Frames of Reference - Questions

Can a Christian Support Abortion?

yeager — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:57:00 +0000

Abortion usually is one of those issues all Christians agree on. Since Obama’s healthcare plan contains loopholes for abortion (after he promised it wouldn’t), someone on Twitter contacted us with a reply we immediately found strange (you’ll soon see why):

@darrinyeager Interesting. Do you have any other sources, though? I don’t believe lifenews. http://twitter.com/KushielsMoon/status/18544169373

It’s one thing to state you need to further research a source (which is good), or they can be biased, or you want to find the other side to an argument. But denying facts because you don’t like where they came from? That’s the flip side (corollary) to the argument from authority fallacy; instead of accepting an argument because it comes from an authority (“trust me, I’m a doctor”), you reject it because you don’t like where it came from.

Because of this fact-denial-without-checking further research into this “pro-choice” Christian became interesting. First off, her view on the abortion-is-murder argument.

Abortion is clearly not murder, and it never has been murder. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2009/11/we-think-same.html

The first part remains under current debate, while the second isn’t — abortion isn’t murder, at least in the legal sense after Row v Wade. Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was illegal, and the logical legal charge would be (drum-roll please) … murder (malice, intent, premeditated, and deliberated). Not off to a good start, Ms. pro-choice.

Of course, as President Clinton made famous, “it depends on what your definition of murder is”. If you mean legal definition, Roe v Wade made terminating babies legal; allowing for some terminations, while prosecuting others as murder leads to bizarre legal wrangling, as Texas’ supreme court displayed.

Texas law allows the killing of a fetus to be prosecuted as murder, regardless of the stage of development, but the laws do not apply to abortions, the states’ highest criminal court has ruled … The Texas court said abortion precedent was based on the premise that a woman wants the procedure. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/us/23texas.html

The court ruled killing a baby is murder, except (because of Roe v Wade) in abortion cases, because the woman wants to terminate (with extreme prejudice) the baby, and that’s what Roe v Wade legalized an exception for — the premeditated termination of babies (aka first degree murder). In this strange legal arena, if a woman drives to an abortion clinic, but gets involved in an accident on the way there, the other driver can be prosecuted for murder. But in the absence of a vehicular accident, a few minutes later when then “doctor” injects saltwater or sucks out the baby’s brain, that is totally allowable because she wants to eliminate the baby.

Answering two questions reveals much about theology and her strange interpretations of the Bible to arrive at the position. First, a famous passage in Jeremiah, and second, how did she become a Christian?

Q: The sanctity of life doesn’t depend on your religion. Think about it. When is a person a person? Abortion does kill a human, and these pictures aren’t fake. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…”- Jeremiah 1:5.

A: It doesn’t matter if the fetus is a person or a zebra - no one and nothing can use a woman’s body against her will. As for your bible verse, it’s completely irrelevant. Unless your name is Jeremiah and you lived centuries ago. http://www.formspring.me/KushielsMoon/q/706821752

Au contraire, mon ami (in other words, wrong again).

The verse maintains relevance as it lays out a principle — God knew you before you were born. Man exists as a three-fold creation, body, soul, and spirit. The body forms at conception and exists until death; the spirit remains eternally.

Naturally, this gets back to her previous opinion abortion isn’t murder. She has to deny Bible verses she doesn’t like to fit her world view — that of being anti-life. But a strange definition of murder also fits into the problem.

… the humanity (or personhood) of the fetus is really irrelevant. Even if we said the fetus was a person, it still wouldn’t be murder for a woman to have an abortion. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2010/04/god-has-plan-for-all-fetuses.html?showComment=1274129103314#c4760886957394606568

We’ve not run into anyone holding this view (premeditated killing of an innocent isn’t murder) — it’s why pro-abortion people so desperately argue the baby isn’t really a person, or it’s just a mass of tissue (like a tumor). If it’s not a person it can be discarded as you wish.

Finally, we arrive at perhaps the reason for the strange opinions:

Q: How & when did you become a Christian?

