Does Scripture Hinder a Woman from Political Office?

After reading my posts entitled, Gospel Today Gets Adult Magazine Treatment, covering the topic of women pastors, a friend of mine then asked me the following:

‘I haven't seen any blog posts from you on whether or not it's good to have a woman running for Vice President. Do you have an opinion?’

I am not sure if I have made up my mind on a definite answer as of yet, but let’s consider the following…

Woman: Creation
Eve, the first woman, was created by God from the rib of the first man, Adam. The precedence of marriage was set forth here with God bringing Eve unto Adam. Thus it was written, ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’

Woman: The Fall
Adam and Eve decided to taste the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, of which God had commanded against. Because of their disobedience, each received punishment from God. Eve’s judgment was, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’

Woman: Marriage and the Home
By the account of Creation we see the man is to cleave unto his wife, and by the account of The Fall we see the man is to rule over his wife. We also see at creation, woman was created for ‘the man’ and was to be a ‘help meet’ for ‘him’. The younger women are asked to ‘marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully,’ and the ‘aged women’ are to ‘teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.’ We further find the idea of marriage, having the man love the wife and the wife submitting to the man, found in the similitude of Christ and the church.

Woman: Church
Most probably know the verses which say, ‘Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.’ We also find such scriptures as, ‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection’ and ‘I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.’ My second post to this blog was concerning women in the church, and there was some good discussion concerning the topic. It would probably be better if one were interested to visit that posting than for me to try and explain the entire discussion here.

Woman: Political Office
There are plenty more scripture we could visit, but this should suffice for the present. We must remember in such a discussion we are not deciding whether a woman is inferior or worth less than a man, for what we find are the roles of men and women here in scripture. Our roles have been set forth by God based on his choice, not on our worth, for He indeed called woman a ‘help meet’ for the man, not a lesser. From what I gather, I am not sure the scriptures directly reject the serving of a woman in a political office over men in the secular world, though I believe it does speak clearly as to whether that should be her goal or desire.

From scripture, it would appear that a woman’s first desire after serving God should be her husband, then her children and her home. It is also clear from scripture that the woman is not to rebel against her husband. Something which is so important that scripture says, ‘ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.’ We also find that a woman is not to usurp authority over a man, which could be reference to just within the church, but would this even be wise in the secular world?

So, from the above, we can conclude, that a woman is not to be over the man, but in subjection to, when it comes to the home and the church for sure. This would seem to include both material and spiritual matters of both. We don’t need to take this to the legalistic extreme, but we do need to remember our example is Christ and the church. Notice the woman is able to care for the home and the children, for the man does trust her to do what is wise, though it is the man who is required to make the final decision if both are not agreed.

Therefore, I assume we are left with the following questions:

If a woman’s desire is to God, husband, child(ren), and home, would she have time left to care for the worries of political office? I mean, the man is called upon to support the family not the wife, and President or Vice President is not the same as a part-time or 9 to 5 job. I am not here advocating that a woman cannot work outside of the home, and this post has become rather lengthy already to tackle that avenue here.

If a woman is not to rule over man in the home or in the church, is it wise for a woman to seek or man to give woman an office which will put her in authority over men? She would not be usurping authority, but men would then be in subjection to her. Again, we are not discussing whether a woman can do the job, but whether it is wise or right for one to do so, according to scripture.

Possibly it all comes down to a heart issue as do all things. Why does the woman seek the office, and why does man desire to have her lead?

Still Guilty Without Full Knowledge Of Good And Evil

The Scriptural account of Adam and Eve and their original sin and initial innocence in the Garden of Eden gives rise to some questions from certain persons.

The concern: “We were told that Adam and Eve were given the choice between good and evil, and chose evil by disobeying God... but at the time they did not know good from evil, not having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so how could they possibly know it was evil to disobey God?”

Actually, what Scripture claims is that Adam was faced with the command of God, whereby God said, “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” [Genesis 2:16, 17]

There is no mention of a good verses evil act, but of obedience verses disobedience. God tells Adam that he may freely eat of every tree of the garden, but the one known as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is no necessity to know good and evil to know obedience. For we teach our children obedience before they know good and evil, and give punishment to fit the age and transgression.

Adam knew that if he disobeyed God, and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that God said he would surely die. Sure, we can argue whether or not Adam knew what this meant by “thou shalt surely die”, but the fact remains, the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil immediately made one guilty of disobedience toward God.

Scripture declares, “sin is not imputed [to attribute to a person] when there is no law”. Innocence or guilt of a law is not based on the idea of good or evil, but on the obedience or disobedience of the individual toward the law from the law giver. God gave the command (law) for Adam to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God, being the law giver, determines what obedience is and what disobedience toward the law given is. Since the law was clearly given as not to eat, when Adam did eat, he was found in disobedience and was given the punished prescribed by the law giver, God, for his crime against the law. Therefore, Adam’s disobedient act of breaking the law of God, by eating of the tree, is labeled as sin and imputed to him as such.

By this, Adam became a sinner and spiritually died. From this, all of his offspring inherited his sin nature and broken fellowship with God. Whereby, the need of the Savior Jesus Christ to come in the flesh, to live in perfect obedience and holiness toward the laws of God, giving Himself ransomed for many, those that repent of sin and put their faith in Christ, shall receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life.

