Results tagged “Abortion” from Reformation21 Blog

The Unthinkable Sin


One day I had the opportunity to preach with John Barros outside of an abortion mill in Orlando. In the message I preached, I made the point that I am also a murderer because Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." (Matthew 5:21-22). After I finished, John cautioned me not to use this kind of argument because, though it is true, it can, inadvertently undermine the gravity and seriousness of the sin those heading to the abortion clinic were about to commit. I was, to some extent, downplaying the teaching of Scripture regarding the degrees of the severity of sin.

Most Christians are familiar with the unpardonable sin which Jesus speaks of in the Gospels: "...the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10). The fact that an unpardonable sin even exists is evidence that some sins are more evil than others. During Jesus' trail in which He was unjustly condemned, He taught us that there are greater degrees of sin. Jesus said to Pilate: "...he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11).

The Unthinkable Sin That Never Entered God's Mind

There is not only an unpardonable sin in the Bible, there is also an unthinkable sin in the Bible. There is only one kind of sin that is so evil, so wicked, and so unbelievably horrific that the Bible says it never even entered into the mind of God. This is the sin of parents murdering their sons and daughters. The Prophet Jeremiah speaks of this sin three times:

"For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the LORD. They have set their detestable things in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind." (Jeremiah 7:30-31)

"Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind..." (Jeremiah 19:4-5)

"They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." (Jeremiah 32:35)

This unthinkable sin involved parents sacrificing their own children to false gods. These parents were murdering their own children, and they did so as a part of a religious, idolatrous ritual. God hates and forbids idolatry, but nowhere else in the Bible does He speak this way about idolatry - that it never even entered His mind.

Why might God speak this way? Because this particular form of idolatry was particularly abominable to Him because it involved the shedding of innocent blood (which God particularly hates: "There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood..." (Proverbs 6:16-17)) and it involved the unthinkable act of parents shedding the innocent blood of their own children. God designed parents to be the life-giving protectors of and providers for their children; to love their children; to be God-like authorities in their children's lives who are supposed to lead them to God by teaching them about God and displaying for them what righteous, good, loving authority is supposed to look like. When parents reject this God-given calling and do the exact opposite by murdering their own flesh and blood - this sin is particularly abominable to God - it's even unthinkable to Him. 

God Knows, But He Doesn't Know The Unthinkable

How can something - anything - not even enter God's mind? Doesn't God know all things from all of eternity? Isn't He omniscient? Hasn't He ordained "whatsoever comes to pass?" He absolutely is and He absolutely has! There is nothing that God does not know. He knows all things and no one can teach Him anything. Consider the following teaching of Scripture about God's infinitely and eternal knowledge:

"Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?" (Isaiah 40:13-14)

"...remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose...'" (Isaiah 46:9-10)

"God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." (1 John 3:20)

So if God knows about the evil of His people sacrificing their own children, in what sense does He not know? How does this practice not even enter His mind? He doesn't know it in the sense that this particular sin is so wicked and contrary to His will, that it is unthinkable to Him. Iain Duguid has explained that the phrase "did not enter into My mind" is "an anthropomorphism indicating how contrary it is to the LORD's will for His people."1 Ardel Caneday suggests, "[This is] not an expression of previous ignorance . . . [but] . . . an intensive idiom to express what is unthinkable."2 Michael L. Brown writes, 'This was the last thing on my mind! I never intended this for you, nor did I ever associate you with such vile practices.' The divine 'shock' is genuine, but not because of the 'surprise element' as much as because of the horrific nature of the sins committed."3 And, Charles Feinberg notes, "One of the most debased forms of idolatry involved child sacrifice...By strong anthropopathism, the Lord indicates that the enormities the nation committed in sacrificing children had never been enjoined on them or spoken of and had never even entered into his mind. It was totally alien and opposed to his will."4

It's as if this particular sin is so bad that the all-knowing, omniscient, all-powerful God could not even think of it because it is so contrary to His perfect, holy character.

The Unthinkable Sin Of Abortion

Like in Jeremiah's day, child sacrifice exists today. Abortion is the unthinkable sin of child sacrifice in our day. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. God's Word makes this abundantly clear. As Nick Batzig has recently written: "It is estimated that under Stalin, 23 million men, women and children were brutally murdered, under Hitler, 17 million were tortured to death; but, under the red, white and blue, close to 60 million helpless, unborn children have been ripped apart in the womb - which, as we all know, is supposed to be the safest place for a child." Abortion truly is the great unthinkable sin of our day.

