God’s righteous decree.

In Matthew 22 a lawyer came up to Jesus and asked what the greatest commandment is. Jesus didn’t say, thou shalt not kill as Joe references so frequently. Instead, He said, love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul”. Why? Because it all starts there.

You see what most political Christians don’t seem to understand is, you can address the sin, make someone feel guilty for that sin, and even create laws to stop law-abiding citizens from committing those sins, but until they have a desire for God which leads to surrender, they will still be dying and going to hell.

You’re right, until they have a desire for God through the regenerating power of the holy spirit, they will go to Hell. That’s a description, I’m not sure what that has to do with what we’re talking about? I’ve never claimed that people go to heaven by hearing about their sin and following our laws.

The Christian fight against abortion is not simply a fight for the life of a baby. It must also include a fight for the souls of the mothers who abort those babies.

There are 3 movements in our culture regarding the fight for abortion.

1. Pro-choice: The Mom should be able to murder her baby on-demand, it is not a sin to do so.

2. Pro-life: The Mom should not be able to murder her baby, but she is also a victim, and should never be criminalized under any circumstances.

3. Abolitionist: The Mom should not be able to murder her baby, and if she does she should be criminalized because it is sin to murder someone, and she needs Jesus as the only savior for her depraved condition.

Which one of these camps makes room for Jesus? The abolitionist camp. The minority camp. The other 2 are the MAJORITY viewpoint of our culture.

Ironically, the very movement ideology your critiquing (calling out sin more precisely / too much first) is the only camp that actually makes room for a savior in the first place.

P.S Here is a great resource from AR about the theology behind the movement.

Applying all of this to rape

I wanted to do something fun to wrap this up. I’ve obviously gone through a lot of Lee’s objections, but I wanted to circle back to the original reason this started…

I thought Lee framed his post wrongly. Although I know Lee wants to end child sacrifice, the vibe I got from the post was “instead of calling people to repent and trying to ban abortion, we should put more effort into helping adoption agencies, and if we don’t, that would be wrong.”

Is that what Lee meant? I don’t think so, but that’s how it read, and that’s how many people will take it.

Now was I right to get this vibe? To find out for sure, I took Lee’s post, and I substituted the topic of abortion with the topic of rape.

Let’s say for arguments sake that rape has been legal for the last 50 years in America because men wanted to retain “rape rights.”

This is a good parallel because

• Rape is also worthy of the death penalty in God’s eternal law just like murder

• Rape is something as Christians we know is detestable and evil

Here’s what it would look like:

I am extremely anti-rape, and my heart breaks that 1500 women a day have their bodies violated against their will. However, my wife and I were talking the other day, and she brought up a good point.

With all the screaming of “rapist!” and sanctity of the marriage bed, what I have not heard is a discussion about what we are going to do to help the 1500 rapists who for whatever reason need to or want to have sex with someone against their will. Sure, they can abstain, but let’s think about that.

1500 rapes a day, 365 days a year comes to 547,500 rapists EVERY YEAR that will not have their sexual needs met 😳

Do we have 547 thousand republicans who are willing to help relieve these rapists’ sexual frustration?

What are we going to do when there’s not enough people to marry these rapists?

I am not saying we should leave rape rights as they are. I am saying we need to come up with a plan for if and when they changed.

Does this post sound like legal rape is an actual problem? Or does it sound like we shouldn’t care about fighting it legally until we’ve got our act together on the practical support front? You decide ;)

The reason why this now sounds so bad (as opposed to the original post) is that rape is currently illegal in America. The law is a tutor, and it’s at least tutored us that rape is wrong. Our country, however, has turned away from God and legalized child sacrifice.

The solution is not to give any more ground to our enemies by contrasting adoption strategy and gospel preaching. We need both.

We need to preach about this, and we also need to criminalize abortion, not only to save babies lives, not only to love our neighbor, not only to deter future murders…

But to teach our culture as well.

Finishing up my series “Aborted”, I wanted to address one of the most common misunderstandings amongst Christians; the 2nd victim narrative. Are women a 2nd victim of abortion? I had seen a post from and he has some amazing content about not being a politically obsessed Christian, go subscribe to him.

Lee is pro-life and genuinely wants to save babies in our culture of death, however, in his recent post, I think he unintentionally spread the 2nd victim narrative that is so prevalent amongst Christians. Today I wanted to address the problem with this framing and explore how we should really view Moms who are sacrificing their children.

