re: Does IVF create abortions?

quote:

---

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.

---

Unless, of course, there are health complications.

quote:

---

You can find the biblical teaching all the way back to 1 Clement

---

No you can't.

quote:

---

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

---

See this is what Protestants do. They quote-mine the ECFs and pick the things they think support their unbiblical and unhistoric doctrines, while ignoring all of the very obviously Catholic beliefs held by the ECFs, forgetting that they're on team Catholic/Orthodox and not team Protestant. Then they accuse the Catholics/Orthodox of reading theological beliefs back into the ECFs, even though we're just systematically interpreting them correctly.

For example, you conveniently left off where just a few paragraphs earlier, Clement says, “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil speaking, being justified by our works and not our words.” So, you have in 1 Clement 30 him claiming that we’re justified by our works, and then in 1 Clement 32 saying we’re justified by faith and not works.

Why the apparent contradiction? Because Christians don't view justification the way Protestants do. The ECFs and Catholic/Orthodox don’t think of justification just as a one-time event. Justification is about being alive in Christ. And so, we can distinguish between initial justification or achieving justification, and then remaining justified or sustaining justification....which is exactly how Paul presents the justification of Abraham when he is initially justified by faith in Gen 12, then again by faith and good works in Gen 15 and 17.

Same with John Chrystostom that you quote-mined out of context.

His Homily on John chapter 12, verse 42 to 43:

“Many, even of the authorities believed in him,” in Jesus, “But for fear of the Pharisees, they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”

So, here are people who believe in Jesus, but they’re timid about it. They don’t want to confess their belief in Jesus. What happens to them? Is John Chrysostom going to say, “That’s fine. They’re saved by this faith alone. Even if they’re too afraid to express the faith, they still have the faith, so later works like professing it, you don’t really need that”?

No.

Chrysostom, in Homily 3 in the Gospel of John says, “And so, they gave up their salvation to others, for it cannot be that he who is so zealous a slave to the glory of this present world can obtain the glory which is from God.”

So, he’s quite clear, he thinks they lose their salvation (something else you don't believe can happen) because they won’t do the work of proclaiming their faith. Or take a passage like John 3 verse 36, that a Protestant could easily read as affirming sola fide.

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life. He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

Reading that, it sounds like belief is all you need. Now, that would put John 3 in tension with John 12, where belief is clearly not enough, but you can at least see how someone would read that and say maybe sola fide is true. What does Saint John Chrysostom say?

“Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the son, that one may have eternal life?” John answers.” By no means.” And then he quotes Jesus.
“Not everyone says unto me, ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” You have to do the will of God. It’s not enough to say, “Lord, Lord,” you don’t just have to believe the right things, you have to do the right things.

And Saint John Chrysostom says, “The blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. It’s possible to believe in Jesus and could blasphemy against the Spirit, so clearly belief alone isn’t enough. He says, “But why speak of a portion of a doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing toward his salvation.”

So we see faith alone avails nothing towards your salvation. Therefore, when he says, “This is life eternal, they may know you, the only true God,” he says, “Let us not suppose that the knowledge spoken of is sufficient for our salvation. We need besides this a most exact life and conversation, that your words and deeds also have to be in right accord. It’s not enough that your beliefs be right.” So you need, in simple terms, faith and works. And then Saint John Chrysostom points out, yeah, there are these passages like what we just heard. He that believes in the Son has eternal life. But he says, “Yet, not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation.”

He explicitly denies sola fide, he explicitly denies that faith alone is enough to save you. And so, this is true not just of these guys, this is true across the board when you find these Protestant proof texts

I pretty much stopped reading there since you're being intellectually dishonest, or worse, just a historically retarded Presbyterian.

quote:

---

intellectually dishonest

---

That's all FooLaneCraig knows.

Arguably, yes if the unimplanted blastocysts are not donated.

Bro.

Really got to chill the frick out.

These people are trying to create life, not destroy it and you’re trying to figure out a way to call it murder.

Seriously find a hobby.

quote:

---

No you can't.

---

Yes, and I showed you that I did.

quote:

---

See this is what Protestants do. They quote-mine the ECFs and pick the things they think support their unbiblical and unhistoric doctrines

---

1 Catholics do what you're accusing me of, too, and
2. Catholics don't just "quote mine", but they force their "developed" understanding back into the ECFs to support a doctrine that they didn't have an idea about.

quote:

---

while ignoring all of the very obviously Catholic beliefs held by the ECFs

---

Not true. I've said many times recently that the ECFs were a mixed bag of beliefs. They don't fit neatly into either Protestant or modern Roman Catholic camps.

quote:

---

forgetting that they're on team Catholic/Orthodox and not team Protestant.

---

This is what I'm disputing, not forgetting.

quote:

---

Then they accuse the Catholics/Orthodox of reading theological beliefs back into the ECFs, even though we're just systematically interpreting them correctly.

---

You do this very thing. Your "systematic interpretation" is you interpreting the earlier words by the later dogmas and doctrines. You don't see a problem with this because of your belief in the infallible Church and the unity of the Church's teaching across time.

quote:

---

For example, you conveniently left off where just a few paragraphs earlier, Clement says, “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil speaking, being justified by our works and not our words.” So, you have in 1 Clement 30 him claiming that we’re justified by our works, and then in 1 Clement 32 saying we’re justified by faith and not works.