In his commentary on Jeremiah, Philip Ryken writes:

"Jeremiah's sermon on the Valley of Slaughter suggests important parallels between child sacrifice and abortion on demand...Anyone who has ever seen pictures, videotapes, or ultrasounds of children in the womb knows how early the human heart forms, and how the fetus can respond to pleasure and pain. To know those things is to know instantly and instinctively that abortion is the murder of an unborn child. There is no substantive moral difference between the child sacrifices offered in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom and abortion as practiced in America."5

Some may think it a stretch to equate abortion to the pagan rituals of demonic child sacrifice; however, it is actually one and the same in a more demonic form of sophisticated idolatry. Instead of the altar of Molech, many sacrifice their unborn children on the altar of convenience, a college education, reputation, or money. Whenever couples abort their children under the rationale of any of these reasons, they are essentially shedding the blood of their children on the perceived altar of their own personal idol.

Saving Sinners From The Unthinkable Sin: The Son God Sacrificed

There is only one unthinkable sin in the Bible. And there is only one unpardonable sin in the Bible - and praise God that murdering your own children is not that unpardonable sin!

You see, the sacrifice of a Son did enter into God's mind once. God did think the unthinkable - He determined to crush, strike, condemn, and curse His own perfect, beautiful, sinless Son in place of sinners so that they might be saved.

God loves sinners! God loves parents who murder their own children! So in eternity past, God determined to save sinners by sending His only Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to save sinners by His sacrifice on that cross and by His resurrection from the dead. On that cross Jesus took upon Himself the unthinkable sins of sinners and the wrath of God that son and daughter murderers deserve so that there is therefore now no condemnation for all those who repent and believe in the LORD Jesus Christ!

There is salvation in Jesus, even for the unthinkable sin of abortion. Jesus' grace is greater than all our sin! Whether you've had one, ten, or one million abortions, where your sin abounds, His grace abounds all the more - if you will admit that your abortion is the unthinkable sin, turn from this sin, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then you shall be saved! "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!" "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life!" (Acts 16:31; John 3:16).

Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God saves the unsaveable and forgives the unthinkable: He washes away the unthinkable sin; He casts it behind His back and remembers it no more; As far as the east is from the west so He removes your sin from you; He casts it into the depths of the ocean floor forever! And God then accepts you and delights in you just as He does in His own Son. I love they way Dr. Russell Moore puts it:

"And what the Gospel of Jesus Christ tells us is that there are probably women in this congregation right now who have had abortions - probably many of you. And you are probably hiding in the secret and in the shame of that abortion, fearing that anyone will ever find out about that secret that you have. What the Gospel of Jesus Christ says is that you are not an enemy in any culture war. If you come out of hiding and embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Scripture says that you are so hidden in Christ that when Satan accuses you and says: 'I know who you are, and I know what you did. I know your secret!' - your response is to say: 'Satan, you are exactly right. You are right when you say that I am deserving of condemnation, but I have already been condemned! You are exactly right when you say that I am worthy of execution, but I have already been executed! Because I am in Christ - so every bit of penalty that belongs to me has already fallen on me! I've been crucified! I've been pulled off of that cross! I've been buried under the curse of God! And you know what? God now has announced what He thinks of me when He opened up that hole in the ground and Jesus Christ - my Head, my New Life, my New Identity - walked out of there. So when God looks at me, He says of me exactly what He says of Jesus Christ: this is my beloved child, and in you I am well pleased!'"6

Hallelujah! What a Savior! He alone forgives the unthinkable sin and all of our sins! After receiving such a great salvation may we go and sin no more, and may what is unthinkable to God become unthinkable to us as well.


1. Iain Duguid, Notes on Jeremiah in the NIV Zondervan Study Bible, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 1480.

2. Ardel Caneday, Beyond The Bounds, Open Theism And The Undermining Of Biblical Christianity, eds. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Helseth, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 194.

3. Michael L. Brown, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Jeremiah, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 115.

4. Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 141.

5. Phillip Graham Ryken, Jeremiah and Lamentations (ESV Edition): From Sorrow to Hope (Preaching the Word) (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 144-145.

6. I heard Dr. Russell Moore preach this in a sermon delivered on a Sanctity of Life Sunday.

Joseph Randall is the Pastor of Olney Baptist Church in Philadelphia, PA.

He Won't Be Silent Forever

6 years ago this week, John Piper posted, "We Know They are Killing Children--All of Us Know." 6 years later, New York has passed and celebrated a bill that would allow a mother to abort her baby up until the point that the baby was born. CBS actually posted an article with the title, "New York Passes Law Allowing Abortions Up Until the Baby's Born," only to change the title to, "New York Passes Law Allowing Abortions At Any Time If Mother's Health is at Risk." It appears that the conscience of the members of the editorial team awoke momentarily. However, instead of lamenting the hellish evil of abortion and calling for national repentance, they merely tidied up their wording. 