The lack of knowledge concerning good and evil does not remove the guilt of disobedient transgression against the law of God, nor the law of man; for to be found ignorantly guilty of the law(s) of man does in no way remove the guilt of the person, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin”. Claiming, “I didn’t know” or “I didn’t know if it was good or evil” really doesn’t matter when the question really is, “Did you obey or disobey”. For if the answer is, “I disobeyed”, you are guilty of breaking the law of God and therefore a sinner and therefore in need of a Savior.

Do the Gospels Deserve Our Attention?

We have another good question from a blogger asking, “The Gospels were written decades after the supposed events they described by individuals who were probably not eyewitnesses given the short life expectancy during that era.”

They claim the most common response they receive from Christians is, “If the story is false or embellished as you speculate, why would early Christians die for a story that was obviously untrue?”

---

I must also ask (the questioner), to establish the premise: By what authority do you conclude your ideas of when and by whom the Gospels were written?

---

I must admit that I agree with the author in that simply claiming that people becoming martyrs over the belief that something is true does not in and of it self make it true. In example they give the Muslims. Muslims indeed martyr themselves for a belief they hold, which any Christian must confess disagrees with the Word of the True God, I AM. Yet it could be noted that Christians usually become martyrs by the hands of others, whereas Muslims usually become martyrs by their own hands.

A quick source [Christistheway.com] followed by a more detailed source [bible.org] for each gospel:
Matthew, Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Mark, Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Luke, Luke: Introduction, Outline, and Argument
John, John: Introduction, Argument, Outline

Above the actual author, date, and eyewitness account is the inspiration of God whereby the Holy Spirit moves elected persons of God to write that which are the Words of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Being inspired [God breathed]; this ensures that the author, though able to use their own style of writing and experiences are moved by the Holy Spirit without error to write the inerrant infallible things of God. They do not simply write all that they know or want to, but that which the Holy Spirit gives them utterance [2 Peter 1:20-21].

Secondly, time is not a factor, for the Holy Spirit (being of the Trinity) knows all, and is able to give man total recall of all that was, is, and will be, to the desire of God’s purpose. Christ gives this promise to His followers in John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Thirdly, for the sake of the authors, Matthew and John were for sure eyewitnesses to the ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ [Matthew 10:2-4, 1 Corinthians 15:4-6]. As for Mark and Luke, the above links can be viewed for more information but their gospel accounts (though some may go to great links to show where they vary) leave no margin of variance that can be deemed as proof that they are uninspired or made up.

The question then of the atheists or agnostic may be: “Isn’t it circular reasoning to consider the Bible inspired, because the Bible says it is inspired?”

This is a good question, but does not prove their idea that the argument of circular reasoning must discount the inspiration of Scripture, for their argument also attacks the very ideas of science itself which they deem to think right.

Example:
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

Other reading:
Agnostic asks whether biblical Christians commit circular reasoning.
Dating Rock Layers

Why You Can Believe The Bible

Do All Babies Go Heaven? If So, Why?

Sometime back the topic of "all babies going to heaven" came up in a group that I frequently visit. Recently a person present me with the notes they had that one had used to proved that indeed all babies go to heaven because they are innocent. Below I have color the notes in blue with my comments being in green.

Please feel free to agree or disagree and present your case.

As I begin this reply, please keep in mind that I am NOT saying all babies go to hell, some babies go to hell, or no babies go to hell. I do firmly believe ALL must go through Christ, whether baby, child, youth, or adult and therefore it is not simply because they are innocent.

Are Babies safe? Babies can not be saved in the normal sense
I really don’t understand the answer here. I am not sure what the “normal sense” means. If they are speaking of walking an isle, praying a prayer, confessing sin, etc. I guess not, but neither did the OT saints who are just as saved as any NT saint is. We must remember that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb [Luke 1:15] and Isaiah was called from the womb [Isaiah 49:1]. As mentioned later.


Are they under a special plan? Deut 1:39.. No knowledge of good and evil
To use this as a proof text that all children get to go to heaven, one could also use Moses being refused the opportunity to enter this same land as a Christian losing salvation and not being able to go to heaven – and for 1 sin.


James 4:17 Is it not sin if he doesn't know good and evil?
This verse speaks of a Christian that knows what is good and does not do it is sinning in disobedience of what God says he SHOULD do. This reference is not talking about what God has said NOT to do.


Jer 19:4-5 the small children and babies sacrificed were called innocents (clean, blameless, guiltless, exempted)
This is speaking of the fact that babies (it only says sons) had done nothing worthy to be offered as sacrifices. This is not speaking of sin, for even an adult would have been innocent of not being worthy of being sacrificed to false gods. It means it was not their choice.


I Cor 5:10 judgement according to works, sin committed during this life.
This reference is telling Christians who not to have company with. This deals with nothing concerning about babies or judgment of works.


If God sent a baby to Hell he'd be basing judgement on something else. His mercy and grace would be violated. There would be no divine judgement as the child would have no idea what he'd done.
First, mercy IS NOT giving someone something they DO deserve.
Second, grace IS giving someone something they DO NOT deserve.
If by reason we are saying babies are not “saved in the normal sense” and are “under a special plan” because they don’t “know good and evil” and we are only judged by “sin committed during this life” – it would bear to reason this person is saying they do not need mercy or grace at all, for they have done nothing wrong to require either.