Background

The past 2 weeks have been absolutely wild with the election. I had a few notes about abortion that went viral and garnered quite the army of pro-choicers ready to defend their right to baby murder.

A few of the comments were common enough that I wanted to respond to them properly here. My aim is that you would become more confident to respond to these bad arguments when you hear them online or in person.

Look, I’m not debating faith with you. I wouldn’t do that. I believe you are entitled to whatever religious beliefs you choose.

If you want to believe life begins at conception, I am not here to argue. I don’t argue with the religions that believe life begins at first breath, or the ones that believe life is eternal, and we all will have many incarnations, either.

Life beginning at conception is not a religious belief, it’s a biological fact.1Citing other false beliefs other people have doesn’t change the facts.

You should understand clearly, however, that if life begins at conception as you insist, it also ends there for the vast majority.

50% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus, and are spontaneously shed.

5% of embryos implant somewhere other than the uterus and not only can’t survive, but also threaten the life of the person who is carrying them

25% of the embryos that do implant have fatal defects and stop maturing by 12 weeks. If these embryos are not fully shed from the body, together with the rest of the uterine lining, they threaten the life of the person carrying them.

These numbers are talking about miscarriages. Abortion is the intentional murder of a pre-born human who, otherwise, would live. Miscarriages are the natural, unintended death of a pre-born baby through natural cause. Conflating the two is a deceptive tactic to make abolitionists look like we hate healthcare and are idiots. We’re not criminalizing natural tragedies, we’re criminalizing murder, which is performed by murderers, not natural cause.

An additional 5% will continue to develop past 12 weeks, but have fatal defects that mean, once delivered, they will never leave the hospital. Some of these fetuses have abnormalities so severe that continuing the pregnancy to term threatens the life of the person carrying them.

What this actually means: it’s not possible to conceive and carry a fetus to term without simultaneously conceiving embryos and fetuses that will die. It’s also not possible to conceive and carry a baby to term without risking one’s own life.

This is false. Pregnancies do not put mothers at risk, health defects, illness, and other features of our fallen world do. If a pregnancy needs to be stopped by medical staff, they don’t have to murder the baby, they just have to remove it. If the baby dies from there, that death is a result of natural cause, not the doctors slaughtering the baby in cold blood.

Fact: There is no such thing as procreation without accompanying death.

Death is a part of our fallen world. Murder is too, but the difference is we’re commanded to not murder by God.

Viability by definition is neither subjective nor a decoy. It’s a legal concept, not a moral one.

If you believe voluntarily terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong, you should be glad that the government hasn’t yet decided to force you to. In China, the 1-child policy made abortions legally mandatory for decades (look it up). This frequently took the form of infanticide, because families preferred boys. By the time the 1-child policy was reversed, 30 million female fetuses and babies had been aborted or murdered to make room for males.

If a government assumes the power to make abortion illegal, it simultaneously assumes the power to make it mandatory. Can’t have one without the other.

1. Banning abortion is a defensive tactic to uphold justice of an already committed crime (baby murder). Banning abortion is NOT positively forcing a women to have a baby. Besides the case of rape, all women give consent to getting pregnant.

2. In the case of rape, as tragic as it is, the rapist should be convicted (with the child being the evidence), and the Mother should not change sides from rape victim to murderer.

On a more compassionate note, I honestly hope the women in your life never have a pregnancy that goes sideways and who is maimed or killed as a result of being denied medical treatment because the doctor didn’t want to lose their license and/or wind up in jail. That would be one very ugly leopard eating her face.

1. Ectopic pregnancies are not abortions, so I’m not sure what “maiming” or “killing” you’re referring to?2If abortion was outright banned, it doesn’t cover miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancies.

2. Doctors do not refer abortion clinics in emergency situations, they try to save both patients. Imagine you’re a doctor, and 1 patient’s arm was stuck in another’s chest cavity. Would you call a hitman to decapitate one of them?

