Using the Bible to Defend Life

John Barros (left) and Scott Klusendorf (right)

My stomach churned. It always does in situations like that. The donuts I'd had for breakfast weren't helping. Even though it was early December, the light of the sun was warm on my shoulders. But such is Florida.

I was with a group of other homeschooled Christian teens -- all close friends of mine -- helping pastor John Barros to convince people not to kill their babies at an abortion clinic in Downtown Orlando. John Barros had been doing this about six days a week for years now. He had experience. Me? This was my first time.

John Barros uses an interesting method. He reads and quotes scripture, a lot. It's very normal for Pastor Barros to take a megaphone, turn to the book of Revelation, and preach judgement upon those inside the clinic (he let my friend Jacob do the reading on that day). And it gets results: people walk out of there, convicted of their sin, too scared of hell to follow through with killing their baby.

To be honest, I felt uneasy about this method. However, I bowed to Pastor Barros' authority and experience, and went along with it. I mean, come on: He'd been doing this six days a week for years, and this was my first time. He knows what he's doing, I don't.

But one thing Pastor Barros said really stood out to me. My friend Jacob and I had just failed to convince a Haitian man to let his baby live. What had we done wrong? John Barros old us this:

"You can't reason with them. You just need to keep giving them scriptures."

Several months later, I was at a homsechool convention in Cincinatti, Ohio. Scott Klusendorf, pro-life advocate and president of Life Training Institute, gave several talks on how to engage people on the topic of abortion and present a water-tight case for life.

His approach was totally different from Pastor Barros'.

Mr. Klusendorf's argument for life does not involve ANY scripture verses. Instead, he relies almost exclusively on science and logic to make his case. You can see for yourself on his website.

Mr. Klusendorf's method, like John Barros' method, also gets results. He speaks at schools, churches, and conventions, and also debates leading "pro-choice" advocates. Many people are convinced by his flawless logic.

These two prominent pro-life heroes use completely different methods to combat the same evil. Who uses the correct method?

This blog hasn't seen any lively discussion in a while (the forums have been silent for almost a year), and so I'd like for people to post their opinions in the comments and let me know what they think.

Which man has the better method? Are they both right? Are they both wrong? Should we use scripture only and not try to reason with people, or should we reason with them using science and logic and leave the Bible out of things? What do you think?

In my opinion, I think both men are right, but I think Scott's method is more sound. Why? Well, the Bible has little to no weight with the unbeliever. They couldn't care less what a 2,000 year old book says about how they should live their lives. Trying to use the Bible to convince them abortion is wrong would be a waste of time.

Should we still use the Bible? Yes. And Scott does use it to present the gospel --as we always should when engaging unbelievers-- he simply doesn't use it when making his case for life.

I'm still forming my own opinion on the matter, but I would like to hear yours. What part does the Bible play in making the case for life?

Calvinists Hate Babies?

I can't believe this meme even exists.

Ahhh, now that I've graduated, I have more time to spend blogging. This means that all of my blogs (which have gotten a little stale) will enjoy constant updates from now on.

One thing that I've read recently about blogging (and writing in general) is that if you don't know what to write about, find something that you're passionate about, that you get worked up over, and write about that.  So before I jump back into the numerous blog series I've left hanging (this and this), that's what I'll be doing. Posting about things that, for lack of a better expression, get my blood up.

Most will probably have to do with objections to Calvinism. I usually don't get emotional or worked up about most arguments, but some of the "arguments" against Calvinism are just so outrageous (like Irresistible Grace being "spiritual Rape"), that I think you'll understand my position.

So today I'd like to dive into one of the more emotionally-charged claims that is often leveled at the proponents of the Doctrines of Grace.

Here it is: "Calvinists believe that babies go to hell" Just hearing it makes me angry. However, I'll do my best not to let my emotions take control. Speaking of emotions, this argument is what's called an emotional attack, which, if you didn't know, is a fallacy (a mistake in logic or thinking).
The argument fails to disprove any one of the five points of Calvinism, but rather, it serves to discredit Calvinism and those who hold to it. Instead of using scripture to try to show us that Calvinism is unbibical, it uses our emotions to turn us against Calvinism.  Doesn't sound very Christ-like, does it?

But let's deal with the claim.  Do Calvinists believe that babies go to hell? The answer is that some do, some don't, and some aren't sure!  If you listen to John MacArthur's (a well-known Calvinist) sermon series on the "Campaign for Immorality" (which deals with Homosexuality and Abortion) we see that he believes that babies go to heaven if they die. However, there are Calvinists that do believe that babies go to hell when they die. But then there are also Calvinists, like Stephen Gambill, who believe that we can't know for sure where a baby's soul goes when it dies. Then there are some Calvinists who believe that some babies go to hell and others go to heaven.

What should this tell us?  It tells us, first of all, that NOT all Calvinists believe babies go to hell, and thus that the argument is false, but it also reveals another fallacy in the argument. The fallacy of composition, or the "Part-to-whole" fallacy, which basically goes "Some Calvinists believe babies go to hell, therefore, all Calvinists believe babies go to hell." Another mistake in logic, and not the last. Moving on...

