I was sitting down to write and noticed the following comment in my “spam” section. The woman posted this on my “About” page so I’m assuming she is responding to the post, Abortion Is Murder. That post is more than 30 days old, therefore it will not take any more comments, so she posted on the only place she could find that would let her. Her comments didn’t make the cut, however, because she put her link in it, and it went to spam. I’m grateful for that. I would give you her link to her page, but I found it quite troubling. She is a member of the Worldwide Church of God, and one who espouses the only true Bible is the King James Version. So I’m not looking to dialogue with her, that would be unfruitful. I do like the challenge of answering her though, and do so on my terms. I hope you don’t think that is unjust or unfair, but save any judgment concerning this until after you have read the post.
I will post her response in bits so that I can respond. She writes:
Abortion is Not murder and the word of God proves it.
FOR AS THE BODY WITHOUT THE SPIRIT IS DEAD, so faith without works is dead also” James 2:13-26.
The body WITHOUT THE SPIRIT is dead.
As you can see, she states her thesis upfront and then starts twisting Scripture to support it. First off, the passage in James is not speaking about children in the womb. James is writing to those who are believers, so the above statement is not a blanket statement about all of humanity. He is addressing a problem of Christians not performing good works as evidence of the Spirit’s indwelling in the believer.
His point is that the body, without a spirit is dead, so too are works without faith. The point is that works are to be done in faith. If they are not done in faith, they are as helpful as a dead carcass.
The question is: are those children in the womb, void of the spirit? I’m not talking about the Holy Spirit, and the sense of us being renewed in the spirit when we are saved, but are they psychically dead until they are born?
I would agree that without the Spirit, namely the Holy Spirit, a person is dead spiritually speaking. Ephesians 2:1-5 show us that before we were Christians, we were spiritually dead. “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked…”
Paul is speaking to those who have been born again, made new, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. We can be alive without these realities, but not spiritually alive. That takes a movement of the Spirit in our lives. This woman is confusing spiritual life from normal life. She is assuming both are one in the same. They are not. Millions have life, but not the breath of life. Millions walk the earth, but do not have eternal life. This is why Jesus says that He came to give life, and do so abundantly, and He doesn’t mean materially, but spiritually (John 10:10).
My point here is that James is not addressing the birth of children, but Christians and the need for good works in our lives (not for justification purposes, but for sanctification purposes). In using this passage to make her claim that since children have not had their first breath, they are dead, then is stretching the passage into saying what it does not say.
She goes on:
Thus saith the Lord: A body being formed inside a womb is only alive through the umbilical cord. You cannot kill a body when it is already dead because it has not yet been given the breath of life/spirit from God our heavenly Father/Creator.
For example: If the body is born and not given the breath of life from God the Father we call it still born – because it is still dead.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” Gen 2:7.
Notice what she writes: “Thus saith the Lord.” She then makes another point, but I cannot find that sentence in Scripture. I even Googled it. She is saying that God has told us that the body of a child is only alive via the umbilical cord. Therefore, it cannot be killed since it’s not really alive. (Something makes me think that she has had an abortion in her life and is looking to justify it. But that is purely speculation on my part). The reason I point this out is that below, she admonishes me not to add to God’s word. Clearly that principle doesn’t apply to her if she is so willingly attributes a biology lesson to divine revelation.
She then gives the account of the creation of man as a proof text for her position. I guess the creation of man is showing us that the children and descendants from Adam must all have the breath of life breathed into them in order for them to live. Never mind that this is a one-time creation event. She adds:
“The spirit of God hath made me and THE BREATH OF THE ALMIGHTY HATH GIVEN ME LIFE” Job 33:4.
What is missing from her conclusion is the reality of the fall of man in Adam. When he sinned, this not only lead to his eventual death, but also his immediate spiritual death. This spiritual death is given to all of the descendants of Adam, so that all of us are in need of a new birth. Job is not confirming her position, but showing that he is a recipient to the new birth.
If she would say that we need to be recreated since the fall, and God has to breath life into us again for us to believe (similar to being born again), then I would agree. But she is saying that there is no life apart from God acting in this manner.