3. Let’s say the only time you can murder a baby is if it’s affecting the life of the mother, and ectopics were actually abortions, just for a minute. Would you now be pro-life for the other 97% of abortions? Sounds like your big hangup is the Mom, but otherwise, you detest baby murder? Of course not. So just argue for your actual position; “I think murdering babies should be available legally on demand, and here is why…”

I have close relatives who are very prolife. I remember asking one of my cousins what about after a child is born? He basically explained that is was before a child is born that mattered. I became pro born. I get that people do not want the worst abuses of proabortion advocates. However, I want to know what you believe about the born? Once a child is born what social and family supports do you believe in? Has anyone challenged you to think about the children for whom you say you are advocating? I hate the idea of abortion, but I do not think women should die from a non viable pregnancy, because emergency rooms will not treat her. The issue of abortion is not about infanticide like too many people try to make it. Also, pro lifers need to care after the born arrive in the world, not just use abortion to be antifunding

1. I do not hold that life only matters “before they’re born”, if your cousin actually said that, I think he is wrong.

2. I believe all human life, despite age, location, ethnicity, etc. are made in the image of God and should be protected and upheld. All of our laws currently do that for all humans in our country except one; the pre-born.

3. The assumption here is that the only way we can help born people in situations of poverty or abuse is with bloated government programs, which is obviously false. We can all independently help our neighbor as Jesus commands us without forcing it to happen poorly through the civil government. That’s what churches are for.

   1. To summarize my position: Don’t murder babies, help born people.

   2. To summarize the pro-choice position: Murder babies, vote for government programs

4. Life threatening situations of illness, accidents, non-viable pregnancies etc. are not abortions. There are no abolition laws that classify this as an abortion. If the medical staff is saving both patients, that’s healthcare. If someone is intentionally trying to terminate a baby, that’s murder. That’s where the abolition kicks in.

5. The issue of abortion is absolutely about infanticide. Life begins at conception, so if that life is destroyed at any point, it is by definition murder.

6. Even in the worst case scenario, if someone was wrong about not caring for the born, even if they HATED the born, that only proves that they’re a hypocrite, it doesn’t disprove the position itself that abortion is murder.

   1. Let’s apply this to rape. Rape is legal, and anti-rape groups are saying that this is evil. Someone comes along and says “Well, anti-rapers have to care for the rapists before they rape, like when they are watching porn” Does that change the fact that the evil of rape itself is legal? No, and that’s the fight we’re fighting, not the personal beliefs of the people fighting it.

The law is a tutor, and our laws in America tell women “You can kill your baby, no problem.”

Laws don’t change the heart, but they have a massive impact on culture and deterrence. America is already under the judgement of God, and we’re living on borrowed time.

We need to turn this ship around, very fast, to avoid the rocks. The only way to do that?

Ban abortion, without exceptions, in all 50 states to the Glory of God. Even further, we won’t do this by appealing to biology or neutral ground, because there is none.

We need to lay all of our cards on the table to our civil magistrate. Christ is king of everything including the government. If our elected officials are decreeing unrighteous decrees, they will be judged.

Kiss the son, lest he be angry and you perish in the way. God hates our hands, they are full of blood. The foundation of our opposition to child sacrifice is not societal pressures, it’s not nature, it’s not even cultural Christianity;

It’s the very word of God.

What We Cover

1. Introduction to Abolitionism and Personal Journeys

2. Understanding Pro-Life vs. Abolitionism

3. The Role of the Church in Abolitionism

4. The Second Victim Narrative and Its Implications

5. Pragmatism vs. Obedience in Abolitionism

6. The Five Tenets of Abolitionism

7. Addressing Exceptions in Abortion Legislation

8. The Concept of a Christian Government

9. The Role of Authority in Governance

10. Christianity and Political Engagement

11. Understanding Law and Justice

12. The Nature of Civil Government

13. Jurisdiction and Authority

14. The Ethics of Law

15. The Intersection of Grace and Law

16. Repentance and National Judgment

17. The Future of a Godly Nation

18. The Role of Christians in Politics

19. No Neutrality: The Choice Between Autonomy and Theonomy

20. Faithfulness in the Face of Secular Law

21. Hope Amidst Judgment: Observations on Change

22. The Shift Towards Abolitionism

23. Faithfulness Over Results: The Call to Action

24. Engaging Society: The Gospel and Abolitionism

Key Takeaways

• Abolitionism seeks to criminalize abortion as murder.

• The second victim narrative undermines the true nature of abortion.

• God's law should be the foundation of all governance.

• The church has a prophetic duty to speak against abortion.

• Pragmatism in legislation can lead to moral compromise.

• Every law reflects the ethics of the society that enacts it.

• Abolitionists view the unborn as equal to all human beings.

• The government is ordained by God to uphold justice.

• Exceptions in abortion laws are unnecessary and harmful.