God deals with his creations according to what they are and what they have done. He remains just, righteous, merciful
Adam disobeyed God, therefore a sin nature and dead spirit is passed down to every child when they are conceived, not when they reach an undisclosed time often called “the age of accountability”. There is not a single baby conceived that is innocent in the eyes of God, because fellowship has already been broken with mankind with Adam.


Sin is transgression...willful, knowingly, stubbornly choosing to cross the line. Infants and small children are not capable of this
Consider John 3:18, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
So then, are we condemned because we sin or because we do not have faith in Christ? So granted, John the Baptist and Christ preached repentance to the world, for those in the world have sins to turn away from. Though repentance is not enough to save, for clearly faith in Christ is preached. Yet the wicked speak lies from the womb [Psalm 58:3].


Jer 1:5 The prophet had a special relationship with God before his birth.So did John the Baptist. If these two had died before birth would they have gone to Heaven?
This is only proof that these men were chosen by God for a purpose, not a standard of “all babies go to heaven”, especially since these did not die, but lived to obey God. What if’s don’t prove anything.


"Therefore the death of an infant is proof of its salvation" (R.A.Webb)
A statement of personal thought, with no biblical support. What about death of a 10 year old?


Luke 18:15-17 Jesus prays over the little children told disciples to forbid them not to come, to allow them
1) We know adults must come like little children
2) a child's faith is enough, the right kind, quality
3) There is a special relationship between Jesus & babes
4) "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" Is Heaven occupied by billions ofsouls of babies?
I agree Christ told them to bring him the child and forbid them not to come. Christ did not say heaven was full of babies. He said, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” [17]. Christians are called the children of God. As a child puts faith if what their father says and believes him, so must we with the heavenly Father.


II Sam 12:7-10, 14-18. 23 David's child
Babies are safe because
1) they do not meet the conditions of judgement
2) God takes note of their innocence
3) Jesus claimed a special relationship with babies
This text is most likely of all the text presented that babies may all go to heaven. For we know that David went to Paradise and so met his child there. Although, it could be that God gave David special revelation as to that fact for his child alone. Both are “white page” reading at best. Even if we take the passage to conclude all babies go to heaven, it does not anywhere in the text or context state that they are received by Christ into glory based on their innocence – again, if that be the case, they need no Savior.


With that said, I truly believe that scripture teaches even babies (including aborted babies) must believe in Christ to go to heaven. Now before I draw negative feedback saying I believe they go to hell because someone says, “But they can’t get saved because they can’t hear or understand the word preached” – I gave examples of John the Baptist and Isaiah, and even David speaks of God being his from his mother’s womb [Psalm 22:10].

We must remember God is the creator, not us, therefore it is possible for the Spirit to draw babies (aborted or not) to have faith in Christ.

There is no scriptural support for one to claim babies get a free ride into heaven because they don’t know good and evil, because they are innocent of sin, and/or because they are pure – for that, my friend, would mean they need no Savior at all.

It has also been brought to my attention that babies cannot confess as Romans 10:9, 10 says they should:

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We must remember this was Paul talking to those which have recently denied Christ. They must now believe and confess Him.

Also if we make this the standard, we are saying most deaf and mute are unable to get saved.

God forbid...

Ethnic Diversity

Who hasn’t asked the question, “Where do races come from”? It is amazing what one may hear sometimes. There was even one that made it into a magazine that someone showed me one day that was very interesting, not that is was scriptural or true, but that a “religious” group actually held this view. I currently know of three different views I would like to present now.

[1] I have heard it said that there was a race separation between the children of Adam and Eve, namely Seth and Cain.

The problem I see with this is that there are only two children mentioned and there are more than two races, so then we would have to have a division of one or both of the children to properly consider the races we have.

---

[2] I have heard it said that the races came from Noah and his three sons, namely Shem, Ham, and Japheth. This view holds stronger than the Seth/Cain view for the simple fact that Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives (8) were the only survivors of the old world. It has even been said that there is only three basic races.

Whereas it may be true that there is only three basic races (yet I am not sure), I still find a problem with this view. One problem I see is that although Noah had three sons, I find it difficult to believe that he and his wife had three children that were difference races. Although it could be possible that their wives were each a different race, that leaves a lot of white page reading.

---

[3] I have heard it said that races were formed at the tower of Babel. At this time the world was of one language, one speech, and I believe still the one race from Noah. Here they decided to build a tower unto heaven. The LORD decided to come down to “confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech” and “scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth”.

In my opinion, this is where scripture is the clearest of the separation/creation of races. We have a separation of language and a separation of location. Before we were able to travel as we are able in recent times, pretty much races where divided by language and location.

---

Granted, it may very well be the case as in [2] that the races have come from the three sons of Noah [Genesis 10], but I believe biblically this did not take place until the tower of Babel, since at that time [Genesis 11] they were still of one language.

What have you heard and how do you agree or disagree?

Location of Hell Examined (Conclusion)

Conclusion:

I tried my best to simplify my belief concerning the Location of Hell, and use mostly scripture. There is a lot more concerning the issue if one would only take the time to study. Comparing science about the earth and further scripture concerning pit, earth, fire, hell, etc., I personally believe that scripture indeed clearly locates hell in the center of the earth.

Concerning one question that may arise, “If the earth is destroyed one day according to 2 Peter 3:10 for the new heavens and new earth, then wouldn’t that mean that hell is destroyed too?”

