What does the Bible say about abortion? (With link)

[°Leprechaun]

Double predestination is a very cruel idea.

[Benjamin Frank]

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

That is a fair argument for Evangelicals but not for most other Christians.

The problem is that most Christian denominations use these passages inconsistently. While Evangelicals believe in predestination, most other denominations do not. So, inconsistently most denominations argue these passages on God 'knowing David and Jeremiah' in utero is Biblical evidence that all humans are fully formed in the womb from conception, but when it comes to predestination, they turn around and argue 'we can only know for certain that God 'knew' David and Jeremiah, this is not evidence that God 'knew' any other human.'

This inconsistency is obviously especially damning of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does teach predestination, just not double predestination.

Oh no, it actually doesn't.  The Catholic Church argues free will not predestination.

The Catholic Church permits a range of views on the subject of predestination, but there are certain points on which it is firm: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (CCC 1037). It also rejects the idea of unconditional election, stating that when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”

In fact, the Catholic Church only argues for predestination for David and Jeremiah, because the Bible says God 'knew' them in the womb.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-predestination

Free will vs predestination is a binary.  If you are trying to split the difference as I outlined in my previous post, as I also said in that post, there is no textual evidence in the Bible to support that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

That is a fair argument for Evangelicals but not for most other Christians.

The problem is that most Christian denominations use these passages inconsistently. While Evangelicals believe in predestination, most other denominations do not. So, inconsistently most denominations argue these passages on God 'knowing David and Jeremiah' in utero is Biblical evidence that all humans are fully formed in the womb from conception, but when it comes to predestination, they turn around and argue 'we can only know for certain that God 'knew' David and Jeremiah, this is not evidence that God 'knew' any other human.'

This inconsistency is obviously especially damning of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does teach predestination, just not double predestination.

Oh no, it actually doesn't.  The Catholic Church argues free will not predestination.

The Catholic Church permits a range of views on the subject of predestination, but there are certain points on which it is firm: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (CCC 1037). It also rejects the idea of unconditional election, stating that when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”

In fact, the Catholic Church only argues for predestination for David and Jeremiah, because the Bible says God 'knew' them in the womb.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-predestination

Free will vs predestination is a binary.  If you are trying to split the difference as I outlined in my previous post, as I also said in that post, there is no textual evidence in the Bible to support that.

Your link directly contradicts what you're saying it says.

[Benjamin Frank]

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

That is a fair argument for Evangelicals but not for most other Christians.

The problem is that most Christian denominations use these passages inconsistently. While Evangelicals believe in predestination, most other denominations do not. So, inconsistently most denominations argue these passages on God 'knowing David and Jeremiah' in utero is Biblical evidence that all humans are fully formed in the womb from conception, but when it comes to predestination, they turn around and argue 'we can only know for certain that God 'knew' David and Jeremiah, this is not evidence that God 'knew' any other human.'

This inconsistency is obviously especially damning of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does teach predestination, just not double predestination.

Oh no, it actually doesn't.  The Catholic Church argues free will not predestination.

The Catholic Church permits a range of views on the subject of predestination, but there are certain points on which it is firm: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (CCC 1037). It also rejects the idea of unconditional election, stating that when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”

In fact, the Catholic Church only argues for predestination for David and Jeremiah, because the Bible says God 'knew' them in the womb.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-predestination

Free will vs predestination is a binary.  If you are trying to split the difference as I outlined in my previous post, as I also said in that post, there is no textual evidence in the Bible to support that.

Your link directly contradicts what you're saying it says.

Look at it again. I quoted from it directly. It starts off discussing the Calvinist position not the Catholic position. The Calvinists are precursors/related to Evangelicals (as I'm sure you know better than me), so it's not a surprise the Calvinists would be supportive of predestination.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

That is a fair argument for Evangelicals but not for most other Christians.

The problem is that most Christian denominations use these passages inconsistently. While Evangelicals believe in predestination, most other denominations do not. So, inconsistently most denominations argue these passages on God 'knowing David and Jeremiah' in utero is Biblical evidence that all humans are fully formed in the womb from conception, but when it comes to predestination, they turn around and argue 'we can only know for certain that God 'knew' David and Jeremiah, this is not evidence that God 'knew' any other human.'

This inconsistency is obviously especially damning of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does teach predestination, just not double predestination.

Oh no, it actually doesn't.  The Catholic Church argues free will not predestination.

The Catholic Church permits a range of views on the subject of predestination, but there are certain points on which it is firm: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (CCC 1037). It also rejects the idea of unconditional election, stating that when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”

In fact, the Catholic Church only argues for predestination for David and Jeremiah, because the Bible says God 'knew' them in the womb.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-predestination

Free will vs predestination is a binary.  If you are trying to split the difference as I outlined in my previous post, as I also said in that post, there is no textual evidence in the Bible to support that.