• Christians must advocate for a government that reflects God's justice. We must follow God's law in all spheres of life.

• The Decalogue governs family, church, and civil government.

• God's law is essential for understanding justice and love.

• Christians should not shy away from political involvement.

• Repentance is crucial for societal healing.

• Abolitionism is a call to action for Christians.

• Faithfulness in our duties is paramount.

• The abolitionist movement is gaining momentum.

• Cultural issues require a biblical response.

• Every Christian has a role in combating evil.

Leave a comment

Today I’ll be refuting the 20 most common pro-choice arguments I hear and why they’re all very bad.

1. What if she was raped / involved in incest?

A. The Other 97 Percent

Let's just grant that you could murder your baby if it were because of rape or incest.

Rape, incest, and medical complications make up less than 3% of abortions

Would Pro-Choicers now be okay with abortion being illegal for the other 97 percent of cases? Of course not, so you should argue from your actual position, that murdering a baby is okay, all the time, as long as their in the womb.

B. What Makes Rape Wrong?

Well, it’s a violation of someone else's body without their permission…

But yet, we can violate the body of a defenseless baby who can't even breathe on their own in response?

C. Killing Children for the Crime of Their Fathers

So instead of focusing on the evil man who raped a woman and who deserves death, why don't we just kill the innocent baby in the womb?

16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Dt 24:16.

D. Born Through Unfortunate Means = Less Value?

No, just because someone was born from an incest relationship or rape does not mean they are worth so little that they should be killed.

E. “But rapists are never found, so they won’t be convicted”

So since we can’t find the person who actually committed the crime, we should murder a defenseless baby because we can find them?

2. What about the life of the mother / ectopic pregnancy

A. Who is Worth More?

Mothers are not worth more than their children because they're older and bigger. The goal is for both the mother and the child to be saved.

B. Early Deliveries Are Not Voluntary Murder

In the event of an emergency pregnancy (<3% of abortions) where the mother's life is in danger, the medical staff's goal is to rescue 2 lives, not one. They are not voluntarily murdering one person for convenience.

C. What about ectopic pregnancies?

Until these medical advances become possible for all women, the removal of ectopic pregnancies is a matter of life and death. Sadly, a child will not survive the removal of an ectopic pregnancy because she is too young to survive outside the womb at this stage. However, the purpose of removing her from her mother’s womb is not to kill her, but instead, the purpose is to preserve life.1

3. What if the baby will have birth defects or abnormalities?

Should we kill born people with birth defects and abnormalities? The answer is no, so why should we be able to kill pre-born people with abnormalities? The argument is essentially “This person is different from us, so we should be able to kill it.” We should care for people who have these birth defects, not slaughter them.

4. My body my choice

Some will argue that abortion is ok because it’s the Mother’s choice to do so. This is because the baby is seen as inside the Mother’s body, so it’s the mothers body.

A. Yes, that’s the Point

Every human should have a choice over what is done to their body. We're defending the bodies of the babies who are going to be killed.

B. It’s Not Your Body

It's not your body, it’s your baby's body. If it were your body, YOU would die.

C. Choice to Do What Exactly?

If I can translate here, what you're saying is:

"If I want to murder a defenseless human, that's my choice!"

Can you imagine if rapists used this argument?

I get pleasure from raping other people, so its my body we're talking about. My body, My choice!

5. What if the baby will have an illness shortly after birth?

We are all going to die at some point. Those of us who are going to die later do not have the right to voluntarily with intervention take the life of someone sooner. Cancer patients who have days to live don’t give healthy people the right to murder them. Human life should be protected by law from conception until natural death.

6. What if the child ends up in foster care?

A. Born Kids

There’s around 400K kids in foster care in the U.S right now. Should we murder all of them?

Usually they reply back “No, we should reform the foster care system, but until we do, this is the best option”

The followup to that is I agree we should reform the foster care system, because it makes sense on the Christian worldview (image of God), but why does it make sense on your worldview? In the same way we should care for children who are already in foster care, we should care for those pre-born children in the womb.

B. Double Injustice

Just because there is injustice in 1 area of life (foster care issues) doesn’t mean we should allow injustice in another area (murdering pre-born babies).

That’s like a rapist saying “Well if I didn’t rape that women, she would have walked down to the back alley and purchased drugs, I was doing her a favor”

Using certain illegal drugs can do a lot of damage to a person, but rape is far worse. In the same way, murdering your baby is far worse than the potential problems with the foster care system.