Revelation 20:14,
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


I have presented my case of scripture, it is up to you to decide if you believe scripture is telling us the location of hell is within the center of the earth or not. As admitted early, this is not a necessary belief for salvation, or a reason to break fellowship over.

All I ask is that you consider the scripture presented and consider the validity of whether the possibility exist that hell could very well be in the center of the earth. Remember before you cast it aside as a far out idea, please remember all of the supernatural things we have written within the Word of God, and ask yourself are all things possible with God.

And remember, just because I believe it does not make it so, but neither does ones unbelief make it not so.

As always, thanks for tuning in and have a nice day!

Don’t be afraid to share your beliefs with others!

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 5)

Point 5: “The heart of the earth”, not just the grave.

There are 3 recordings of the word “paradise” in scripture.

Christ told one of the others crucified with Him that they would be together that very day in paradise.

Luke 23:43,
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Yet Christ also told the people that He would not rise for three days.
Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31

Paul said that paradise was in the third heaven [2 Corinthians 12:4], and the apostle John says it has the tree of life and those that overcome will be able eat of it [Revelation 2:7] in the city [Revelation 22:14]. Interestingly the tree of life was in the mist of Eden [Genesis 2:9].

We know that Christ did not ascend into heaven within the three days following the crucifixion, for He told Mary that He had not as of yet on the day of His resurrection [John 20:17].

If paradise was in the third heaven (1 – where birds fly, 2 – moon and stars, 3 – God), then did Christ lie to the man on the cross with Him? No.

Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus? (I am aware than some consider this to be only a parable, which I disagree)

The rich man and Lazarus were in the same corporate location, but Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom (rest) and the rich man was in torment. They were separated by a gulf that neither could cross [Luke 16].

As Christ died, He said He would go to “the heart of the earth” [Matthew 12:40], but not be left in hell [Acts 2:31]. Yet Christ did not tell the one crucified with Him, “We will be together today in the grave”, but “We will be together today in paradise”.

During the three days between the crucifixion and the resurrection, Christ also “preached to the spirits in prison” [1 Peter 3:18-20].

Consider Ephesians 4:8-10,
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

In the above verses, we see that Christ, at His crucifixion, He “descended first into the lower parts of the earth” and then “ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men”.

Christ did not lie, but indeed met the thief in paradise (Abraham’s bosom) that day they both died, and upon the ascension He brought with Him paradise, the saints of old, to the third heaven, whereby it was seen by Paul.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 4)

Point 4: Jonah and Christ.

Luke 11:30,
For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

Jonah:

Jonah 1:17,
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Jonah 2:1, 2, 6,

1 Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.


Christ:

Matthew 12:39, 40,
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Acts 2:31,
He [DAVID] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his [CHRIST] soul was not left in hell, neither his [CHRIST] flesh did see corruption.


Point 5: “The heart of the earth”, not just the grave.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 3)

Point 3: The Pit and Hell are together.

Job 33:28,
He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

Psalm 16:10, For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Isaiah 14:15,
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Ezekiel 31:16,
I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Revelation 9:1, 2, 11
1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 11:7,
And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Revelation 17:8,
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20:1, 3
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Point 4: Jonah and Christ.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 2)

Point 2: The Pit and Hell extends to the lower and nether parts of the earth with bars.

Deuteronomy 32:22,
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Jonah 2:6,
I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

Psalm 86:13,
For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.

Ezekiel 26:20,
When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

Ezekiel 31:14,
To the end that none of all the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in their height, all that drink water: for they are all delivered unto death, to the nether parts of the earth, in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit.

Ezekiel 31:16,
I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Ezekiel 32:18,
Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.

Amos 9:2,
Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:


Point 3: The Pit and Hell are together.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 1)

Point 1: The Pit and Hell are down.

Numbers 16:30,
But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.

Job 11:8,
It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

Psalm 28:1,
Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.

Psalm 30:3,
O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.

Psalm 55:15,
Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.

Proverbs 15:24,
The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Isaiah 5:14,
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

Isaiah 14:9,
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Isaiah 14:15,
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 38:18,
For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

Matthew 11:23,
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.


Point 2: The Pit and Hell extends to the lower and nether parts of the earth with bars.

Location of Hell Examined (Intro)

Preface:
This post is not meant to prove the existence of hell, but is for the purpose of examining where I believe scriptural evidence points as to the location of hell. I would ask that you please reframe from arguing your current position – There is no hell - until a later date when I may post the subject of Does Hell Exist.

Purpose:
To share with others my view, with the use of scriptural support, that hell is indeed within the center of the earth.

Introduction:
For what I once thought was common knowledge appears to not be as wide spread as I imagined. Let it be noted that this is not a new idea or concept, but has actually been around quite sometime. I would ask that you please consider the concept, before just simply dismissing it on the basis that you have never heard it or that you currently believe differently. Although I believe the knowledge of hell is important, the location may not be as important and is definitely not something to break fellowship over.

Because of length I have decided to break it down into sections, or days. Hoping this will allow for separation of points, easier and quicker reading, and comments to each day to be made. Please feel free to share your pro/con points. I will limit the writing to only scripture unless necessary.

