re: Does IVF create abortions?

I didn't say that was the only or even most orthodox interpretation, only that's its a possible one, and one which makes sense given the context of how Christian's define the term "paradise" vs how Protestant Christian's define it.

Some (a minority) Protestant Christian's typically define it as being synonymous with Heaven, whereas Christian's typically define it as Sheol/Hades/Abraham's bosom.

So in light of the unhistoric definition of the term Paradise, Jesus definitely wasn't telling the good thief that he was immediately going to Heaven after he died.

But the point of my response was to show the responder that it's anachronistic to use the good thief as an example of the unhistoric and unbiblical "new testament doctrine of sola fide" when the good thief didn't die under the new covenant. And even if he did, it's kind of ridiculous to expect the good thief to uncrucify himself so that he can climb down off the cross, get baptized, complete his faith with good works, and then climb back up to put the nails back in before he dies.

quote:

---

I didn't say that was the only or even most orthodox interpretation, only that's its a possible one, and one which makes sense given the context of how Christian's define the term "paradise" vs how Protestant Christian's define it.

---

If most if not all of the translators translate it a certain way, and the grammar aligns with at least one other text that directs its usage (BTW, there are many other verses where Jesus uses "truly" and the comma is inserted similarly based on that usage, as well), then wouldn't what "makes sense" be that which is best aligned with the context of the writings, themselves? It seems that's the path most commonly trod even in church history.

quote:

---

Some (a minority) Protestant Christian's typically define it as being synonymous with Heaven, whereas Christian's typically define it as Sheol/Hades/Abraham's bosom.

So in light of the unhistoric definition of the term Paradise, Jesus definitely wasn't telling the good thief that he was immediately going to Heaven after he died.

---

There is good reason for the synonymy. Immediately after telling the thief that he will be with Christ in Paradise, Jesus said that He was committing His spirit to the hands of the Father. Obviously the Father doesn't have literal hands, but seems clear that Jesus was going to Heaven, where the Father resides, as is shown by countless verses in the NT that say that the Father is in Heaven (including the Lord's Prayer).

Even Roman Catholics who misapply the prayers of the saints in Revelation 4 can't deny that the vision seen was in Heaven, not some other, distinct place called Paradise. So at least at that point of the vision, it was understood that the resting place of the saved was in glory, in Heaven.

It may be possible that "Paradise" was separate from Heaven, but the Scriptures don't really paint that picture in context. Paul equates "Paradise" with "the third heaven" in 2 Cor. 12, after telling the Corinthian church that to be absent from the body (in death) is to be present with the Lord (5:6-8). Since Jesus ascended into Heaven just 40 days after His resurrection and Christians should expect to be with Him in absence from their bodies, then at most, if Paradise was separate from Heaven, then it was only so for a short while after Jesus' death.

Regardless, wherever Jesus went when He died, the thief was there that very day.

quote:

---

But the point of my response was to show the responder that it's anachronistic to use the good thief as an example of the unhistoric and unbiblical "new testament doctrine of sola fide" when the good thief didn't die under the new covenant. And even if he did, it's kind of stupid to expect the good thief to uncrucify himself so that he can get down off the cross, get baptized, complete his faith with good works, and then climb back up to put the nails back in before he dies.

---

You assume Catholic dogmas are true which is why you said what you said here.

First, sola fide is not "unhistoric" nor "unbiblical", but quite the opposite. What's anachroistic is taking the modern beliefs of Rome and forcing them back on the ECFs to make them fit neatly into Rome's false doctrines. I won't suggest that all the ECFs were "Protesant", because they were wholly a mixed bag with a lot of undeveloped doctrine and even contradictions within their own thinking at times, but they certainly didn't reflect unity with what the Roman Catholic church teaches in 2025. In fact, there were many who belonged to the Roman church prior to the Council of Trent that believed in salvation by faith in Christ alone. It wasn't until the 1500's that Rome banned that sort of thinking.

And second, there's no reason to expect the thief to get down off the cross and get baptized, perform any other good works, and then die on the cross. The point of looking to the thief as an example of salvation by faith alone as taught by the Scriptures is precisely that his faith was sufficient for Jesus to tell him that he was saved (that he would be in Heaven/Paradise that very day), without being baptized or doing any other good works. That's precisely why I've seen that ridiculous idea bandied about by Catholics that the thief was actually a follower of Christ already and that he was already baptized before being crucified, because he needed to be baptized according to your own teachings.

quote:

---

We have two embryos, and we are going to use them because I feel obligated not to leave one behind.

---

Same situation. Same decision.

Unless someone is an extreme radical nut, they won’t equate IVF with abortion.

Is sperm a life? No
Is an egg a life? No
Is a sperm and an egg together life? No
Until the zygote is successfully attached to the uterus wall and starts to grow and develop it is not a life.
Ejaculation is not abortion!
Menstrual Cycle is not abortion!
Miscarriage is not abortion!
Simple common sense people!

quote:

---

Is sperm a life? No
Is an egg a life? No
Is a sperm and an egg together life? No
Until the zygote is successfully attached to the uterus wall and starts to grow and develop it is not a life.
Ejaculation is not abortion!
Menstrual Cycle is not abortion!
Miscarriage is not abortion!
Simple common sense people!

---

Sperm and eggs cannot grow into anything by themselves.

An embryo is a unique life with the exact same unique DNA that it will have if the embryo grows to an adult person. It will only grow into a Ln adult person of left uninterrupted on its natural life cycle.