Why Abortion?

A followup question they may ask is “Why aren’t you advocating for reforming the foster care system instead of abortion?”

The practical answer is, there isn’t enough time fight every single injustice by myself, that’s why God has made many people, with many different gifts.

The foundational question you can ask them is “Is it wrong for the American Cancer Society to only focus on curing cancer?” They will usually reply “No, because they’re the ACA.” Well, I’m “anti-abortion”, so that’s what I’m focusing on.

7. What if the child could have a bad life or be abused?

There are plenty of born children who are in poverty or in a situation where they could be abused in the future. The solution isn’t to abuse them to death by murdering them. Instead, we should remove the child from the situation, and prosecute the abuser. You don’t help someone by murdering them.

8. It’s just a clump of cells.

A. You Are Too

We are all just a clump of cells. It’s wrong to murder human organisms, regardless of how many cells they’re composed of.

B. Biology Disagrees

‘“At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”2

C. If It’s Not a Human…

What is it then?

If it’s not a human at fertilization, but it has DNA, and the sperm and the egg came from 2 human parents…what exactly is this fertilized egg? A chicken? A fish? Do women create lizards in their wombs now?

9. Why don’t you help the kids who are “here” first?

1. Where is “Here”?

2. The pre-born children I’m advocating for are indeed “here.” If they weren’t here, these women wouldn’t be considering an abortion, there’s nothing to abort.

3. I don’t give special value to humans based on their location. If someone said they don’t think people in Venezuela are “here”, and that it should be ok to murder everyone in Venezuela, you probably wouldn’t support that effort would you?

4. The pre-born child is already “here” and the mother is already a mother. The question is, will she love her child, or will she murder it?

10. The baby isn’t conscious yet / doesn’t have the ability to be conscious

A. “They do not have consciousness yet”

• If an adult is unconscious for a surgery, can you murder them? Obviously not, so it must be something other than consciousness that gives someone a right to life.

• Some will say “Well you can’t kill someone who’s unconscious in a surgery because they will be conscious in the future. Well…that’s true for a child in the womb too.

• Usually pro-choicer’s shift on to “well, the difference is that they’ve had consciousness in the past, the baby hasn’t had consciousness yet at all.”

  • Says who? You? We know that humans are valuable because they are made in the image of God, and God also values humans while they are in the womb, AND before.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.

Psalm 139:13

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

Psalm 139:16

Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

B. “The Capacity for Consciousness”

Some people say that if the baby doesn’t have the “equipment” for consciousness (ie. a brain, etc). Once again, why? Says who?

They may respond: “Most people value consciousness of other humans”

You can then ask them if they think ethics/morality is subjective and determined by popularity.

If Yes: They have no problem with the slave trade, or the holocaust, because that was just the subjective opinion of those people at that time, and was backed by the government of both of those people groups.

If No: Then you can ask them “Why is it objective then? Why, on your worldview, SHOULD I do anything?”

11. Life support / brain dead

People who are brain dead are legally dead because their bodies are no longer capable of acting in a coordinated manner such that the parts work for the good of the whole. Brain dead peoples bodies decompose apart from life support.

It may be ethical to keep a brain dead (dead) persons body on life support if they are on the organ donor list and their organs can be given to someone in need. This individual will never have brain activity in the future.

This is not the case with the child in the womb. The baby is in a growth stage of development, even though they don’t have a brain yet. When someone is brain dead, they have an irreversible loss of all functions of the entire brain.

This is not what pre-born babies have. If it was, none of us would ever be born, but funny enough you and I are reading this right now.

12. What about miscarriages?

Miscarriage is a natural event, this does not justify intentional murder.

13. Women should be able to choose

To do what exactly? Murder another women in cold blood?

14. Consenting to sex isn’t consenting to pregnancy

That’s obviously false. That’s like you buying a lottery ticket, and then saying “I only consented to winning.” No, you consented to winning and losing, and whether you win or lose is out of your control. Just as absurd as it would be for someone with a losing lottery ticket to demand the billion dollar jackpot because they lost, likewise it’s absurd for a women who engaged in consensual sex to demand that she can murder her child after she finds out she got pregnant.

Even further, children are a blessing from the LORD, not a hinderance or inconvenience.

Psalm 127:3–5

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth.

Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

15. What if the child is unwanted

So it’s ok to murder children that are unwanted? What if a mother decides after careful consideration that she wants to murder her 3 year old, would that be acceptable?