I don't know how many times I've heard the claim "Calvinist X believes in weird doctrine X!" but the main problem with that claim is the main problem with this one. The question that needs to be asked dealing with this claim is this: "Does weird doctrine X flow from Calvinism, or somewhere else?"

Let me give an example. R.C. Sproul is a Calvinist, but he's also a Presbyterian. As we know, Presbyterians believe in infant baptism, and so does R.C. Sproul. Now I'm  Baptist, and disagree with Dr. Sproul on the issue of infant baptism.  So I could look at R.C. Sproul and say "Hey, R.C. is a Calvinist, and he believes in infant baptism! Calvinists must believe in infant baptism!" and now all my baptist friends and I are backing away from Calvinism. But let's ask that question: "Does R.C. Sproul's believe in Infant baptism flow from his belief in Calvinism?" the answer is no, it flows from the fact that he's a Presbyterian.

So when we hear that "X Calvinist believes that babies go to hell" what question should we ask? "Does X Calvinist's belief that babies go to hell flow from his belief in the Doctrines of Grace?" The answer will most likely be "No," and upon closer examination, we would probably find that such a belief comes from somewhere else in X Calvinist's worldview.

So we've looked over the three major logical problems with this argument. First, it's an emotional attack, and does nothing to disprove Calvinism. Second, it's a faulty generalization/blanket statement, saying that ALL Calvinists agree on something which they clearly don't; and thirdly, it assumes that just because a Calvinist believes babies go to hell means that the believe that because they're a Calvinist (when the belief very well could come from somewhere else).

"Okay, so not all Calvinists believe babies go to hell. But what if they're just being logically inconsistent? What if Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell, but those people are just ignoring it?"

Now we're getting somewhere! The argument has changed from "Calvinists believe babies go to hell" to "Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell." Most of the fallacious content has been removed, but the argument still has problems. Let's take it head on.

Nowhere in the five points of Calvinism (the Doctrines of Grace) will you find anything about babies going to hell. The fact is, Calvinism doesn't specifically say where babies go when they die. That's why we have Calvinists who do not agree on the whole issue. Only when Calvinism is combined with other outside beliefs do we get a verdict on where babies go when they die.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's say that Calvinism does teach that babies go to hell when they die. Now, let me ask a seemingly heartless question: What's wrong with babies going to hell when they die? I know! I sound like such a bad guy, don't I? But let's answer the question. What's wrong with babies going to hell when they die?

"Isn't it obvious?" we cry. "Babies are so helpless and cute and fragile and innocent, a loving God would never let them go to hell!"

But where's the logic? More importantly, where's the scripture? All I see is emotions. Now I probably sound really heartless.

The truth is, bad things happen. Things that we don't want to happen.Things that we have a hard time believing a loving God would allow. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters kill millions of people.  Serial killers, murderers, and evil dictators kill millions more.  Does God intervene? Not always. He allows us to suffer the curse of sin we've brought upon ourselves by disobedience to Him.  Why would God let babies go to hell, you ask?  For the same reason He lets anything bad happen: our sin. The real question we should ask is, why shouldn't God send everyone--not just babies--to hell, because of sin?

If you've read this far, I highly admire you. You've most likely read through some stuff you disagree with, and you probably don't have a very good opinion of me right now. Which is why I think it's high time that I shared my stance on this issue.

What's my stance? Do babies go to heaven or hell when they die? My answer is that I do not know. The truth is, I love babies. A lot. I want to have as many babies as I can when I'm married, and when I can't have any more, I'll try to adopt some. I really wish my family could have another baby around the house right now, because I love babies so much.

Obviously, my emotions lie with babies. But my emotions don't decide truth. Scripture, on the other hand, does. And what do I see when I look at scripture?
I see verses which tell us that all of mankind, which include babies, is sinful (Romans 3:23). I see verses that tell us we are sinners from birth (Psalm 51:5). I see verses that tell us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Putting two and two together will get me four. However, there are other verses such as Matthew 18:3 which make it seem like babies are innocent. There's also 2 Samuel 12:21-23, which suggests that David's dead son by Bathsheba went to heaven.
So in my opinion, it could go one way or another. My emotions tell me that babies who die do not go to heaven, but I think there is insufficient scripture to prove or disprove such a belief. 

In conclusion: Do babies go to heaven when they die, or to hell? Do some go to hell and some to heaven? The Bible doesn't clearly say so. And since the five points of Calvinism are built upon the Bible, they don't say so either. Therefore, we would be wrong to say that "Calvinism teaches that all babies who die go to hell," or to claim that all Calvinists cling to such a notion.

Another Development Update

Things have been going slow lately because I'm currently on a trip in Florida.  The Statement of Faith page is going to have to wait a little longer.

In the meantime, I've pretty much finished the forums.  I'd say it's fully up and running, but it could still use some streamlining.  Go check out the forum and tell me what you think!

I've also completed the 'About' section of the About/Contact page, so you can read a little bit about myself and why I made this blog.  Maybe I should just split that into two separate pages...

I got to visit an abortion clinic today, and I tried to help minister to the people there and stop them from murdering their children.  I think I'll make a post about it when I get back from the trip.