Point 1: The Pit and Hell are down.
Point 2: The Pit and Hell extends to the lower and nether parts of the earth with bars.
Point 3: The Pit and Hell are together.
Point 4: Jonah and Christ.
Point 5: “The heart of the earth”, not just the grave.
Conclusion

Once Saved Always Saved or Perseverance of the Saints

Eternal Security, the belief that when a person is genuinely converted to salvation by putting their faith in the finished work of Christ, that they are kept by the power of God and sealed by the Holy Spirit whereby it is impossible for them to lose that salvation and be separated again from the love of God. Although one may sin, as all do, following conversion, unconfessed sin is dwelt with by God through chastisement and not the loss of ones gift of salvation.

Within the camps of Eternal Security believers, there lies in this corner Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) and in this corner Perseverance of the Saints (POTS). At face value one might assume that they mean the same thing just different terminology. But that, my friend, would be an incorrect assumption, for they are very much different. Whereas the ends may meet as the individual crosses over into glory unable to lose his salvation, the means or actions by which he took while on this trip up the narrow road is indeed different.

For the sake of length and clarity, I will do my best to simplify both corners without a multitude of words. This is not a defense of either, but a simple act of trying to show that by no means are they the same. Please feel free to express your thoughts and correct me if you believe my understanding to be wrong.

Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS)
This position holds that a person may be genuinely saved by Christ and become a born again believer. Although saved, one may then return back into their fallen sinful state as if they had never been regenerated. They may have a lifestyle of the unsaved, yet because at one point in their life the trusted Christ, regardless of how they live their life or die, they are saved forevermore. An example would be while witnessing to a person they bow their head and ask Christ to save them, yet they never come to church or display any Christian qualities for the rest of their lives. This position claims that “if they really meant it”, then regardless that they never acted as a Christian, they are indeed one by virtue of them at one point in their life asking Christ to save them. No one can 100% say that they are saved or are not saved, by ones actions, for only God knows our hearts and if someone has actually asked Him to save them then they are indeed saved.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS)
This position agrees that a person is genuinely saved by Christ and becomes a born again believer. It also agrees that nothing, including sin, can separate a believer from the love of God and that it is impossible for one to fall from grace. Where this camp disagrees is that a true believer cannot and will not return to or remain in their previous unregenerate lifestyle. Not that a believer will be sinless, but that their lifestyle will become and remain that of a person striving to serve God, rather than that of a lost person disobeying God. It is not the individual which causes this, but the working of God within them. Lifestyle of the believer appears to be the difference. Because of the work of God within them, the believer’s desires shall be to serve God, even though they may faultier, yet they never turn to rejection of God, or a total non-desire, and back into their depravity. Although they may agree no one can know 100% who is and is not saved, one can know them almost positively by their fruits, their works and lifestyle.

I have been told that my thinking above is incorrect, but I have sat under teaching that believes one may be saved without acting like a Christian, whereas the others says when one is saved they will act like a Christian. In my opinion that is not the same teaching...

Further reading…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints

Church Discipline, On the Rise?

According to an article from BP News [here], there is a rise in church discipline among Southern Baptist. I find this interesting because I don’t recall even the concept often mentioned at all. Although I have heard the gossip of so and so doing this and that, I don’t usually hear any talk about church discipline or actually going to speak to the person for that matter. I guess it is easier to talk about someone than talk to someone.

As the article states, outlined in Matthew 18, we can find the order of church discipline.

[Step One - Individual]
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

[Step Two - Witnesses]
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

[Step Three - Church]
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Also contained in the same chapter is Christ’s idea of forgiveness [seventy times seven] with a warning [So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.]. In all things, even in church discipline we must remember charity [1 Corinthians 13], and not simply wrath.

Church discipline is supposed to lead one to repentance and again to embrace fellowship with one another. It is not meant for getting rid of people that “don’t think like me”. It should evolve clear biblical sin that one refuses to repent of. To me, it also takes more than just the pastor, the entire church needs to be prayerful and spiritually minded to put away gossip and have genuine concern for both the church and the individual(s).

What do you personally think about church discipline? Should we have it? Have you ever seen it or been apart of it? Express your views.

Why Me?

Who has never asked the question, “Why me”, when it comes to something that has taken place in our lives that we find depressing, catastrophic, unfair, or anything that we believe should not have come our way? The alternative, when sometime good happens to us, which may also be unfair (meaning we didn’t deserve it) we usually don’t hear, “Why me”, but “Thank you” or “I deserved it”. I would like to pose three things to think about next time either yourself or one of your friends have something happen in their lives to cause one to ask, “Why me”.

[1] I believe that some things happen to the unbeliever to bring them to Christ. It is ashamed to say, but some people seem to need drastic measures in their life to bring them to the place where they see their need for Christ as Savior. It is easy for the unbeliever to further reject God, but a healthy fear of God can draw them to Him in repentance. The fear is not to cause one to run from God, but to run to God for forgiveness and protection from His wrath. But also the love of God can cause them to run to Him for peace and comfort found only in faith in Christ. [Job 28:28; Matthew 11:28]

[2] I believe that when a Christian is disobedient in lifestyle, as in acting as a lost person by knowing what God has said but is living in open rebellion to it, God indeed will chasten them. God does not do this out of meanness, but out of love. As a loving father desires to see his child do well and enjoy good things, so much more is God the Father to His children. One should not get mad at God, but come to Him in repentance and obedience. [1 Corinthians 11:32; Hebrews 12]

[3] I believe that some things happen to Christians that are for examples to others, and not based on anything wrong they may have done. It is a test of faith, which brings them closer to God, and allows others (both believers and unbelievers) to see Christ through their obedience and character through unpleasant and sometimes unexplainable situations in life. [James 1:3; 1 Peter 1:7]

Regardless of which situation you find yourself, the thing to remember is that putting your trust in God is where we should start. Point the unbeliever and remind the believer of the grace and mercy found in God through the Savior Jesus Christ. [Romans 8:28]

“New” Millennium, Where Are You

To my knowledge, there are three formal views, yet there are those which take bits and pieces from some or each, which do not fall completely into one category. If you would, I ask that you post which view you subscribe and maybe a small why description, that we may all see the “other” side. Thanks!