After passing the legislation of the slaughter of more children, New York lit up the spire of One World Trade Center to celebrate the demonic evil. At the bottom of One World Trade Center is a memorial with the names of the unborn children who lost their lives in the 9-11 attacks. This strange twist further shows that our country knows that we are slaughtering children--the most morally reprehensible act imaginable. Yet, we keep marching forward, protecting and legalizing a social evil that surpasses just about every other genocidal monstrosity in human history. It is estimated that under Stalin, 23 million men, women and children were brutally murdered, under Hitler, 17 million were tortured to death; but, under the red, white and blue, close to 60 million helpless, unborn children have been ripped apart in the womb--which, as we all know, is supposed to be the safest place for a child. 

When I was a boy, my father used to say, "Our country has got to stop slaughtering babies. It's only a matter of time before God judges this country for all the innocent blood we have shed." He said that 30 some years ago. So, Why hasn't God overthrown us yet? Why has He allowed this demonic evil to persist? 

The Scriptures teach us much about the silence of God in the face of persistent and widespread evil. In Psalm 50:21, after rebuking Israel for their wickedness, the Lord said, "These things you have done, and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you." As Habakkuk the prophet looked at the violence and evil in Israel, he cried out, "O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you 'Violence!' and you will not save? Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong" (Hab. 1:2). God responded by reminding Habakkuk of the judgment he was about to bring, 

"Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told. For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to seize dwellings not their own" (Hab. 1:5-6). 

If there is one thing that we learn in Scripture it is that the Lord will not stay silent forever. God will rise up against any nation that practices the wickedness that we have practiced in America. No veneer of moral rectitude will stay the hand of the infinitely holy Judge of all the earth. While God seems to have remained silent in exercising judgment, He has not remained silent in Scripture. Whatever judgment He withholds and whatever judgement He will send, Scripture teaches us that we are meant to turn from the evil of our ways and trust in Him for the mercy and grace that He offers in Christ. 

In 2 Peter 3:9, Peter took up the question about the ultimate silence of God. Why has God delayed His return to consummate His purpose in human history, exercising eternal judgment on the ungodly and bestowing eternal salvation on those He redeemed in Christ? Simply put, He is giving men and women, boys and girls time to repent of the evil of their ways. Peter wrote, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." So the proper response to the silence of God in judgment is to rend our hearts before Him over the wickedness of our personal sin and over the sin of our nation. We should cry out to Him to overthrow this Satanic evil; and, we should cry out to him to grant repentance to our nation. If we don't, it won't be long. Scripture and history both bear witness to the fact that He won't be silent forever. 

The Consequences of Ideas in New York


By now, most Christians in America have seen the images: thunderous applause at the New York State Assembly and a festively decorated World Trade Center spire. And what is the great deliverance celebrated by this applause? The legal freedom to terminate babies until the moment they are born. One wonders how such a large segment of society - in New York and across America - could embrace such a diabolical legislation, against all scientific proof of sustainable human life within the womb?

One essential answer is that attitudes and behaviors are formed from ideas. And behind the gleeful celebration of the slaughter of pre-born babies is the idea that there is no God. The chief doctrine of secular humanism - embedded in the very expression - is that life does not originate as the creation of a personal and moral deity. The consequence of this denial of God is not only the rebellious egocentricity by which men and women would terminate their own children for the sake of convenience but also the loss of the very idea of humanity. Francis Schaeffer pointed out the consequences of atheistic naturalism forty-five years ago: "if we begin with an impersonal universe, there is no explanation of personality." His point was that our conception of human experience is tied to our conception of God: "when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersonal, man soon disappears."1 Thus a society founded on the "no God" idea cannot fail to descend into a culture of death, so that life becomes a pawn in calculations of utility and contests of power.

Proof of Schaeffer's prediction is seen all around us. Not only do our fellow citizens rejoice in the slaughter of infants, but the language of violence and murder increasingly fills our political debate. In service of this dehumanizing of society we find not only the ultimate idea in the denial of God, but supporting ideas that buttress an ungodly worldview. Political violence is supported by identity politics and the ideas of cultural Marxism. The standard argument for abortion is the claim that women must have the right over their own body - a claim rendered illogical by the reality that a baby inside her is the body of another person. So it is that not only ultimate ideas but also supporting doctrines have deadly consequences. Out of ideas flow results, and by the pen the savage scalpel is unleashed.