Your link directly contradicts what you're saying it says.

Look at it again. I quoted from it directly. It starts off discussing the Calvinist position not the Catholic position. The Calvinists are precursors/related to Evangelicals (as I'm sure you know better than me), so it's not a surprise the Calvinists would be supportive of predestination.

The Catholic position is self-described as involving predestination. You're of the belief that it's predestination in name only being presented dishonestly, but that is interpretation, an interpretation that your source rejects. I would have made this interpretative difference clearer if I were you.

[Benjamin Frank]

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

That is a fair argument for Evangelicals but not for most other Christians.

The problem is that most Christian denominations use these passages inconsistently. While Evangelicals believe in predestination, most other denominations do not. So, inconsistently most denominations argue these passages on God 'knowing David and Jeremiah' in utero is Biblical evidence that all humans are fully formed in the womb from conception, but when it comes to predestination, they turn around and argue 'we can only know for certain that God 'knew' David and Jeremiah, this is not evidence that God 'knew' any other human.'

This inconsistency is obviously especially damning of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does teach predestination, just not double predestination.

Oh no, it actually doesn't.  The Catholic Church argues free will not predestination.

The Catholic Church permits a range of views on the subject of predestination, but there are certain points on which it is firm: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (CCC 1037). It also rejects the idea of unconditional election, stating that when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”

In fact, the Catholic Church only argues for predestination for David and Jeremiah, because the Bible says God 'knew' them in the womb.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-predestination

Free will vs predestination is a binary.  If you are trying to split the difference as I outlined in my previous post, as I also said in that post, there is no textual evidence in the Bible to support that.

Your link directly contradicts what you're saying it says.

Look at it again. I quoted from it directly. It starts off discussing the Calvinist position not the Catholic position. The Calvinists are precursors/related to Evangelicals (as I'm sure you know better than me), so it's not a surprise the Calvinists would be supportive of predestination.

The Catholic position is self-described as involving predestination. You're of the belief that it's predestination in name only being presented dishonestly, but that is interpretation, an interpretation that your source rejects. I would have made this interpretative difference clearer if I were you.

Interesting point. I'll think on it more.  Thanks for probably correcting me.

[Associate Justice PiT]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

     This is a good, concise summary. One of the biggest falsehoods that gets passed around about Christianity today is that Christian opposition to abortion did not exist until the 1970s. The thing is that this talking point is targeted at Evangelicals, who as a rule do not put significant emphasis on extrabiblical writings. American thought tends to take the Evangelical tradition as the "normal" form of Christianity, to the point that they really don't know how to talk to people who come from churches that put weight on historical as well as scriptural evidence.

[nicholas.slaydon]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

     This is a good, concise summary. One of the biggest falsehoods that gets passed around about Christianity today is that Christian opposition to abortion did not exist until the 1970s. The thing is that this talking point is targeted at Evangelicals, who as a rule do not put significant emphasis on extrabiblical writings. American thought tends to take the Evangelical tradition as the "normal" form of Christianity, to the point that they really don't know how to talk to people who come from churches that put weight on historical as well as scriptural evidence.

Very true, though admittedly St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and Aquinas (among other early Christians) came to their conclusions about abortion more through their understanding of human philosophy and not from a reasoning from the scriptures. Yet, the churches that are the most anti-abortion generally are the ones that claim that their only authority are the scriptures (which are vague at best regarding the beginning of life, and totally silent about the actual practice of abortion), and want nothing to do with church history predating Luther.

[Associate Justice PiT]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

     This is a good, concise summary. One of the biggest falsehoods that gets passed around about Christianity today is that Christian opposition to abortion did not exist until the 1970s. The thing is that this talking point is targeted at Evangelicals, who as a rule do not put significant emphasis on extrabiblical writings. American thought tends to take the Evangelical tradition as the "normal" form of Christianity, to the point that they really don't know how to talk to people who come from churches that put weight on historical as well as scriptural evidence.

Very true, though admittedly St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and Aquinas (among other early Christians) came to their conclusions about abortion more through their understanding of human philosophy and not from a reasoning from the scriptures. Yet, the churches that are the most anti-abortion generally are the ones that claim that their only authority are the scriptures (which are vague at best regarding the beginning of life, and totally silent about the actual practice of abortion), and want nothing to do with church history predating Luther.

     I think the important thing to understand is that the Church Fathers were not averse to knowing human philosophy. St. Basil the Great writes on the value of pagan literature, and he says that there are fruitful things in them that Christians can benefit from. Indeed St. Basil the Great makes as clear a reference to pagan philosophy as anyone in his condemnation of abortion, rejecting the Aristotelian standard of formation as a proper demarcation of the sanctity of life and calling the killing of the unformed baby murder.