A: My parents raised me Christian, so I’ve been Christian since I was baptized as an infant. As a teenager I choose to stay in the church I was raised in. http://www.formspring.me/KushielsMoon/q/292761122

Whoops — wrong again. Based on the Jeremiah passage and this comment, rather bizarre unorthodox theological views have been presented. Infant baptism does not save you. Paul spends most of his letters hammering the point salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ alone, so the so-called pro-choice Christian theology begins on an incorrect foundation.

But it’s not just regular theology presenting a problem; love as well lacks understanding:

you said: “are women killing their fetuses because they love them?”

My answer: Yes. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2010/04/god-has-plan-for-all-fetuses.html?showComment=1272597516317#c8236734152066306733

In case those views weren’t clear, we get an explanation (although perhaps a review of 1 Corinthians 13 is in order).

“Tell me. Is this the kind of love that causes a mother to kill her fetus?”

Yes.

“Is injecting chemicals into a fetus’ heart to stop its beating before instruments are introduced to dismember it kindness?”

Yes.

“Seeking the good of that fetus? Killing it is a selfless act?”

Yes. Yes. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2010/04/god-has-plan-for-all-fetuses.html?showComment=1272659317306#c5982133330269071768

NOTE TO COMMENTERS: You might want to read our comment policy before replying. In short, keep it polite. Disagreement is fine (even if you’re wrong), but incivility or personal attacks aren’t. Abortion remains (and always will be) a hot-button topic; if you can’t discuss politely, don’t bother at all.

We’ve talked to many pro-abortion people, and read lots of arguments on both sides, but honestly never found someone claiming premeditated extermination of an innocent person isn’t murder, and a mother expresses love for her child by aborting it. Do these strange views now pass as mainstream in the pro-abortion camp? If so, what’s next, eugenics? Euthanasia? Would any sanctity of life remain if killing a baby (recognized as a human person) for any reason could be considered an application of love?

Many would say a Christian can’t be anti-life and support terminating babies; this person justifies it using some strange unorthodox (and incorrect) theology. Do better reasons exist in the pro-abortion camp? We’d like to hear them.

What do you think? Do other “Christian” abortion supporters express similar views? How many people believe killing a baby expresses love? If killing a baby isn’t murder as this “pro-choice Christian” claims, up to what age can the baby be terminated without it being murder? Six months? A year? Eighteen (sort of a retro-active abortion)?

The pro-life verses pro-abortion argument comes down to a simple question: when does a baby deserve legal protection from someone desiring to kill it?

Q&A: 1967 Scofield

yeager — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:02:25 +0000

Does the 1967 Scofield leave the thee’s and thou’s? I have grown to appreciate them. There are certain words which do need updating to be sure, but I kind of like the thee’s and thou’s.

Yes, it does keep thee and thou, and that’s important to distinguish between singular and plural, as we noted in our Bible Translation article, in the section “Olde English”.

Why is this important? Consider Luke 22:31–32.

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:31–32 KJV)

Here you can easily see Satan asked for much more than Peter — perhaps the entire group! However, Jesus prays for Peter himself. The distinction easily missed in other translations (including NKJV) the KJV makes abundantly clear (a similar situation also occurs in Exodus 4:15). http://www.dyeager.org/post/2009/01/which-bible-translation-best

The 1967 Scofield only updated archaic words and words which changed meaning. It notes the changes with vertical bars, and places the original word in the side margin.

Q&A: Paul, Matthias and the Twelfth Apostle

yeager — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:52:08 +0000

A question sent via the contact form from my book The Troubled Church:

You quote I Corinthians 15:5 “…and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.” Your next comment following says “(later Paul makes the twelfth).” As I read Acts 1:22–26 the twelfth was Matthias not Paul.

In the book The Troubled Church (page 162) I state what most conservative scholars accept — Paul counts as the twelfth apostle to replace Judas, not Matthias.