Children are not valuable because they are wanted, they are valuable because they are made in the image of God and God commands us not to murder.

16. Persistent vegetative state (PVS)

PVS is different than brain dead. 10-24% of patients with PVS can regain consciousness. We should care for them as humans made in the image of God, not kill them.

People in PVS have higher brain activity in response to hearing their own name versus someone else’s name, they’re not dead.

Additionally, if the family does pull the plug on the PVS patient, they’re simply letting nature take its course. If the person got into the PVS situation because of a horrible car accident, then the car accident is what kills them when the plug is pulled.

In contrast, abortion is not letting the process of pregnancy that God designed and upholds take its course, its intentionally stopping it with horrific means.

17. If a zygote is a human, soul, so is a sperm

Sperms by themselves are not human organisms, eggs by themselves are not human organisms, once a sperm fertilizes an egg, a unique human organism is formed, made in the image of God. A zygote is the first cell of that unique human being.

18. What if the woman is not ready to be a mother?

The woman is already a mother, there is a child in her womb. The question now is, will she be a loving and caring mother that takes care of her child, or will she be the mother of a dead child that she murdered?

19. You're pro birth, not pro-life

We’re anti-murder. Children are a blessing from the Lord, and married couples should be fruitful and multiply. Unmarried couples however should not be engaging in intercourse

Once a mother is pregnant, whether married or not, we are pro-birth for that child because the alternative is death.

20. You don't have a uterus

If I did, would you agree with me?

“No”

Then why don’t you agree?

Actual argument begins

Gender does not affect something being right or wrong.

It’s time our culture sees exactly what it’s approving of. Will you vote for the holocaust to continue?

Share

Today I just wanted to do a short rant about the false confidence that unbelievers bring to the table when attacking Christians. They all come in with the assumption that everyone is neutral, and these pesky Christians have just chosen that “annoying Christian flavor” of religion.

“Why are these Christians hating other religions? Why are they evangelizing on the streets? Can’t they leave us alone so we can just figure out this human thing?”

Well the reality is, statements like that assume one thing: Christianity is false, and my worldview is true. So the question becomes…what is your worldview then? That’s what I wanted to dive into today.

There are many people, both “Christians” and unbelievers, who actually try to claim that the Bible condones abortion, even approves of it. This is a big claim, so let’s see if it has any teeth.

1. God Flooded the Earth

Genesis 7:21–24

And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind...He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark…

God is the giver of life, and the taker of life. He has every right and authority to judge his people when they are rebelling against him. We, as humans, are not the giver of life and God has commanded us not to murder and commit child sacrifice.

2. God Commanded Israel to Kill the Canaanites

Deuteronomy 20:16–18

But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God.

God is the standard of justice. It would have been immoral for them not to kill the canaanites since God commanded them to. The same God who commanded that we ought not to take a human life unjustly, commanded Israel to justly take a certain people groups lives. What does that tell you about the canaanites? It’s funny how we rush to the rescue of sinful people and call God unjust.

3. God Told Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac

Genesis 22:6–14

…Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns…”

This was a prophecy for the coming of Christ (the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world). Abraham was already promised by God that through Isaac his offspring would come. Since God can’t lie, Abraham simply trusted that God would resurrect him. God then provided a substitute ram in place of Isaac, prophesying the provision of Jesus that would later come to be our substitute so that we could no longer be in Adam, but in Christ.

4. The Bible Says Life Begins at First Breath

Genesis 2:7

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Just because Adams life began when God breathed life into him, it doesn’t follow that all human life begins at first breath. Eve was made from Adams rib, but it doesn’t follow that all women are generated from male ribs today. There were simply no humans to reproduce in the beginning, you have to start somewhere.

However, we have plenty of scripture regarding when human life post Adam and Eve begins.

Psalm 139:13–16

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Psalm 51:5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Luke 1:39–45

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

Genesis 25:22

The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.

5. God Commands Fine For Miscarriage (Exodus 21)

Exodus 21:22–25

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The only time someone tries to use this verse as justifying abortion is with the translations that say “so that she miscarries.” This is not the original text, it is a modern interpretation. The Hebrew and Greek of the original words translate to “The child comes out”, which means premature birth.

The ironic thing is, this passage actually shows that an accidental abortion is worthy of death in God’s eyes. How much more the intentional legal ones that happen every day in the U.S?

