Am I really having this conversation?

Sometimes facebook doesn't do me any favors.  Make that most of the time.  One of the blessings and curses of fb is the fact that you can have discussions/debates with other thoughtful people.  I said you can, as in, it's possible, not necessarily likely.  Such is the case I've found myself in for the past four days.  I belong to a group on fb for ministers from the Restoration Movement (read: a typically very socially and theologically conservative group), and the goal of the group is to foster ideas, discussion, and sharing on any number of trends, practices, beliefs, etc., we encounter in our ministries.  On Sunday, one member put forth this post:

After all the recent Sanctity of Life celebrations let me toss out a question. Pro-Life is the only right choice. No questions about that WHATSOEVER. Let me give you a little bit of medical knowledge and then ask a question for consideration.

According to drs who treat infertility, only about 1 out of every 4 or 5 fertilized human embryos ever are able to implant themselves in the wall of their mothers uterus and continue to develop further. A certain percentage of those that do implant also do not develop correctly and are also naturally eliminated by the body. These are medical facts and not subject to debate.

The line I have often heard among those who are pro-life (like myself) is that "Life begins at conception." If that is literally true, then God must be killing 4 out of every 5 "babies" that are conceived, because most fertilized eggs never make it to gestation. Certainly God is sovereign and can do as He chooses, but I find this natural conclusion of the concept that "Life begins at CONCEPTION" to be unsettling.

So... we do NOT have a right to intentionally end life in the womb... no argument. But, does life REALLY begin at conception, or is this an argument from emotion or slogan? Given our medical understanding, do we need to adjust this concept?

 I have questions about the data (how do they know 4/5 of fertilized eggs never implant?), but even assuming it's true, I think the questions at the end are very disturbing and have tremendous implications as to how one ministers and teaches on this subject from the pulpit.

We're up to about 80 comments on this topic so far, spread out among 5-6 of us.  I'm surprised and saddened by the fact that others have been not only sympathetic to the questions, but also have been advocating such things as: a baby has no soul until she draws her first breath (because of some twisted understanding of Gen. 2 and Adam becoming a "living soul" after God breathed into his body), an embryo/zygote/fetus is only a potential human being (despite all evidence to the contrary), and that it is problematic to assume that aborted embryos go to Heaven because (gasp!) Heaven would then be filled with babies.

So it seems the main problem these guys have is that because of the fact that, according to the Christian pro-life position, the majority of conceptions die; therefore, it is problematic to think that Heaven is "filled" with undeveloped embryos or tiny babies.  Apart from a complete lack of thoughtful study of Scripture and application of logic, it's just stupid and wrong.  I mean, really?  Heaven's glory is tainted by the presence of human beings whose only crime was not living long enough?

I'm pretty sure God has thought about this in advance and has made necessary arrangements.  Maybe God will allow those babies to grow up in Heaven, until they reach the "age" at which we all will be in Heaven.  Maybe they'll enter Heaven fully formed; God is not bound to preserve embryos as such forever.  

Additionally, I'm truly horrified by the "logic" that states that a baby has no soul until he/she draws first breath outside the womb.  The only difference, the only difference between a newborn and a baby one minute from birth is location.  There is no ontological change that occurs in the baby during the trip from the uterus to the outside world, no reason whatsoever to believe that one minute before birth, the baby has no soul and is therefore not a human being made in God's image, and the next moment, the moment of the first breath, when bam! they are suddenly not just a living mass of cells, but a soul-indwelt human being.  John leapt in Elizabeth's womb when Mary (pregnant with Jesus) visited.  How would that be possible if neither John nor Jesus had a soul?  The same logic that applies to personhood applies to ensoulment: does the baby have a soul one minute after they are born?  What about one minute before that?  And one minute before that?  And one minute before that?  If the soul exits the body at death, isn't it reasonable to assume that the soul enters at life, which begins at conception? 

My brain can hardly keep from exploding.  This is a group of ministers!  What are they teaching the people at the churches they serve?

Blargument, Third and Final Round

Anonymous is not pleased.

You can read the comment at the end of my last post. This is the last post I will make regarding this topic. Rather than commenting on the content of Anonymous' comments, I simply want to comment on the importance of presuppositions, those assumptions about the world we all bring to our understanding of anything, especially the Bible and theology. Presuppositions are difficult to avoid, and sometimes they are not bad. They are bad if they do not allow a person to view a subject any other way than thier presuppositions allow.

Anonymous belongs to a church that believes (I hope I'm being accurate here) that there is only one God, Jesus. There is no Father and no Holy Spirit, at least not as separate persons of the Godhead. They are all manifestations of Jesus. All of the Old Testament names for God are names for Jesus. The OT says there is one God, one Lord. The NT says Jesus is God. Therefore, they claim, every Scripture that mentions "God" refers to Jesus and Jesus alone. These are their presuppositions. They will claim that they are inferences or direct teachings straight from Scripture, not the teachings of men.