You’re correct, the first chapter of Acts records the remaining group casting lots to pick a replacement for Judas. But what instruction had they been given? Jesus “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father”.

But Peter (acting when waiting was called for) took it upon himself to motivate the group to pick a replacement, to which they agreed; they didn’t follow Jesus’ directions. The next error came from limiting God’s actions by only providing two choices, and asking the Lord to pick one. The question wasn’t should we pick a replacement for Judas, it was which of these two will you pick Lord?

Most commentators note something along the following — Matthias may have been a good guy, but he’s never heard from again, yet Paul wrote a majority of the new testament, possessing apostolic authority while doing so. In short, man chose Matthias, God chose Paul.

At the least, you have to add Paul to the twelve (making the apostle group thirteen), but it’s generally viewed Paul as the twelfth apostle, and not counting Matthias as the group didn’t follow God’s instructions.

In case this thirteen-counted-as-twelve sounds a bit odd, it’s not the only time it happens in the Bible. Ask yourself, how many tribes of Israel exist?

If you think 12, you’re off by 1.

Q&A: Bible Translation

yeager — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:41:47 +0000

Here’s a note via the contact form, and since it does not contain an email address I can’t respond to it (if you send a message via the contact form, be sure to include an email address if you’re asking for a reply).

I did the research myself, and beleive the TR is likely the best Greek text. I have struggled with some of the arahic words, but the more one uses the KJV, the easier it gets. I know about the Majority Text position, but I cannot think God would sort of hide the best manuscripits for over 2,000 years.

May I ask what are your thoughts on the NKJV? I don’t mind the NKJV, but there is something about it I cannot point to but it doesn’t always flow the best. I actually think the NASB is a smoother translation, but off the wrong Greek text.

My last question on this issue is this. You mention the 1967 Scofield Bible, do you use that one? Do you like it? I found some on Ebay, and was wondering if it is better than the 2003 Scofield reissue which I use. Have you heard of the The Subject Bible? The KJV Store has it and it has the arachiac words defined which is good.

I’ll use NKJV for normal teaching, but since Nelson requires royalty payments to use the NKJV text (look in the front of your Bible and you’ll find the rules), in books and the web site I use KJV. After changing the spelling from British-> English and a few other changes (similar to the 1967 Scofield), you’ll find that’s the text which generally appears on the site and in my books.

Many “KJV-Only” people reject the NKJV (as well as the 1967 Scofield), but my position remains the same: a good-quality translation from the Textus Receptus base will always be acceptable. The NKJV isn’t perfect, but it’s solid. Personally, I find the NASB a bit too “wordy” to be used (a subjective idea to be sure), but since it follows Westcott-Hort/Alexandrian base and we have the NKJV from Textus Receptus, I’d prefer NKJV over NASB.

However, many people I highly respect use the NASB, and if you compare it to other “modern” translations, you’ll notice it follows Alexandrian base a little less than the others.

My primary Bible remains a 1967 Scofield KJV, and has been for 30 years or so (I have a well-worn first printing, and purchased a new one when they decided to re-issue it a few years ago. I thought it was still in print, but perhaps not). I prefer it over the newer Scofield releases as it replaces the archaic KJV words in the text, while making a note in the side notes. Thus, when reading it flows easily.

Example: 1 Thessolonians 4:15

KJV: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1967 Scofield: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not |precede|^gg them which are asleep. (in the side notes: ^ggKJV: prevent)

On the newer Scofield’s I’ve seen it’s opposite — they put the outdated word in the text and the newer word in the margin.

I don’t know anything about “The Subject Bible”, so can’t comment on it. I found the store listing, but I’d like to thumb through it a bit before saying anything about it.

Three Easy Methods to Get Current News

yeager — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:15:40 +0000

Many people ask how can we stay up to date with news? Events move fast, and network news isn’t always so … accurate. Lots of information exists on the Internet, but checking web sites consumes way too much time. Fortunately, several faster ways exist.

What is RSS?

RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication. Simply put, it’s a way for web sites to notify you when they add new content, instead of you having to check sites yourself.