Below each, I have noted why I accept or reject each view.

postmillennial viewpoint—Christ’s Kingdom is spreading throughout the world, and God’s justice will prevail across the earth prior to Christ’s return. After his reign is established through his people for a long duration (not necessarily a literal thousand years), Christ will physically return to an already utopian world.

Simply knowing human history through the pages of scripture, I find it difficult to believe that mankind would have the spirituality and/or power to bind the workings of Satan to allow Christ to return to a “utopian world”.


premillennial viewpoint—which would include much of dispensational theology and the teaching of a variety of scholars throughout church history—the Millennium will be a literal thousand year reign of Christ, which will begin immediately upon his return when he defeats his enemies in the battle of Armageddon. During these thousand years, God’s promises of the Messiah’s earthly reign will be fulfilled. Redeemed Jews will live in their homeland, and (according to some teachings) the church will govern the world with Christ. The Millennium will end with a final rebellion, and the old Earth will be replaced by, or transformed into, the New Earth.

I personally subscribe to this view as the truth or at the least the closest to biblical truth. It appears to grasp or flow from scripture easily without any need to search, twist, or reach for biblical support.


amillennial viewpoint—including most Reformed theology and the teaching of many scholars throughout church history—the Millennium isn’t a literal thousand years, nor is it a future state. Rather, the events depicted in Revelation 20:3-7 are happening right now as Christ’s church reigns with him over the earth, in victorious triumph empowered by his death and resurrection. The saints rule over the earth from the intermediate Heaven, where they dwell with Christ.

I find fault with this view in conjunction with: Revelation 20:3, And cast him [Satan] into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

It appears to me that the nations have been and still are being deceived by Satan before, during, and after the crucifixion even up till today. I don’t see a time in history where Satan has been supposedly bound for any amount of time, nor do I believe we are currently in the “little season”.


panmillennial viewpoint—for the sake of a friend of mine that just believes “it will all pan out in the end”.

How can I disagree? We know Christ wins in the end.

Thank goodness we serve the God of gods, Lord of lords, and Kings of kings!

---

I have pulled the definitions of each from here, but I did not read the entire article.

Others Besides Adam and Eve / Cain’s Wife

The topic of “Were there other people besides Adam and Eve outside of the Garden of Eden” and “Where did Cain get his wife” has been brought to my attention numerous times over the years. So, for the sake of those inquires, I have posted here what I believe we find in scripture.

If one disagrees, please, feel free to share further biblical insight that we may all learn.

---

Genesis 2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

There were no other people alive at the time. If there were other people, then surely there would have been at least one woman for Adam.

Genesis 2:23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Eve, Woman, was made from Man. Which man? Adam. So, there were no women before Eve.

Genesis 3:20: And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Notice, Eve is the mother of all living. Again, she was the first woman (Genesis 3:20), so that makes her the first woman to give birth (Genesis 4:1) and therefore the mother of us all.

Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Who is “the man”? Adam (Genesis 2:15-19).

Genesis 5:1: This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Notice “God created man in the likeness of God.” This is only said of Adam in Genesis 1:27. So, if there were other people (mankind) at the time, they would not be “created…in the likeness of God”.

Genesis 5:2: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Now, we see God created “male and female” and “called their name Adam.” With this said, take note of these facts:

---

· “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) But, it only mentions Adam. Yet, Adam is the man (Genesis 2:15-19).

· Genesis 2:4 starts over with “These are the generations of the heavens…” explaining Genesis 1 further.

· Note that “God formed man of the dust of the ground” in Genesis 2:7.

· Now note that “the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:22) Notice that the woman (Eve) was made from the man (Adam) and not of the ground as the man (Adam) was. That is why is says here in Genesis 5:2, “and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

---

Deuteronomy 32:8: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Again, Adam, the first man, is mentioned. Why not anyone else if there was another linage besides the man, Adam, living outside of the garden?

Chronicles 1:1: Adam, Sheth, Enosh,

Again, Adam is mentioned as the first of all mankind.

Luke 3:38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Again, Adam is directly related as the first man, formed by God.

1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Notice that all mankind are sinners (Romans 3:23), because of the sin of Adam. If there were people outside of the garden – they would not be held to this sin or death, nor would they have a Savior in Christ (Romans 6:23). We are all born of Adam; therefore we are all born sinners and die. By accepting Christ as Savior we are then born of the Spirit and are made alive in Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Clearly, Adam was the first man – and the last Adam, the quickening spirit, is Christ.

There is NO PROOF of any other mankind creation ANYWHERE in Scripture.

So where did Cain get his wife?

Cain married his sister.

When did it become a sin to marry your sister?

There was no law given in Genesis 4. I do not believe one was given until Leviticus 18.

---

Check out Richard's Good and Bad, or Vice Versa

Why Must I Forgive?