The problem is, that's what everyone says about their beliefs.

I claim that God is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom is rightly called God, but none of whom fully expresses God. They are eternally coequal, coexistent, and are the perfect expression of fellowship, community, and truth. I, too, do not base these assertions on traditions, but on Scripture. Hence, the problem between Anonymous and me: our presuppositions are contradictory, yet we both base them on Scripture.

The problem deepens: if we both accept the law of noncontradiction (that something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same way), then one of us is wrong. Anonymous will say that I am wrong, and I say that Anonymous is wrong. I believe Anonymous' presuppositions are faulty and not based on Scripture but on a creative interpretation of Scripture that is not warranted by the text itself. So many verses mention the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate, yet all are called God, and there is only one God. This is somewhat paradoxical, and many have labored to describe it. Welcome to orthodoxy.

Anonymous and I have too many disagreeing presuppositions ever to come to agreement. The end of it, though, being as this is my blog and if you don't like it, start your own blog, is this: I'm right, my understanding is more orthodox and historical than yours, and you are not honestly dealing with the wealth of (especially NT) texts that explicitly list (sometimes in the same verse!) all three persons.

That's my blog, and I'm sticking to it.:)

Blargument, Round 2

It seems I struck a nerve with Anonymous, who replied to "Should have seen this coming...":

I think it was very petty of you to pick on my grammer. Did it make you feel more intelligent? Was your sarcasm about my bravery meant to be funny? Do you believe that the Bible does not contradict itself? If so you have to consider all the verses from old and new testaments, that refer to Jehovah and Jesus. What about Colossians 2:9 "The fullness of the Godhead is ALL IN HIM" Jesus. Jesus was fully God and Fully man. Jesus is revealed name of God prophesied about in the Old Testament. Father is not a name. Son is not a name. Holy Spirit is not a name. Jesus is the only name in heaven where by we must be saved. To view a visual that puts the scriptures into prospective visit http://www.lighthouseapostolic.com/onegodxl.bmp . God Bless you! [name removed by AG] P.S. The only reason I was identified as anonymous is that I do not have a google/blogger account.

Anonymous, you are right to be anonymous; I shouldn't have questioned your bravery. Having
said that...

In reply, let me start by saying I'm sorry you have bad grammAr. It did not make me feel more intelligent; it disappointed me. Our country is one where the education standards are mixed, and priority is certainly not given to grammar. When I see bad grammar, I fix it. By submitting a comment, you submit it to criticism, just like when I post a blog, I submit it to the public to read or criticize.

I do believe the Bible does not contradict itself. On Colossians 2:9, it is better translated as "because in him dwells all the fullness of the deity bodily. . .", at least that is a more literal translation of the Greek. Jesus is not the revealed name of God; Yahweh is (Ex. 3:14), or "I AM WHO I AM" if you prefer ("Joshua" is A name of God, just like "Jehovah-Jireh" and many others, and we both agree that they all describe the one God). And if "Father" and "Holy Spirit" are not names, how do you explain Matthew 28:19? And you did not answer my questions from my last reply.

Also, I have a couple of questions regarding your monotheism:

1. When Jesus was on earth, was Heaven empty?
2. When Jesus is with us now (as you state on your website) and not the Holy Spirit (as a separate person of the one God), then who is in Heaven now?
3. Did Jesus ascend and then descend?
4. When Jesus breathed on his disciples and said, "receive the Holy Spirit," why was Jesus still there, if they are indeed the same person?
5. When Jesus was on the cross, did he pray "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" to himself? If not, then to whom?
6. Who, according to Ephesians 1:17-23, raised Jesus from the dead?
7. To whom did Jesus pray in John 17?
8. In John 17:11, why did Jesus say, "that they may be one, even as WE are"? (PS. the "we" is in the Greek).
9. If Jesus and the Father are the same, then why did Peter say that God performed miracles through Jesus (Acts 2:22)?
10. If the three are in fact Jesus only, then how do you explain verses like Acts 2:33; Acts 10:38 (God anointed him [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit); and many others I need not name here?

Many more questions can be asked at this point; many verses could be brought up as well. I just don't see how you can claim that there is no Holy Spirit or Father as distinct from the Son. Colossians proves Jesus is God; it does not prove that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I may have taken a sarcastic tone which comes off as being irritated. You're right; I should not be personally offensive; if I insulted you as a person, I ask for your forgiveness. However, your ideas are another matter. I am irritated at your teaching, which goes against centuries of established orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which extends all the way back to the writing of the New Testament itself. You may certainly reply again, but I can tell you that this is probably going to be a vigorous debate. And being as this is a blog and not a forum, I can choose when the discussion ends. I am happy to continue hearing your side, but I guarantee that I will remain unmoved. I stand with the New Testament, not a church founded in 1952.

AG