Tweet
We see this objection come up all the time in debates and discussions where we're dealing with the sanctification of those without the ability to reason, whether it be the unborn, children under a certain age, or the developmentally challenged. To many of us this a ridiculous suggestion, but I believe that the question does have a measure of force to it. From a godless perspective, it may make a logical, if absurd, sense for the theist to condone the abortion of children in order to save them ultimately.
John Piper has a decent, six reason response to this, though, that I think might be useful next time you see it pop up.
First he makes the point that the reason he believes that babies are saved/go to heaven, has nothing to do with any lack of sin. He points out that, like all of us, they also are in a sinful condition (due to original sin) when they die. Rather, "It is based largely on God’s apparent commitment to a kind of public justice in which he makes the rejection of observable evidences of truth the basis for his final condemnation (Romans 1:20)."
Okay, with that out of the way, here are the six reasons why aborting children is utterly senseless in order to save them.
I think his points 1 4, and 6 are his strongest, and by themselves offer a great rebuttal. Someone in another thread mentioned that the unborn would not be able to obtain rewards in this life in heaven if they were/are prematurely killed, and while this sort of goes with Piper's point 5, I don't think by itself it is a very good argument. It puts into the mind of the skeptic that Christianity is purely rewards based, which offers ammunition to the common skeptical view that Christianity is nothing but a carrot and stick religion. Rather, we should be emphasizing the innate divine sanctity and preciousness of those created in God's image, and the fact that we have no right to play God.
Okay, that's all I had. If others have more to offer I'd love to see it. Thanks!
John Piper has a decent, six reason response to this, though, that I think might be useful next time you see it pop up.
First he makes the point that the reason he believes that babies are saved/go to heaven, has nothing to do with any lack of sin. He points out that, like all of us, they also are in a sinful condition (due to original sin) when they die. Rather, "It is based largely on God’s apparent commitment to a kind of public justice in which he makes the rejection of observable evidences of truth the basis for his final condemnation (Romans 1:20)."
Okay, with that out of the way, here are the six reasons why aborting children is utterly senseless in order to save them.
- "It is a big deal to kill babies in the womb because murder is a big deal." We are commanded not to murder because God made man in his own image (Genesis 9:6). "You don’t kill beings uniquely created in the image of God."
- If one were to acquiesce to the abortion of the unborn in order to save them, then we're left with little reason not to murder all children under the age of accountability, which is completely unconscionable (well, to the Christian at least, though we know that it is acceptable to certain nontheists).
- Justifying the murder of the unborn in order to save them would have a boomerang effect in that it also justifies the murder of Christians in order to prevent them from apostatizing, which is obviously counter-productive, and logically horrific.
- "It is a big deal to kill those who committed no crime just in order to dispatch them to heaven because the Bible addresses this very kind of twisted thinking when it says, 'Shall we sin that grace may abound?' (Romans 6:1) In other words, somebody was trying to use the logic against Paul that grace would abound wherever sin abounds. So, let’s do some more sinning. And Paul responded, 'Shall we do evil that good may come?' (Romans 3:8). God forbid. So his answer is no. It is a wrong logic to sin in order that some good might come from it. We are dealing with God here, not just pragmatics."
- "It is a big deal because life on earth is good and wonderful. It is a right thing to want to be alive on the earth. And the apostle Paul, when he weighed dying and going to be with Jesus against staying alive and serving the church, he opted to stay alive. Here is what he wrote: 'For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better' (Philippians 1:21–23). So some might respond, 'well, then just choose death, for goodness’ sake.' But he says in verses 24–25: 'But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith.'"
- "Lastly, it is a big deal because it is presumption to step into God’s place and try to make the assignments to heaven and to hell. God is the judge, not us. Our duty is to obey God, not play God. So yes, babies do go to heaven, I believe. And no, don’t kill them, because they are in the image of God and because earth is their home on the way to heaven — and rightly so — and because we are not God."
I think his points 1 4, and 6 are his strongest, and by themselves offer a great rebuttal. Someone in another thread mentioned that the unborn would not be able to obtain rewards in this life in heaven if they were/are prematurely killed, and while this sort of goes with Piper's point 5, I don't think by itself it is a very good argument. It puts into the mind of the skeptic that Christianity is purely rewards based, which offers ammunition to the common skeptical view that Christianity is nothing but a carrot and stick religion. Rather, we should be emphasizing the innate divine sanctity and preciousness of those created in God's image, and the fact that we have no right to play God.
Okay, that's all I had. If others have more to offer I'd love to see it. Thanks!
That is a very good point.
Comment