Several simple texts will help debunk her theory. The first is the passage in Luke that shows John the Baptist with the Holy Spirit in him, while still in the womb of his mother Elizabeth. “For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy (Luke 1:44).”
This shows us two things: first that the child was alive. He heard the greeting of Mary when she entered the room. Secondly, he experienced emotion. The sound was so pleasing to him that he leaped inside his mother’s womb. Yet, he had not, according to the woman’s theory, been given life since he had not yet received a spirit at his first breath. This passage shows us that John the Baptist was truly alive inside the womb of his mother, debunking this woman’s claim.
The next passage that debunks her theory is 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. 23 But if there is harm,[a] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
In other words, if the child dies, you die. If the child loses an eye, you lose the eye, etc. There is a fundamental principle in God’s law, life must be given when someone takes a life. The implication is that the child inside the mother’s womb is life. The child is a bearer of the image of God, even before he or she is born. Therefore to destroy that life, means one must pay the debt of the life. In the law found in Exodus, the one who takes the child’s life must give their own: blood for blood.
“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” Eccl 12:7.
Agreed, but this doesn’t prove her point.
God knows all of his children male and female created he them. God gives the breath of life to all that he chooses Rom 8:21, Matt 22:29-30, 1 Cor 15:53-54.
I don’t really disagree here, but the verses she quoted have nothing to do with supporting these statements. Romans 8:21 “…that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” This passage is pointing to the reality that creation waits its recreation when Christ returns, as we await His return as well.
“But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:29-30).”
Yes, I believe in the resurrection. But alas, doesn’t support her position. The 1 Corinthians 15 passage points to death and the resurrection as well. I point this out just to be sure I’m not missing anything she is trying to say.
There is more:
If a woman removes a body before God has a chance to give it breath, then he will give that breath/spirit to another body.
If the woman gives birth and God breathes life into it and then she takes its life/breath, then it is murder. “Abortion is NOT murder”.
Where is that supported in Scripture? So God is sitting around waiting to see if a child will be aborted or not, and has a bag full of spirits, waiting to hand them out to the lucky few who survive the ghastly industry of death? Again, she must have had an abortion and has to come up with this kind of convoluted thinking to justify it.
Every person believing/judging that abortion is murder is guilty themselves of murder – they condemn themselves.
Seriously? Where does she come up with this? Since she lacks any Scriptural support for this, her argument is invalid.
Remember? Breaking even one law of God causes guilt of them all James 2:9-10.
“Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, WHOSOEVER THOU ART THAT JUDGEST: FOR WHEREIN THOU JUDGEST ANOTHER, THOU CONDEMNEST THYSELF; for thou that judgest doest the same things” Rom 2:1.
“And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Rom 2:3.
Turn your heart to all the children given the breath of life by God their Father, judge not.
“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” Luke 6:37.
“And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins” 1 Peter 4:8.
While all important verses of the Bible, none of these support her argument.
Only the resurrected saints Rev 7:4 shall judge the world and they only become saints because they don’t judge anyone while mortal – they are Christ’s soul mates.
“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 1 Cor 6:2.
OK, here we see that her view of salvation is completely off. She is making the claim that only those who do not judge on earth, will be saints in heaven, and will get to judge when Christ returns. The problem is that Jesus does tell us to judge in the Sermon on the Mount. We are to judge without being self righteous.
Jesus also tells us: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment (John 7:24).”
But the greater problem in her view is the idea that in order to be a saint, you have to live a perfect life, never judging anything, even though our Savior has said otherwise. She must qualify being a saint using some odd interpretation. Historically, saints are simply those people who trust in Christ for salvation. Given that she is aligned with the Worldwide Church of God, they probably have a special interpretation of sainthood.
Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Yes, every mortal is unworthy..
God will repay Rom 12:19.
And this Gospel shall be preached in all the world as a witness Matt 24:14 and then the end will come.
It would be interesting to see what she means by the “gospel.” Granted, the gospel is to be preached everywhere, but judging from what she has written and her web page, I would not be surprised if there were countless heretical views.