6. God Commanded Child Sacrifice (Exodus 22:29)

Exodus 22:29–30

“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

This is a misreading of the text. When read with Ex 13:13-15 and Numbers 3:46-51, it’s clear that the first born males were to be redeemed by a monetary sacrifice, not killed.

Exodus 13:13–15

Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. And when in time to come your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘By a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’

Numbers 3:46–51

And as the redemption price for the 273 of the firstborn of the people of Israel, over and above the number of the male Levites, you shall take five shekels per head; you shall take them according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel of twenty gerahs), and give the money to Aaron and his sons as the redemption price for those who are over.” So Moses took the redemption money from those who were over and above those redeemed by the Levites. From the firstborn of the people of Israel he took the money, 1,365 shekels, by the shekel of the sanctuary. And Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron and his sons, according to the word of the LORD, as the LORD commanded Moses.

In fact, the following passages make it painfully clear that God detests child sacrifice.

Jeremiah 19:3–5

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing such disaster upon this place that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind…

Deuteronomy 12:29–31

“When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess…take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.

7. Ezekiel 20:25-26

Ezekiel 20:25–26

Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

If you read the context of the passage, God is going through the Exodus account and showing that he gave life-giving statutes, but Israel did not follow them, time and time again. So in response to that, God gave them up to their sinful desires, similar to what is discussed in Romans 1, so that they would suffer the consequences of a sinful life and come back to acknowledge him as God.

Romans 1:24–28

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

8. Numbers 5:11-31

Numbers 5:11–31

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

“And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the LORD. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD and unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’

“Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and shall wave the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar. And the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.

Pro-aborts like to use this passage to say God condones abortion and therefore we should be able to do it too. There’s 2 ways you can take this as to what happens to the woman.

1. Disfigurement view (majority of translations)

   1. On this view, if the women is not pregnant currently, and her body becomes disfigured, then this has nothing to do with abortion.

2. Miscarriage view

   1. Even if this passage is indeed describing a miscarriage, the key difference is God himself is the one taking the life. The priest, mother or husband isn’t commanded to go inside the uterus and rip the baby’s legs limb from limb. God has the authority to take life since he is the one who gives it.

9. Matthew 7:1

Pro-aborts will try to use Matt 7:1 to claim that an equal protection bill for the pre-born should not be put in place.

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that you be not judged.

The rebuttal to this is literally the next 2 verses.

Matthew 7:1–5

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

This passages speaks against hypocritical judgement, not any judgement at all. An equal protection bill shows no partiality, so there is no hypocritical judgement.

Even further, the pro-abort using this isn’t consistent in applying this to murdering born people, raping people, or kidnapping. They’re completely fine with “judging” those people under the law.

10. Throw The First Stone (John 8:7)

John 8:7

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Mosaic law required that there needs to be at least 2 witnesses, and that the man and the women would need to be put to death for the crime of adultery. It also required that the witnesses be the first to cast the stone.

Leviticus 20:10

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:15

“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.

Deuteronomy 17:5–7

then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

It appears in this passage that the witnesses and the man were not present. Instead of upholding justice without partiality, the pharisees were set on testing Jesus. This was a submission to the Mosaic law, not a violation of it.

11. Psalm 137:9

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones

and dashes them against the rock!

Psalm 137:9

This is an imprecatory psalm referencing Isaiah 13:16

Isaiah 13:16

Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.

The passage in Isaiah was a prophecy from the Lord about how Babylon will be destroyed by another army. Babylon had already done such wicked acts to other nations already.

Zach Conover from EAN had this to say

“…what is taking place is the prayers of the Israelites in exile that Yahweh would treat the Babylonian children with the same ruthlessness that the Babylonians showed against Israel in dashing their little ones to pieces. The Psalmist is saying, let them receive the same punishment that they inflicted on Israel. This is not God promising to kill babies; it is the Psalmist praying for what the Babylonians did to them to be returned in war.”1

Also, this doesn’t meant that the people who kill children aren’t accountable for their actions. God predestines the free actions of men.

Isaiah 10 is another great example of this. Assyria is condemned for their intention, even though they are the rod of God’s anger.

Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger;

the staff in their hands is my fury!

Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him,

to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think;

but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few; for he says: “Are not my commanders all kings?”

Isaiah 10:5–8

Enjoying this content? If you want to support my work, feel free to just buy me a coffee here

Buy Me a Coffee