One of the hardest things to do sometimes is to forgive someone. Especially if they haven’t asked us too, or we don’t think they are really sincere in asking, or they have hurt us or someone we care about really deeply.

Sometimes [or oftentimes] we don’t really want to consider it fair to simply have someone tell us, “I am sorry”. We usually want that person to have to “pay” for what they did. “I want justice!” - Justice then forgiveness -

Interestingly, we usually become hypocritical in our thinking when it is us who are the ones guilty and are in need of forgiveness. We fumble around the idea that something or someone has caused us to do something, we may think that it is petty that the other person will not forgive us, but seldom do we actually want to consider that we deserve punishment for our actions and we can’t understand why the person just want forgive us. I said, “I’m sorry. What more do you want from me?”

In Matthew 18:21, 22 Christ said we should forgive 7 times 70. The context is not to count to 490 and stop forgiving, though we often do keep a record and can easily recall it.

Christ said the whole law hinges on two commandments: [1] Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. [2] Love your neighbor as yourself.

Ephesians 4:32 says, “be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.”

We are to forgive, not because someone deserves it, but because we love God we are to love them and because God has forgiven us we are to forgive them.

God will take care of the fair and justice part.

Dressing for Abomination

I was once told by a young lady I know that she went to church with a friend of hers one Sunday and apparently the Sunday school teacher told them that Jesus did not love them dressed like they were.

Now I am not going to defend what they were wearing because I wasn’t there, but she didn’t describe anything vulgar to me. I am also not going to defend the words of the teacher either. Christ’s love is not based on what clothes we wear. This may sound like good preaching to those of like mind, but it doesn’t witness well and isn’t very scriptural.

Let me begin by saying that with this article, by no means am I giving the authority to any woman to rebel against their husband’s desire for their apparel. God has put the husband over the wife, not because they deserve it, but because of His own good pleasure [Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18]. So wives, remember, if you rebel against your husband on this issue, you are also rebelling against God who has chosen to put you in subjection to your husband [1 Samuel 15:23].

I would also say to the men that we are to love our wives “even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” [Ephesians 5:25]. In being the head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church [Ephesians 5:23], we are to mimic Christ. Christ tells His church, “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” [Matthew 11:30], so lets us lay no more burdens than necessary upon our wives; especially in things that are not scripturally based.

----------

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” [Deuteronomy 22:5]

It would indeed be much simpler if the entire chapter gave context and a multitude of more information, yet the verse is actually easier to understand than we make it.

The verse says:
1. “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man”
2. “neither shall a man put on a woman's garment”
3. “all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God”

I won’t really cover item #3 since men pretty much agree on that point. It comes easy to men and women to cast judgment and look at others as abominations when we judge them all the day long. It is when we are judged ourselves we ask for mercy and grace; yet cry out “crucify them” to others.

We won’t really cover item #2 either because I don’t believe I have actually ever heard anyone talk about that issue except in the context of homosexuals or transvestites. Come to think of it, I have never even heard a sermon against kilts.

I do find it interesting as to the fact that I have yet to hear someone consider item #1 in the context of homosexuals or transvestites. Why it is almost always only mentioned in the context of women in general just wearing the attire that one [or group] seems to believe is man’s clothing? To the point, pants [jeans] is the most likely to be preached against by using this verse. I can’t think of much else it is used against except for in the pants verses skirts. “Men wear pants - women wear skirts.”

The verse is usually preached so strong and so forceful that it is often passed without any true context or scriptural support, and becomes legalism at its best [or worst]. Most children will rebel it in their hearts while most women fear ridiculed from others in the church more than actually fearing that they will be an abomination to God. Some women will also rebel this within their hearts, so men, are we the cause for their sin due to an unwarranted yoke?

Let it be known that usually the contenders of this verse are not merely speaking of modest apparel, but indeed preach that scripture says pants are only for men and that no woman should place them upon her body lest she be an “abomination unto the LORD thy God”. I have seen both immodest women in skirts and modest women in pants.

For the moment, for the sake of instruction, let us take the verse to the legalistic extreme.

I find it funny [for with this the argument easily begins to crumble] that when one is questioned as to the fact that Old Testament people all wore robes, they easily dismiss that to say it is not the same as pants today. But I say, “NOT SO” – If there be men and women robes in the Old Testament, why can their not be men and women pants of today?

Why do we then stop with pants only? What of socks and of sneakers, what of t-shirts and button down shirts, what of polo shirts and belts? Oh the list could go on. That which was first created for a man, how then can it be made also for a woman? This is not limited to pants only, but to even things the women of preachers of this context wear. Do their wives wear button down shirts, white socks, or sneakers?

Why do we become hypocritical in our thinking and allow substitutions for certain occasions as ski suits for skiing, tights under skirts so when they flash others only the tights are seen, coolots that are so flared it is like wearing a skirt on each leg and shows more skin than pants would?

I once saw a strong contender of this verse to the strictest degree place his suit coat over his wife’s shoulders. I asked him if he had just made his wife and “abomination unto the LORD thy God.” I do not believe he considered the meaning behind my statement, but I know he was not pleased by it.

This is the problem when we become too legalistic. When we are backed into a corner we are confronted with how hypocritical our thinking really is, then our pride swells our minds past scriptural understanding and we refuse to listen or admit we were wrong. Why? Simple: For the fear of ridicule from others in our camp.