For RSS to work, you need an RSS reader. If you use Google, try Google Reader. Other programs are FeedDemon, RSS Bandit, Akregator, and others.

Once you select a program to use, you enter the URL’s of the feeds you want to monitor (a few to get you started appear at the end of this article), and the program notifies you when new content appears (instead of having to manually visit the site and find new articles). You can monitor news, politics, science, blogs and more — most sites now publish RSS feeds.

It’s really that easy. Give it a try.

Twitter

The other alternative is Twitter. Many dismiss Twitter as a chat-line for teens, but it also carries news and information much faster than even blogs and web sites (even using RSS). If you’ve got a mobile phone with texting, you can use Twitter, and keep current with news whenever you’ve got a few minutes.

The problem with Twitter is who to follow. Again, we’ve got a few ideas to get you started. But be advised, these carry many different points of view, and you’ll likely find some you don’t agree with. That’s good, as since each source has bias, it’s vital to get views from many sides.

If you want to see what Twitter has without signing-up, you can check out our pre-built lists (and once you do sign-up with Twitter, you can follow these lists as well).

Newsletters

Many sites also publish email newsletters, or offer site updates via email instead of RSS and/or Twitter. For those preferring email instead of some of the newer methods, email remains a viable way to get information, although it doesn’t move as fast as RSS and Twitter.

Information on Frames of Reference Newsletter

Links

DISCLAIMER: Inclusion in these lists do not necessarily imply we agree with their viewpoints or endorse them. In fact, they may or may not be true. As with any source, you must check it out for yourself and don’t believe everything you read.

Twitter

http://twitter.com/darrinyeager Our Twitter feed, of course you want to follow it!

Lists which combine some of the following individuals, follow these two to get a rough sample of what’s available without being overwhelmed.

Individual groups and people appear below. Some represent mainstream news (ABC, Fox, Wall Street Journal, NPR), while others are pundits (Tammy Bruce) or former politicians (Newt Gingrich, George Stephanopoulos).

News/Other

Bruce Schneier One of the best resources on security. This is a must-follow!
Jill Stanek
Fox
Alliance Defense
AP
CNN Breaking
Conservative News
ABC
Wall Street Journal
Christian Coalition
CNSNews

Politics

RSS Feeds

If you don’t want to signup for Twitter just yet, try these RSS feeds.

Frames of Reference This site.
Hot Air Politics.
Slashdot Overall Computer/Tech/Politics/Current Events.

Fox News

CNN

Others

Q&A - Is the Best Bible Translation Personal Preference?

yeager — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:24:50 +0000

The Bible translation debate continues to create questions — how do you pick a translation to use? Are they really different?

This is really a confusing and disheartening issue because different people say different things with equal intent and support. I’m beginning to feel its an issue of simple preference?

It’s not a personal preference issue. Since the two textual bases differ, at most one is correct (or they’re both wrong). For example, if you say the sky is orange and I say it’s blue, I’m right and you’re wrong. If you say it’s orange and I say it’s purple we’re both wrong. But we can’t both be right in either case.

It’s not the KJV, it’s Textus Receptus verses the Alexandrian base text.

Since Textus Receptus and Alexandrian texts differ, they can’t both be correct. As to the Alexandrian base (today usually referred to as Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland, or UBS) we have an extensive article on Bible translation detailing these issues (it’s also available as a PDF).

It might surprise you to know many seminaries and/or pastors deny the virgin birth, resurrection, return of Jesus, and more. These so-called “modern translations” frequently follow those liberal theological ideas as they abandon orthodox Christianity. Westcott-Hort denied the creation and Eden, believed themselves Christs, and more.