Yet another way ideas have consequences is that there is, in truth, a God. Moreover, this God inflicts righteous judgment on those who deny him. This consequence of ideas - the wrath of God on idolatrous rebellion - also is necessary to account for the spectacle of a great city and state rejoicing for the right to slay innocents. Romans 1:21 says that "although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Here is an explanation for the irrationality inherent to the pro-abortion position. More than the mere moral consequence of unbelief, Scripture shows that in judgment "God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" (2 Thess. 2:11). Is this not a likely explanation for the moral insanity of the New York pro-abortion law and its adoring applause? After all, here are secularists who claim science for their beliefs, while the overwhelming consensus of science declares the full humanity of preborn infants. Thus, as Christians watch bewildered, we should realize that the consequences of ideas involve a spiritual dimension of cursing and bondage. The apostle John reminds that there is more than one spirit in the world, so that to turn from God in faith is to secure a dark enslavement to the personal spirit of evil that is at work in this world (1 John 4:1-3).

Because ideas have consequences, it is as important as ever that Christians learn how to discern truth from error and that we become again a people of truth from God's Word. But discernment is not enough - there must be courage as well. Now is not the time for cultural accommodation and dreading fears that our tone might be thought unkind. As we witness the brutalization of our culture and tearfully wonder how our fellow citizens can celebrate such slaughter, the Christian response must include a commitment to speak truth fearlessly from God's Word. We are staring the consequences of ideas in the face. And while a spirit of evil is at work through the ideas of death and darkness, the Bible reminds us of the great power at work through the ideas of biblical truth: "he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4).

1. Francis A. Schaeffer, Collected Works (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1982), 2:11.

No Mere Morality Issue


I was gutted this week when I heard that the New York State Senate passed the Reproductive Health Act, giving women the right to abortion up to the point of birth. I welled up with grief imagining the thousands of boys and girls who will be killed as a consequence of this expanded abortion law.

Why am I experiencing such grief over this? The answer is simple. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that human life is carefully fashioned by God as a reflection of Himself (Genesis 1:26-28) and is to be treated with dignity and respect--and that dignity and respect extends to the baby in the womb.

The historic Christian perspective of life beginning at conception has been the position of the church throughout the centuries. Why has the church believed this? Because the Bible teaches it. No place is this more clear than in the Psalm 139. David writes, "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psalm 139:13-16).

Notice how David speaks of his preborn self as being personally and intimately formed by God Himself. Before he was born, God was intimately acquainted with all his ways and days. Even when he was an "unformed substance" (i.e. embryo), he speaks with the personal pronoun "me."

The prophet Jeremiah uses similar language. Jeremiah writes, "Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Remarkably, before he was formed in the womb, Jeremiah was known by God and set apart as a prophet. His life and calling as a mouthpiece for God were in place before Jeremiah took his first breath.

These words from Jeremiah remind me of that wonder filled moment in Luke 1 when Mary visits Elizabeth. In utero, John the Baptist leaps at the presence of Jesus Christ, who is also in utero. It's as if preborn John is already fulfilling his prophetic mission by preparing the way of the Lord with that leap inside Elizabeth (see Luke 1:39-43).

Behind David's words, Jeremiah's call, and John the Baptist's leap is this settled biblical conviction: life and personhood exist before birth. And since that's the case, every child in the womb deserves the respect and dignity of being treated like a human being made in the image of God.

Before I close, something needs to be said. I realize that for some believers, the topic of abortion is no mere morality issue or a piece of legislation. It's a personal and painful part of your story. If that's true for you, please don't think I am condemning you for having an abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's remember that the Apostle Paul was once named Saul. He was a persecutor of the church and responsible for Stephen's murder in Acts 7. He wrote these words: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). No matter what you've done, if you are in Christ, those words are true of you. Walk in the freedom of knowing that your abortion is no match for the atonement won for you in Christ's blood. Rejoice in knowing that your sin has been nailed to the cross, and you bear it no more. And let's together praise the Lord.

Understanding the Single-Issue Voter


Moving around often as a child and as an adult, I had the privilege of joining or regularly attending many different American churches in different regions. I've been a member of small (40-80 people), medium (200 members), and large (multi-service) churches. All of these churches have been non-urban, except one (in China). They are demographically just what you'd expect from the suburbs: mostly white communities where lower-middle class to upper-middle class families live. Congregations like these can be very diverse when it comes to livelihood and educational level. Members typically commute into the nearby city; are local service and care workers such as nurses, first responders, and teachers; or run small businesses (everything from storefront business owners to contractors to hairstylists). Some of these suburban areas abut rural areas.