Scripture clearly teaches that it is God that works in us to change first our hearts which leads to our outward appearance. Would you rather a lady of the heart with a desire to please both husband and God [which would lead to the changing of her outward appearance] or a woman “which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.” [Matthew 23:27]?

One last thought. Do you also follow Deuteronomy 22:11, 12? “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.”

Are we to push one away from God by placing strict legalistic yokes upon people by demanding "white page" Christianity or should we show mercy and grace while leading them to see the love of Jesus Christ? I pray that this lady I know does or will return to church, and more importantly may the Spirit convict her and God draw her to Christ, and that she accept Christ as Savior by faith regardless of what she may have been told in the past.

When is Abortion Murder?

I have just finished reading an article [here] from the Baptist Press and can’t help but comment.

The article begins with “Mississippi's Senate easily passed a bill Feb. 7 banning most abortions”, so my very first question then is what does “most” mean? They tell me in the second paragraph, “abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life”.

There are many which would applaud this effort, as in the example of Tanya Britton, president of Pro-Life Mississippi. She says [as reported] “Mississippi needs to go on record about its position on abortion so that there is no question that people in the state, No. 1, are pro-life and No. 2, do object vehemently to the taking of the life of any child”.

What exactly is the message that is being sent? The message being sent is not “Mississippi is pro-life”, but “Mississippi is conditionally pro-life”. There is a difference. If one is pro-life then we must also include being pro-life to the children of “rape, incest and to save the mother's life” situations.

I am not clear as to how they can claim on one hand “The Mississippi bill says "every human being, including those in utero, possesses a natural intrinsic right to live and has an interest in life" and that the abortion procedure is "inherently dangerous to the psychological and physical health of the woman.”, then on the other hand not include all abortions. That is like saying, “every baby, well every baby but these”.

So when exactly does abortion become murder? Apparently when one wants it to.

If abortion is wrong for the non “rape, incest and to save the mother's life” then it is wrong for the “rape, incest and to save the mother's life” case. It is like the cases that we have if a mother wants to abort [murder] the baby she is carrying it is just a fetus and not a baby and she may do so, but if she wants the baby and the baby [while unborn] is killed by someone else they can be charged with killing it.

What if they [the killer] are a doctor too, can they whip out their license to practice?

To say that an unborn baby is not a baby, a human, a child is like saying the mentally handicap child that can do nothing, which must be fed, bathed, and cared for in everyway is not a human either. God help us! Guess this is why we don’t have a problem with aided suicide either. You better pray before you are sent to the hospital and have to be put on machines – they’ll just unplug you I guess because you want be human either.

Just do a quick search of your Bible [you can even use BibleGateway.com], and see if an unborn child is a person in God’s eyes.

A simple look at John the Baptist clearly removes any doubt of whether an unborn baby is considered a live and indeed a person yet before they are born.

Luke 1:15, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb
Luke 1:44, For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Of course it is no secret that when a lady goes in to get an ultra sound by the fifth week, that soft sound one hears is called a heart beat [info].

I have heard that some wish to believe that a baby [fetus] is not a baby [child] until it comes forth from the womb and breathes its first breath. They site Genesis 2:7, by noting that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The only problem is we don’t see God breathing life into Eve, and I only have two children but neither of them came out of the womb needing someone to breathe life into them. This would only occur from a medical problem like the umbilical chord being wrapped around their neck or something in the womb.

My point is this: Yes it is good to be able to limit all of the abortions we possibly can, but we shouldn’t pat ourselves on the back and believe we have done God a great service or have shown our light proudly before a lost and dying world when we tell them that abortion is murder UNLESS for “rape, incest and to save the mother's life”.

I am sorry if one has been rape. Being a man and not having someone close to me having had to go through that situation I can’t even imagine how it must be. But I can say that the little baby growing inside of that lady is indeed a person and it was not their [the baby] fault that it happened either.

The same goes for the one that is pregnant due to incest. It is sickening that a father, that should be there to love and teach their daughters the things of God, would selfishly and perversely defile their own child for the sake of their own lust.

Both cases in mind: The babies in their wombs are still alive, just as John the Baptist was. So for us to tell the one that made the choice to become pregnant, “You can not abort”, yet the one that has been forced pregnant, “You can abort” is both hypocritical and unscriptural. We can tell neither, “It is okay for you to abort the child within your womb.”

Our problem is that our emotions want to feel sorry for one [which we should] and angry at the other [which we should also remember grace], and we let it cloud our mind from biblical perspective [i.e. Biblical truth from the Word of God].

As for the last case, “to save the mother's life”, in my opinion can not be associated with the others. Why? Because this is not a choice of the mother as to whether the child is a baby or not, but is a choice to decide who lives. Still a choice and still has consequences. I do not know the amount of cases of this, but surely they are slim compared to the number of abortion clinic cases. If it were me, I would tell the doctors to do whatever it takes to save both. Yet scripture declares, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” [John 15:13] I’ll let you decide if you should take this to allow the baby to live over the mother or not. The point is to remember that the child is still a child and not just okay to abort for the sake of it not really being a child yet or due to selfish reasons on the part of the mother.

Surely, if read, this will cause controversy, but let it not be due to emotion and feeling – let your thoughts be grounded in the Word of God, our final authority.

The cry, “It is my body and I should be able to do with it what I want” isn’t going to cut it with God. And don’t think that woman [child] in the belly that is fixing to be suck out wouldn’t make the same claim.