Used or donated

quote:

---

A zygote can't either. It needs the mother, it needs to attach to the uterus.

Implantation is where I draw the line because of this.

---

This is the same argument that pro-abortionists make. Location does not make it any less of a human life. They would argue that because an 8 week old baby in utero cannot survive without its mother, it is not equal to humans who can survive out of the womb

You have to draw the line somewhere when a human is a human and when they are not. The only clear, definitive line where someone is a unique life form with a unique DNA, where if sent on its natural life cycle will continue to being a full grown adult human, and that is at conception.

quote:

---

Are the 10 Commandments not valid? The 1st being you shall have no false gods? Playing God and attempting to end run around the natural process is just tha

---

The Big Guy has a funny way of showing his disgust then because after our first child was born through IVF my wife got naturally pregnant for our 2nd.

quote:

---

Yes it is, because nobody taught it prior to some medieval heretics, and that's also because it isn't taught in scripture. In fact, faith alone is only mentioned once, in James 2 where it's quite literally negated.

---

You can find the biblical teaching all the way back to 1 Clement, where it says:

For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. -1 Clem. 32:2-4

Chrysostom wrote, What does he mean when he says: “I have declared your justice?” He did not simply say: “I have given,” but “I have declared.” What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, not by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too, made this clear when he said: “But now the justice of God has been made manifest independently of the Law.” But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any labor and suffering -Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Disc. 7.3.2

There are many more similar statements like that.

This is what Jesus taught when He said that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life (John 3:16), or when He said Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life (John 5:24). There are more references I could provide, but the bottom line is that Jesus taught that works were a fruit of abiding in Him--the true vine--by faith, and that faith alone justifies (John 15, Matthew 7).

Like I said, it's biblical and historical.

quote:

---

You are astonishingly bad at this.

---

The truth of this is demonstrated by you and other Catholics on this board time and time again. Do you affirm Vatican I? It claimed that papal infallibility was the custom of the church throughout all ages, yet history absolutely demonstrates that to be false. Claims like that are made to support the notion that the modern Roman Catholic church is absolutely the same since the time of the Apostles to bolster your claims of authority over all Christians, but history (and most importantly, the Scriptures) do not bear that out.

quote:

---

They were extremely united on matters pertaining to eucharist, baptism, justification, authority, structure, christology, and pretty much anything considered a core doctrine. There were some who disagreed with others on certain teachings, but when the church spoke on a specific doctrinal disagreement, they considered the matter settled and sided with whatever the church discerned.

---

There's too much wrong in this statement to parse out in this response (there's a character limit), but just to highlight "authority" for a second: that was absolutely not true for centuries. The ECFs provide much evidence that not only was their not an infallible singular episcopate found in Rome, that the bishop of Rome wasn't even a central figure in decisions for centuries. He wasn't uniquely consulted about matters, either, as several of the other bishoprics were also consulted for decisions or guidance, and the bishop of Rome didn't even call or preside over the first 7 councils that met. Not only that, but there was pushback against the bishop of Rome at times, where the authority of councils or other bishops were highlighted against the singular authority of the bishop of Rome. Vatican I lays out a clear understanding of the authority of the Pope and that understanding was wholly unheard of in the early church.

When you say that had disagreements on certain teachings, that was my point. They did, and I'm glad you acknowledge it.

quote:

---

The church teaches the same thing now that it did in 100AD, except with more clarity, so yes they would be united on matters which have been clarified or dogmatized.

---

Another false statement. Can you show me evidence of the bodily assumption of Mary in 100AD, 200AD, or even 300AD?

quote:

---

Name a few who weren't heretics like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin precisely because they believed in sola fide.

---

Wessel Gansfort is a good example of a "proto-protestant" who had differing views from Rome's current teachings on justification, purgatory, the papacy, and other doctrines that were highlighted in the Reformation. Girolamo Savonarola was another contemporary of Gansfort who actually agreed with much of Rome's teachings at the time but also had a higher view of the Scriptures and it influenced his beliefs about justification, which Luther and possibly Calvin were influenced by as being similar to their own views.

quote:

---

Is to anachronisticly and eisegetically read the doctrine into the scriptures, precisely because it doesn't exist in there, except in James 2 where it is explicitly negated.

---

Pot, meet kettle. Catholicism would look nothing like it does if it weren't for extra-biblical beliefs being foisted upon the Scriptures.

That said, it's not anachronistic or eisegesis to read the words of Jesus and Paul in particular and come to the conclusion of the doctrine of sola fide. I know your argument is bad when you have to rely on the fact that the phrase "faith alone" is not in the Bible, except in James 2, because that's not how doctrines are exclusively derived. Just like the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but the concept is, so, too, are the reformation solas derived from the Bible.

BTW, James 2 clarifies the type of faith that doesn't save, which is the type that is intellectual assent only (which the demons have). Clearly the demons do not trust in Jesus Christ by faith alone to save them.

quote:

---

Do you listen to James White a lot? He's the only other person I know of besides you who just straight up gets catholic teachings completely wrong this often.

---

I've listened to a bit of White in the past but no, I'm not channeling James White in order to discuss these things.

The Catholic Catechism says that "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

So all of that to say that you, yourself, seem to be buying into this thought that the thief needed to be baptized, too, as you said, "And even if he did, it's kind of stupid to expect the good thief to uncrucify himself so that he can get down off the cross, get baptized, complete his faith with good works, and then climb back up to put the nails back in before he dies"