As evidence of the liveliness of their faith, the particular churches I have attended (all in conservative denominations) have embraced multiple local and international outreaches to those in need.  After all, a robust commitment to reaching those in need - the poor, the widow, the orphan -- is surely one of the clearest evidences of a true and living Christian faith. A quick survey I conducted of these yields a rich and prolific list of justice-and-mercy ministries. These believers have been busy with the following:

Partnerships with urban ministries and crisis pregnancy centers, support for single mothers, support for homeless ministries, divorce recovery, marriage and family and addiction counseling, ministries to people facing disabilities, prison ministry, deacon's funds, clothing collection or food pantry or service, refugee support, local and international student ministries and meals, ESL classes or Spanish language services, ministries and services for those who are homebound, ill, the elderly, and grief response and caring programs like Stephen Ministry. (And this list does not touch upon a deep-pocketed commitment to multiple overseas missionaries and programs.)

The vibrant outreach of these Christians is a living picture of James' teaching that a personal faith in Jesus Christ necessarily works out through the hands, feet, and wallets of real believers. But for me, all of this is more than a list on a website or a line on a graph. I know these people as friends. My family has worked alongside them and learned from them. I haven't told you the individual stories of people I know who whose personal ministries nurture their communities (in addition to the work they do during their regular work week, of course). If I shared some of their stories, you'd be encouraged and challenged. I can say with the psalmist in Psalm 16, "As for the saints who are in the land, they are the excellent ones, in whom is my delight."

Many of these evangelical saints -- with their sleeves rolled up in ministry and partnerships that cross local, international, and demographic lines -- voted for Donald Trump. Yet there seems to be a growing notion among some evangelical leaders that white Christians who voted for Trump may not love the least of these as well as Christians who voted otherwise. There seems to be a distancing from and disdain for faithful brothers and sisters who also voted for Donald Trump.

This disdain, despite the fact that these suburban churches believe that salvation is found in repentance and faith in Christ alone, hold Scripture as the final authority, and show it by loving the least and the lost, both in their neighborhoods and out of them.

So -- why the dismissal of the good works of white suburban evangelicals? Perhaps some of these religious leaders are leaning too heavily on their own notion of political purity as an indicator of true Christian faith. Perhaps they struggle with true openness towards "the other," politically speaking (more on this, below). Perhaps they simply have lost sight of the biblical example set by God's people since ancient times. Or perhaps something else.

But the biblical example is that, in a fallen world and as citizens of nations and regions ruled over and populated by pagans, the people of God are often obligated to labor and partner with pagan rulers for the saving of lives and the benefit of His people. Across time, God's people have partnered with pagan kings whose beliefs, rhetoric, and practices might make Presidents Trump, Clinton, and Kennedy collectively blush. Abraham partnered with the kings of the plain. Joseph supported the pharaoh of Egypt (in a powerful position). David allied himself with foreign kings and worked for a Philistine. Daniel worked (apparently with aplomb) on behalf of Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah refers to the future pagan king, Cyrus, as "anointed." In so doing, they saved innocent lives and the people of God were delivered.

This article is in no way whatsoever a defense of Trump's entire set of values and behavior or, in saying that, of Hillary Clinton and her values and behavior. (And as an aside, have I missed the many hand-wringing articles and interviews from these same evangelicals over the blocks of believers who voted for Hillary Clinton or for President Obama in past years?) This is an explanation of and defense of the faith of the Christians I know who labor for the least and lost, and who also voted for Trump

Of all of the appalling policies in our nation, many Christians have strong convictions that the most appalling is abortion. Minorities rank high in the ledgers listing those killed by abortion, and these Trump-voting believers care about their neighbors. Abortion's victims are hidden, not seen ("undocumented). The oppressor is the only one to see their faces. His acts are valorized as "choice" and "services" in our culture, and his grisly work flourishes behind a glossy storefront or in a clinical building.

In The Screwtape Letters preface, C.S Lewis described the modern age and its evils like this: 

"But it [evil] is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."

Evil does a very good job at looking nice, and, well, clinical. And since it is easy to forget victims when they are hidden, it is easy to marginalize them. To make the systematic killing of millions a secondary policy issue.

And so, by and large, when I speak to my suburban friends, their vote for Trump came down to abortion. And while they disagree with much or most of his rhetoric, they already see his administration enacting pro-life policies which will work for the saving of international lives as well as those of American children of all races. (And, oddly, Trump's pro-life policy moves are relatively unheralded and uncelebrated by the some evangelicals.)

