Pro-life advocates present a formal case for their position.
A pro-life advocate can defend that syllogism in 1 minute or less.
That abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being is conceded by many who perform and defend the practice.
The Bible is pro-life even if the word “abortion” does not appear.
The Bible’s alleged silence on abortion does not mean that its authors condoned the practice.
Preaching on abortion is not a distraction from the Great Commission responsibilities of the local church, but integral to it.
The pro-life position does not rely on personal perspectives.
Pro-life Christians tell a better equality story.
Abortion-victim photography changes the narrative.
The remedy for post-abortion guilt is not avoidance. It’s forgiveness.
I have to share #6 here:
6. Preaching on abortion is not a distraction from the Great Commission responsibilities of the local church, but integral to it.
P1: In the Great Commission, Christ charged the church to go make disciples.
P2: The way we make disciples is to “teach them to obey” his commands.
P3: One of those commands is that we are not to shed innocent blood.
P4: Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood.
C: Therefore, preaching on abortion relates to the Great Commission responsibilities of the local church.
There is more to spiritual leadership than just fussing about Bible verses, prayers, Bible studies, and other private, pious feelings-oriented things. To make a disciple of a person, you have to teach them right and wrong persuasively. Abortion is one of those issues that we are confronting today. People spiritualize spiritual leadership, but it’s more practical than just having feelings.
You should read all 10 points – it’s a short article, and well worth your time.
Dr. Wallace influences students across the country through his textbook on intermediate Greek grammar. It has become the standard textbook in the English-speaking world on that subject. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Evangelical Theological Society.
[…]He has been a consultant on four different Bible translations.
[…] He works extensively in textual criticism, and has founded The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org), an institute with an initial purpose of preserving Scripture by taking digital photographs of all known Greek New Testament manuscripts.
[…]His postdoctoral work includes work on Greek grammar at Tyndale House in Cambridge, textual criticism studies at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, and the Universität Tübingen, Germany.
Eric Chabot, who blogs at Think Apologetics, found this interview that addresses the charge you often hear about how you can’t get back to the original New Testament documents.
It talks about:
textual criticism
number of New Testament manuscripts
earliest New Testament manuscripts
the number and impact of textual variants
responding to the “telephone game” objection
responding to the scribes tampered with the text objection
And here is an article by Dr. Wallace that corrects other misconceptions about the transmission and translation of the Testament.
He lists five in particular:
Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.
Myth 2: Words in red indicate the exact words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth.
Myth 3: Heretics have severely corrupted the text.
Myth 4: Orthodox scribes have severely corrupted the text.
Myth 5: The deity of Christ was invented by emperor Constantine.
Finally, a quote from skeptical historian Bart Ehrman, as reproduced in this post on the Christian Apologetics Alliance blog:
The curious thing about Bart Ehrman is that the views he articulates in his popular-level work are not the same as those he espouses in his professional/scholarly publications. Indeed, readers may find this curious and very telling quotation, taken from the appendix (p. 252) of Misquoting Jesus, of interest:
“Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” [Emphasis added]
Finally, I think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows us that religious texts don’t change as much as we think they do over time.
Look:
The Dead Sea Scrolls play a crucial role in assessing the accurate preservation of the Old Testament. With its hundreds of manuscripts from every book except Esther, detailed comparisons can be made with more recent texts.
The Old Testament that we use today is translated from what is called the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who between A.D. 500 and 950 gave the Old Testament the form that we use today. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, the oldest Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Aleppo Codex which dates to A.D. 935.{5}
With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now had manuscripts that predated the Masoretic Text by about one thousand years. Scholars were anxious to see how the Dead Sea documents would match up with the Masoretic Text. If a significant amount of differences were found, we could conclude that our Old Testament Text had not been well preserved. Critics, along with religious groups such as Muslims and Mormons, often make the claim that the present day Old Testament has been corrupted and is not well preserved. According to these religious groups, this would explain the contradictions between the Old Testament and their religious teachings.
After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'”{6}
A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.
One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”{7}
Despite the thousand year gap, scholars found the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls to be nearly identical. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide valuable evidence that the Old Testament had been accurately and carefully preserved.
I hope that this post will help those who think that we can’t get back to the text of the original New Testament documents.
Last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a new rule in relation to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which will require all hospitals to perform abortions and sex change operations under the auspice of Title IX protections, or lose their federal funding, which includes Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.
The rule did not include an exemption for religious freedom, although HHS does admit that “existing protections for religious freedom and conscience” may still apply — an ironic admission given the administration’s unwillingness to compromise with the Little Sisters of the Poor.
[…]What are the real world consequences of this?
Well, to start, a substantial portion of hospital revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. A hospital simply can’t function without this funding. It’s not possible. So by potentially forcing religious hospitals to perform abortions and sex change operations against their beliefs, which most will not do, the HHS hospital mandate could effectively shut them all down.
Sixty-two percent of all hospitals in the U.S. are non-profit hospitals, and the vast majority of those have religious affiliations. A mass exodus of religious hospitals would completely shake the health care system, destroy communities, ruin livelihoods, and put thousands of lives at risk.
Right now, we live in a time where health care is under the control of the federal government. Many, many people of faith voted for a secular government to be in control of health care. They thought that it would be more “fair” than letting people control health care at the state or local level. Now they are finding out what happens when you let a big secular government take over huge parts of the economy. There are people of faith working in hospitals. If only their employer forced them to do a sex change or an abortion, they could move to another employer, perhaps in another state. But when you put the control up at the federal level, there is nowhere to run. You have to comply, or lose your job. And no matter how tough a Christian talks, no one can survive without food to eat and water to drink. We have to earn a living, and this President is making it impossible to work and be an authentic Christian at the same time.
Are we ready for pastors to talk about serious matters in church, now? Or is it still going to be the singing, the feelings, the piety? Maybe spiritual leadership needs to be expanded to include practical issues.