     As for saying Evangelicals are more anti-abortion, it might be that they are more political generally. Orthodoxy by its nature is very anti-abortion and there is no defensible basis within our tradition for thinking it is acceptable. Yet we don't often talk about politics in general, and so we probably talk about abortion much less than Evangelicals do.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

     This is a good, concise summary. One of the biggest falsehoods that gets passed around about Christianity today is that Christian opposition to abortion did not exist until the 1970s. The thing is that this talking point is targeted at Evangelicals, who as a rule do not put significant emphasis on extrabiblical writings. American thought tends to take the Evangelical tradition as the "normal" form of Christianity, to the point that they really don't know how to talk to people who come from churches that put weight on historical as well as scriptural evidence.

Very true, though admittedly St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and Aquinas (among other early Christians) came to their conclusions about abortion more through their understanding of human philosophy and not from a reasoning from the scriptures. Yet, the churches that are the most anti-abortion generally are the ones that claim that their only authority are the scriptures (which are vague at best regarding the beginning of life, and totally silent about the actual practice of abortion), and want nothing to do with church history predating Luther.

     I think the important thing to understand is that the Church Fathers were not averse to knowing human philosophy. St. Basil the Great writes on the value of pagan literature, and he says that there are fruitful things in them that Christians can benefit from. Indeed St. Basil the Great makes as clear a reference to pagan philosophy as anyone in his condemnation of abortion, rejecting the Aristotelian standard of formation as a proper demarcation of the sanctity of life and calling the killing of the unformed baby murder.

     As for saying Evangelicals are more anti-abortion, it might be that they are more political generally. Orthodoxy by its nature is very anti-abortion and there is no defensible basis within our tradition for thinking it is acceptable. Yet we don't often talk about politics in general, and so we probably talk about abortion much less than Evangelicals do.

Do you think this has something to do with Orthodox churches' traditional relationship with their "home" nations' governments? (ROC in Russia, for example)

[Associate Justice PiT]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

     This is a good, concise summary. One of the biggest falsehoods that gets passed around about Christianity today is that Christian opposition to abortion did not exist until the 1970s. The thing is that this talking point is targeted at Evangelicals, who as a rule do not put significant emphasis on extrabiblical writings. American thought tends to take the Evangelical tradition as the "normal" form of Christianity, to the point that they really don't know how to talk to people who come from churches that put weight on historical as well as scriptural evidence.

Very true, though admittedly St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and Aquinas (among other early Christians) came to their conclusions about abortion more through their understanding of human philosophy and not from a reasoning from the scriptures. Yet, the churches that are the most anti-abortion generally are the ones that claim that their only authority are the scriptures (which are vague at best regarding the beginning of life, and totally silent about the actual practice of abortion), and want nothing to do with church history predating Luther.

     I think the important thing to understand is that the Church Fathers were not averse to knowing human philosophy. St. Basil the Great writes on the value of pagan literature, and he says that there are fruitful things in them that Christians can benefit from. Indeed St. Basil the Great makes as clear a reference to pagan philosophy as anyone in his condemnation of abortion, rejecting the Aristotelian standard of formation as a proper demarcation of the sanctity of life and calling the killing of the unformed baby murder.

     As for saying Evangelicals are more anti-abortion, it might be that they are more political generally. Orthodoxy by its nature is very anti-abortion and there is no defensible basis within our tradition for thinking it is acceptable. Yet we don't often talk about politics in general, and so we probably talk about abortion much less than Evangelicals do.

Do you think this has something to do with Orthodox churches' traditional relationship with their "home" nations' governments? (ROC in Russia, for example)

     There are definitely cases where that has been true, e.g. in the USSR where public criticism of abortion was forbidden and so the Moscow Patriarchate remained tragically silent on the matter. In today's world, I think it is more a factor of salvation in the Orthodox paradigm is seen as being primarily a result of practicing the authentic spiritual life and coming into union with God thereby. The concept of the social gospel never took off in the East as it did in the West, and so political matters are naturally seen as less relevant to the message of the Church (though neither are they off-limits).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

     This is a good, concise summary. One of the biggest falsehoods that gets passed around about Christianity today is that Christian opposition to abortion did not exist until the 1970s. The thing is that this talking point is targeted at Evangelicals, who as a rule do not put significant emphasis on extrabiblical writings. American thought tends to take the Evangelical tradition as the "normal" form of Christianity, to the point that they really don't know how to talk to people who come from churches that put weight on historical as well as scriptural evidence.

Very true, though admittedly St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and Aquinas (among other early Christians) came to their conclusions about abortion more through their understanding of human philosophy and not from a reasoning from the scriptures. Yet, the churches that are the most anti-abortion generally are the ones that claim that their only authority are the scriptures (which are vague at best regarding the beginning of life, and totally silent about the actual practice of abortion), and want nothing to do with church history predating Luther.