Christians may disagree with a vote for Trump, just as they may for Hillary Clinton or any of the list of 2016 third-party candidates: Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Evan McMullin, Darrell Castle, etc. As a matter of fact, conservatives in general can understand that disagreement. Why? Two possibilities.

First of all, it may be a matter of mindset. In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist and "partisan liberal" Jonathan Haidt concluded that conservatives in general (of which white evangelicals are often a subset) are more broadminded than liberals, and appear to be better able to understand various perspectives.

Second of all, it is a matter of experience. Within these churches during the election, there was frank debate and discussion. I sat around coffee tables and at dinner tables in intense conversations with people who were coming at this election from all angles.

These saints are used to disagreeing politically with the very same brothers and sisters they love, admire, and work alongside in ministry. And they have found they can disagree during a difficult election without dismissing the other's faith. Perhaps this nuanced way of understanding each other may be eluding influential evangelical leaders. But people in "flyover churches" confront serious, thoughtful, differing opinions from serious, thoughtful people all the time.

And so I make an appeal for my friends, to my friends. People may assess the political situation differently, but surely canny Christians can understand that many of their brothers and sisters who voted for Trump are also fully Christian, are sacrificially serving the least and the lost, and may even have a legitimate, thoughtful reason for their vote.

Anne Chamberlin is a wife, mother of three living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She is a freelance journalist who has written for the Gospel Coalition.

In 1869, the German physiologist, Friedrich Goltz, published a series of conclusions from tests he performed on frogs. In his book, Beitrage zur Lehre von den Functionen der Nervencentren des Frosches (Contributions to the Theory of the Functions of the Nerve Centers of the Frog), Golz revealed that he had put a number of frogs in a pot of water and heated it to 78.8 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, the frogs obviously made efforts to get out. Golz then slowly turned up the temperature until the frogs died of at 107.6 degrees Fahrenheit. When he ran the experiment on decerebrated frogs, Golz discovered that the decerebrated frogs remained calm until they were fully cooked in the boiling water. I relay this story at the risk of offending both PETA and little boys who love frogs, in order to draw an analogy. In "late modernity," believers are in danger of becoming just like decerebrated frogs in the kettle. As the temperature of cultural wickedness increases around us, we remain motionless--until it's too late. While we silently tolerate and seek to negotiate with a culture in which abortion, sexual immorality, idolatry, materialism, abuse and every other form of wickedness runs ramped, we are being cooked. I am not suggesting that we become bombastic cultural warriors. I am, however, suggesting that we need to wake up to the reality of the wickedness in the culture in which we live and be willing to live as the faithful, God-honoring, sin-hating, righteousness-loving, truth-speaking believers Christ has redeemed us to be--no matter the cost. 

Jesus teaches us that there will be evidences of God's grace in the lives of those he redeems. The recipients of God's grace are marked as being poor in spirit, mournful, meek, merciful, peacemaking, pure in heart and hungering and thirsting for righteousness (Matt. 5:3-9). They will also be those who are "persecuted for righteousness sake" (Matt. 5:10).  Righteousness is not a culturally defined concept--something determined by statist ethics or media-driven agendas. As one theologian rightly explained, "What God says is right is right because he says it and He says it because it rests on his holy nature."1 This means that we must have our ethics shaped exclusively by Scripture. 

Recent exposés related to Rachael Dehollander, and other victims of sexual abuse, have served to prove how willing society--and, regrettably, even the church--has been to tolerate, cover and accommodate wickedness. If we have learned anything from this tragic situation, it is that we must wake up to the reality of wickedness in the world in which we live; and, be willing to call sin what it is. In order to do so, it is incumbent on us to defend the "straight line" of righteousness. Denhollander appealed to C.S. Lewis' reflections in Mere Christianity on the "straight line," as she faced her abuser: 

"I can call what you did evil and wicked because it was. And I know it was evil and wicked because the straight line exists. The straight line is not measured based on your perception or anyone else's perception, and this means I can speak the truth...without minimization or mitigation. And I can call it evil because I know what goodness is. And this is why I pity you. Because when a person loses the ability to define good and evil, when they cannot define evil, they can no longer define and enjoy what is truly good."

What a powerful word there is in this for us. We must seek, by a diligent use of Scripture, to appropriate into our own thinking, consciences and lives the "straight line" of righteousness. When we cease doing so, we will inevitably begin to accommodate evil. This is not simply a call for us to stand up for victims. It is a call for us to reject all unrighteousness. We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that something is wrong only because it hurts someone else in a perceptible manner. Sin is, first and foremost, rebellion against the King of Heaven. As R.C. Sproul put it, "Sin is cosmic treason...against a perfectly pure Sovereign." When King David finally acknowledged his sin of adultery and repented of it before the Lord, he confessed, "Against You and You only have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight" (Psalm 51:4). Accommodating culture on the horizontal plane is the inevitable result of downplaying the severity of sin on the vertical.