---

When did I say that "faith" is the same thing as "words"? Clement isn't contrasting salvation by faith with salvation by works in that section; he's contrasting one's works and one's words. It's what both Paul and James do in the Scriptures. James 2 doesn't say that works add merit to faith but that works prove the faith that someone says they have. In that sense--and in the case of this passage of Clement--this is what is being explained. If someone says he has faith but doesn't obey Christ, his lack of works evidences a lack of a true and saving faith but potentially only an intellectual assent that even the Demons have and which doesn't save.

Not only does the context bear this out, but a few verses later, Clement says that Abraham "wrought righteousness and truth through faith". He doesn't say righteousness and truth were wrought in addition to faith, but that faith was exhibited by righteousness and truth. That is exactly the Protestant (biblical) teaching on the distinction between faith and works. Faith receives Christ's benefits while works show that those benefits have been really received.

quote:

---

Why the apparent contradiction? Because Christians don't view justification the way Protestants do. The ECFs and Catholic/Orthodox don’t think of justification just as a one-time event. Justification is about being alive in Christ. And so, we can distinguish between initial justification or achieving justification, and then remaining justified or sustaining justification....which is exactly how Paul presents the justification of Abraham when he is initially justified by faith in Gen 12, then again by faith and good works in Gen 15 and 17.

---

You confuse justification with sanctification, not initial justification with final justification.

The Scriptures use justification in two ways: it is used to talk about a legal status before God, but it is also used as a proof or defense of something. You're confusing those two uses. Our works to not merit a right standing with God (the first use of the word), but they prove that right standing through our new birth (second use).

But to the point, the reason why it is an apparent contradiction is because in your interpretation, it actually is a contradiction! Clement doesn't distinguish between these two types of justification in your model. That's you forcing your accretions back into the text where it isn't necessary. It's clear from where I'm sitting that Clement merely restates what was already stated by Jesus, Paul, and James that a good tree bears good fruit and that you can tell a tree by that fruit. When one is born again by the Spirit, he is now a good tree and will produce good fruit, which is an evidence of his new birth and engrafting into Christ, the true vine. In other words, your works are an outward proof if your justification. It's how Abraham can be justified by faith apart from works while also being justified by his works. It doesn't mean works merit anything toward justification, but that they prove that you are truly justified by the saving and trusting faith that you say you have.

You can also see this is 1 Clem. 33, immediately after he speaks of being justified through faith not works. He, like Paul, goes on to answer the logical question that would arise of "if by faith, then what of works?" He says that we shouldn't sit idly but to move on to good works. Why are we to do so? Not because they merit salvation that is absent from faith, but because of the example and pattern that God set for us in His works and His word. He says that God had adorned the righteous with good works (33:7),--not that they were made righteous because of the good works they were adorned with--and that we are to both believe and to do by God's command (34:4). Again, this is precisely what Protestants believe. Good works are necessary for salvation, but not as a meritorious basis for salvation, but as a necessary evidence of it.

I'm running out of characters for responding in full to your comments on Chrysostom, but he in many passages in his homilies especially speaks to faith (without the addition of works) justifying a person, but homily 3 on Galatians 3 is very clear on the subject of faith being sufficient to justify. Chrysostom recognizes the necessity of works proving one's faith, which is why he does speak to much on the necessity of works in addition to faith. However, he either adopts a view that is consistent with the Protestant view of works justifying (proving) faith, or he is contradictory. The question isn't whether or not works are necessary for one's justification, but how they are necessary. You assume they are meritorious and I believe the Scriptures teach that they are an evidentiary necessity.

Finally, Chrysostom defines what blasphemy against the Spirit is in homily 41 of Matthew, which is essentially an obstinate refusal to believe the Spirit's work and power in spite of the testimony of the Prophets and especially in miraculous signs that are wrought by the Spirit. Protestants define such blasphemy against the Spirit similarly, in that it refers to an obstinate and final rejection of the truth of the Gospel and the Spirit's work in it. This doesn't militate against faith alone but supports it, since blasphemy against the Spirit is actually a faithlessness. In addition, the "faith" the Chrysostom speaks of seems to be mere intellectual assent or knowledge of God, not a full-throated trusting in God's promises of salvation which are evidenced by good works. I'll say alongside James, Jesus, Paul, and John Chrysostrom that only a head-faith that knows of God and His works generally does not save anyone. That isn't what sola fide is speaking to, though.

quote:

---

Christianity is reasonable.

---

It contradicts itself. Like Santa Claus.

quote:

---

It's true and I'm no idiot; don't exclude the middle.

---

There is no middle in a binary problem.

quote:

---

Your "meaning" is completely arbitrary

---

So is yours.

quote:

---

It isn't merely to get into some club

---

It's exactly that. Fear and reward. Carrot and stick. Present and coal. Make-believe nonsense, implemented to control the ignorant masses.

quote:

---

I'm curious what you think is a contradiction.

---

Read the Bible.

quote:

---

You aren't describing a binary problem. 

---

Of course not. You did.

quote:

---

If it is true

---

If there was a plate of spaghetti rotating around the sun...

Your "if" means nothing.

quote:

---

Not exactly. 

---

Wrong. Exactly that.

quote:

---

It's as if you don't know the history of Christianity. 

---

I know the history of religion. Yours isn't special to me.

Oh good grief. There is no abortion if there is no heartbeat.

It’s a miracle I got pregnant twice. I have all kinds of fibroids and endo and all kinds of crazy shite. My doctors wanted to spay me like a dog be for my first child. I said no. RFK Jr is not wrong. There is absolutely something wrong with the American food and water supplies.