     I think the important thing to understand is that the Church Fathers were not averse to knowing human philosophy. St. Basil the Great writes on the value of pagan literature, and he says that there are fruitful things in them that Christians can benefit from. Indeed St. Basil the Great makes as clear a reference to pagan philosophy as anyone in his condemnation of abortion, rejecting the Aristotelian standard of formation as a proper demarcation of the sanctity of life and calling the killing of the unformed baby murder.

     As for saying Evangelicals are more anti-abortion, it might be that they are more political generally. Orthodoxy by its nature is very anti-abortion and there is no defensible basis within our tradition for thinking it is acceptable. Yet we don't often talk about politics in general, and so we probably talk about abortion much less than Evangelicals do.

Do you think this has something to do with Orthodox churches' traditional relationship with their "home" nations' governments? (ROC in Russia, for example)

     There are definitely cases where that has been true, e.g. in the USSR where public criticism of abortion was forbidden and so the Moscow Patriarchate remained tragically silent on the matter. In today's world, I think it is more a factor of salvation in the Orthodox paradigm is seen as being primarily a result of practicing the authentic spiritual life and coming into union with God thereby. The concept of the social gospel never took off in the East as it did in the West, and so political matters are naturally seen as less relevant to the message of the Church (though neither are they off-limits).

Would the traditional relationship of, say, the ROC to the Russian state (pre-1917, post-1991) also play a role in the Church's hesitance to concern itself with "wordly" affairs, or its lack of a social gospel [e.g., either (a) the Church had restricted room to maneuver and was not in a position to promote activism, or (b) concerns of the temporal world could simply be entrusted to a separate institution, the state]?

[Associate Justice PiT]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

     This is a good, concise summary. One of the biggest falsehoods that gets passed around about Christianity today is that Christian opposition to abortion did not exist until the 1970s. The thing is that this talking point is targeted at Evangelicals, who as a rule do not put significant emphasis on extrabiblical writings. American thought tends to take the Evangelical tradition as the "normal" form of Christianity, to the point that they really don't know how to talk to people who come from churches that put weight on historical as well as scriptural evidence.

Very true, though admittedly St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and Aquinas (among other early Christians) came to their conclusions about abortion more through their understanding of human philosophy and not from a reasoning from the scriptures. Yet, the churches that are the most anti-abortion generally are the ones that claim that their only authority are the scriptures (which are vague at best regarding the beginning of life, and totally silent about the actual practice of abortion), and want nothing to do with church history predating Luther.

     I think the important thing to understand is that the Church Fathers were not averse to knowing human philosophy. St. Basil the Great writes on the value of pagan literature, and he says that there are fruitful things in them that Christians can benefit from. Indeed St. Basil the Great makes as clear a reference to pagan philosophy as anyone in his condemnation of abortion, rejecting the Aristotelian standard of formation as a proper demarcation of the sanctity of life and calling the killing of the unformed baby murder.

     As for saying Evangelicals are more anti-abortion, it might be that they are more political generally. Orthodoxy by its nature is very anti-abortion and there is no defensible basis within our tradition for thinking it is acceptable. Yet we don't often talk about politics in general, and so we probably talk about abortion much less than Evangelicals do.

Do you think this has something to do with Orthodox churches' traditional relationship with their "home" nations' governments? (ROC in Russia, for example)

     There are definitely cases where that has been true, e.g. in the USSR where public criticism of abortion was forbidden and so the Moscow Patriarchate remained tragically silent on the matter. In today's world, I think it is more a factor of salvation in the Orthodox paradigm is seen as being primarily a result of practicing the authentic spiritual life and coming into union with God thereby. The concept of the social gospel never took off in the East as it did in the West, and so political matters are naturally seen as less relevant to the message of the Church (though neither are they off-limits).

Would the traditional relationship of, say, the ROC to the Russian state (pre-1917, post-1991) also play a role in the Church's hesitance to concern itself with "wordly" affairs, or its lack of a social gospel [e.g., either (a) the Church had restricted room to maneuver and was not in a position to promote activism, or (b) concerns of the temporal world could simply be entrusted to a separate institution, the state]?

     I would say that some of both (a) and (b) are accurate, but I am not nearly read enough on Russian history to speak to the topic in the detail that it deserves.

[°Leprechaun]

Think Christianity Is Anti-Abortion? Think Again?
(perhaps I should re-name this thread with the above title).




https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/think-christianity-is-anti-abortion-think-again/ar-AAYV3D0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=150da555f3264a14b2277c73322f0e87

This article makes a lot of good points.

The Bible is not clear on the issue, I do believe.

[HillGoose]

proof that God is evil

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

It's vague. But the Talmud is absolutely based on it.