By nature, men and women approve those things that they know are abhorrent to God. The Apostle Paul--after opening the catalogue of natural depravity ranging from sexual immorality to unmercifulness (Rom. 1:29-31)--explained the science of cultural accommodation. "Who knowing the righteous judgment of God," he wrote, "that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (Rom. 1:32). Our natural instinct is not only to tolerate but also to practice and to approve evil in the lives of others. Accommodation can happen either explicitly (through vocal support or active engagement) or implicitly (by downplaying its severity or covering it up). When we accommodate societal sin in these ways we become just like the decerebrated frogs in the kettle. 

It is a travesty of the highest order when ministers publicly castigate fellow ministers for speaking out on such things as abortion, marriage, homosexuality and gender identity, while silently refusing to speak out on them. Appealing to kindness and ecclesiastical procedure--in attempts to censure vocal denunciation--is often nothing less than a smoke screen for fostering cultural accommodation. Rhetorical sophistry is par for the course, these days, for those who--wishing to blur the "straight line" of righteousness--silently promote ethical compromise.  

Believers are not to be zealous to uphold the "straight line" because we are better than others. God only justifies "ungodly" men and women (Rom. 4:5). Rather, we do so out of a desire to glorify the God who redeemed us and to reflect His image in a wicked and perverse world. We do so also for the sake of the Gospel. Jesus died for sin. It is impossible to hold out the abundant and lavish grace of God in the Gospel unless we first uphold God's holiness and standard of righteousness (Rom. 5:20). The law makes sin exceedingly sinful so that men and women will see their need for the forgiveness and reconciliation that is only found in Christ (Rom. 7:13; Gal. 3:22). 

There will, of course, be a cost if we decide to do what is pleasing to God and stand for the "straight line" of righteousness in a world that approves and promotes wickedness. Rachael Denhollander learned that painful truth. Though the cost may be great, we must remember that there is true blessedness in upholding God's standard of holiness. After all, Jesus didn't say, "Blessed are the cultural accommodationists, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." 


1. Van Til, C. The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008).

Committed to the Cause of Life

At this point it is impossible to doubt the raw power of the undercover videos unmasking Planned Parenthood's monstrous practices, videos that are effectively turning the organization into an atrocity exhibition for everyone to see (but only some to comment on). The Center for Medical Progress, the group responsible for the videos, deserves our deepest gratitude not only for uncovering this evil but also for modeling what a sustained commitment to the ethics of life looks like. Spending years deploying a covert offensive against one of the most politically entrenched organizations sounds thrilling, until you realize what is involved is largely unglamorous investigative minutiae.

Here is a description of what went into generating these videos. I'm sure movie studio execs will be tripping over themselves to secure the rights.

"[We] spent two-and-a-half years logging thousands of research hours to painstakingly gather hundreds of hours of undercover footage, dozens of eye-witness testimonies, and nearly two hundred pages of primary source documents."

Sounds like quite an adventure. Simply electrifying.

The reality is that the world is not often altered by spectacle but by persistence. The videos themselves are explosive, but the work that went into them, the work that made them possible, was in many ways the antithesis of the showy activism emblematic of our age. Our outrage is ephemeral and fleeting precisely because we have not learned that what it takes to uphold life is to give up one's own.

This is why it's important to highlight the Center's behind-the-scenes labor, and not just the videos the labor produced, as especially worthy of recognition. They have modeled for us what an undaunted commitment to upholding the sacredness of life can accomplish. There is a fervor that is wide-eyed and composed, a kind of renewable moral energy, powered by the willingness to champion the cause of life that is on display here. But you miss it if all you see are the videos and not what it has taken to produce them.

Though I am not privy to the private motivations of the journalists involved with the Center, it's not hard to see what this project has required. History is replete with examples not only of moral courage but moral patience. Indeed, if history is any guide, it is the focused durability of men and women to a cause that has effected real and lasting change. It is the refusal to acquiesce to apathy; a refusal to look away; a willingness to remain haunted by inaudible voices whose capacity to ask for their right to life to be honored is not yet developed.