Whatever you may think about textual analysis, the Bible translation discussion is most definitely not simply personal preference. All translations have problems, whether you use KJV, NKJV, NASB or NIV understand how your translation came to be, what textual base was used, and why they translators chose what they did.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

yeager — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:00:00 +0000

Perhaps one of the oldest questions is Why is there evil in the world? Or to put it a different way, why do bad things happen to good people? Where do we go for answers; what’s our authority? The Bible. But what exactly does the Bible say about such things? Certainly the most common answer we here is from the book of Job. There is much to learn there, but from a practical standpoint, but how do we use this information? Let’s look at two people of the bible, and what they had to say.

…there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. (2 Cor 12: 7-8 NIV)

This is Paul talking, the guy who wrote a significant part of the New Testament. While we may argue exactly what Paul’s thorn was, apparently he prayed three times for it to be removed, and each time the answer was no. Let’s also look at David, the author of many Psalms. In Psalm 22 he says:

My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; And in the night season, and am not silent. (Psalms 22:1-2 NKJV)

Now, we know Psalm 22 is a Psalm prophesying about Jesus Christ. Still, what situation could David have been in to cause him so much grief? These two people lead us to point #1.

Point #1 - If two giants of the bible suffered and had problems, you are not alone if you have them. This is not a uniquely New or Old Testament situation, everyone suffers through trials sometimes.

The first thing to note is, you are not alone. Everyone suffers through problems and trials at some point or another. Another common problem is we view trials as God’s punishment of us. This was essentially Job’s condition. His friends told him he must have sinned against God for this much disaster to strike him. As we read the book of Job, we find out who was really responsible for his disasters (Satan, - read chapter one of Job). But this still doesn’t solve our problem, why do these things happen? The answer lies in the following.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9 NIV)

Which leads us naturally to:

Point #2: The answer to the question of why bad things happen to good people is (drumroll please…) - I have no idea!

OK, before you abandon me totally, allow me to expand on the previous idea. Many times we have a strange idea that we should understand everything around us. As we learn from Quantum Physics, the more we learn, the more we realize the less we know. Imagine, it’s taken scientists thousands of years to catch up to Isaiah! But the point is, some knowledge is simply beyond our understanding. While we can speculate and debate about many things, sometimes the answer is simply “I don’t know”. Sadly, as humans our response so frequently is “That’s not good enough”. However, God says so, so if you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with him.

So, now that we have answered the age-old question (and in only about a page - it’s amazing how many “problems” are really no problem when viewed with a biblical mind-set), our new question becomes “What do we do now?” As usual, the Bible shows the answer.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5 NKJV)

Finally, something we can apply in our life! This is the crux of the issue. As Chuck Missler says (If I quote correctly) “It’s amazing how far the Lord goes to ask the question ‘Do you trust me’?” And what is our response? “Lord, I don’t know how this situation could work out, I’m in big trouble here!” If we can’t figure a way out, we don’t see how God can. Perhaps (just perhaps) many of our problems are simply God’s way of getting our attention. This leads to:

Point #3 - When faced with a situation you don’t understand, Rejoice! It is precisely these events that God uses to show his Power.

Perhaps you’ve heard the saying, “God helps those who help themselves”. Actually, God helps those who are incapable of helping themselves. By ourselves, we have no power. But through Him, we can do anything. Consider Daniel in the lions den, and his three friends in the fiery furnace. Moses and the Red Sea. Jesus and Lazarus. In all of these situations, the people involved had no power of their own to solve the situation. But looking to God, and the problem is solved. “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me? (Jeremiah 32:27 NKJV)

And lest you think that God ever forgets about you and your problems, Jesus himself spoke of the Father’s love for us in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? (Matthew 6:25-26 NKJV)

Paul also has practical information in the same passage where he was praying for his thorn to be removed, where he records the Lord’s response to his request.

And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:9-10 NKJV)

Let’s review what we have learned.

First, trials and suffering are not yours alone. The Bible is full of people being brought through various trials.
Second, God says some things are beyond our understanding. The fact we don’t understand something should not bother us.
Third, nothing is too difficult for God, and he is completely aware of our problems.
Lastly, look at what Paul wrote again. For when I am weak, then I am strong. As long as we trust in the Lord, there is nothing to fear.