Our reactions to the various injustices daily broadcasted on social media are often fierce, but uncostly. The Center has exemplified what it requires to take up the cause of life. If we are not animated by the same level of commitment -- each in our own ways, of course, since journalists  are hardly the only ones who can make a difference here -- we fail to uphold the glory of life. For the videos to do their purifying work, we will need to replicate the vigilance that the Center's journalists have shown, a commitment that remains even when the relevant hashtags no longer trend so well.

Berny Belvedere is a professor of Philosophy and writer who lives in Miami, Florida. Follow him @bernybelvedere on Twitter

After Outrage, What?: From Outrage to Outreach


Recent effects of despotic decisions by the Supreme Court have properly produced outrage. But outrage can subside, and it can become all too easy for us to slide back to our everyday routines. In the midst of our outrage, then, it might be worth pondering the question, "After outrage, what?" The abortion issue rightly focuses on the senseless death of the baby. If we zoom out from that focus, however, we'll notice someone else in the picture as well. Taking a wider view of the situation can give the church an effective, gospel-driven, way to address this tragedy. 

It was John Adams who said "Facts are stubborn things." If Adams lived in today's America, he would have to amend that statement to something like, "Facts are stubborn things, but their stubbornness pales into insignificance compared to the stubbornness of  folly." As the recent Obergefell decision, as well as the less recent Roe vs. Wade decision, show, the intractable darkness of foolishness can suppress the stubbornness of facts in the blink of an eye. In Obergefell, foolishness suppresses the obvious facts of gender, substituting in its place a vacuous and intentionally undefined notion of "love." In Roe vs. Wade, foolishness suppresses the obvious facts of human life, and substitutes a penumbral notion of privacy. In each case, foolishness covers facts like a slimy, diseased blanket.

Washington, now thoroughly adept at causing and celebrating the destruction of a nation, will not solve the problems of folly that it has sanctioned. Instead, it will continue to feed itself by stoking its perpetual survival with whatever fuel is in vogue on a given day. The only solution in the midst of our inevitable decline is the gospel. It is the only good news that has the power to stand against the bad news that now overflows the airwaves like a clogged sewer pipe.

By now, people who are even minimally cognizant of the daily news know that Planned Parenthood is, yet again, exposed for their bloody and torturous trade. For any Christian, outrage is the first and proper response. But, then what? What can Christians do other than be sickened and saddened by the destruction of little, defenseless children, and the sale of their body parts?

This is where outrage can turn to outreach, and tragedy can turn to triumph. When I was in pastoral ministry in Texas, in the late 80s and early 90s, I and a few others determined that the way forward in the abortion disaster was to seek to minister to the mothers who were considering aborting their children. The first thing we had to accomplish was education. Many in the city were supporting Planned Parenthood, and it was thriving. In those days, there was no internet access, so no media clips, etc. But, we had something as powerful. The repentant abortion doctor, Bernard Nathanson, made a film of an abortion that was entitled, "The Silent Scream." It showed the beginning of an abortion as a sharp instrument was inserted into the mother's womb, and into the baby's head. What the film also showed is that the moment the instrument was plunged into the baby's head, his mouth opened -- a "silent scream." I remember showing the film to a group of influential people one evening. After the film was over, a woman raised her hand and asked, "Why didn't they arrest the doctor that did that?" When I said to her, "Because the Supreme Court said this was entirely legal," there was a collective gasp in the room. The reality was setting in.

After a while, the crisis pregnancy center began with full and enthusiastic support. It has been thriving ever since (see Its mission is to help women who feel trapped, who may not want their own babies, or who have already had an abortion. Each and every one of the women who come to the center hear the good news of Jesus Christ. They are instructed, through the use of ultrasound and of counseling, about their own pregnancies. But they are also instructed about the Way of Life in Christ, the glory of forgiveness in Him, and the reality of real and lasting support in and among His people.

The way forward for the protection of human life is to significantly decrease the demand for Planned Parenthood and other abortionists. That can only happen when the church, in earnest and en masse, determines to spend the time and the money to minister to women who, for a variety of reasons, have been convinced that the destruction of their children is the best, or only, path for them. It's a slow process. It won't grab headlines. It takes a substantial amount of time and money. It takes organization and perseverance. It is a commitment for the long haul. But it is a commitment to the reality that the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, is the only, and glorious, solution to the carnage of 1.5 million babies a year.

Only a fool could ignore or suppress the cold, hard and brutal facts of the abortion industry. But fools abound presently. The one solution to folly is the wisdom and power of God, in the gospel of His Son. Will the church rise up in support of women who need another option? If not, we should expect that the fools who operate and support Planned Parenthood will continue to thrive, even as our momentary outrage, like the daily news, gives way to more folly.

The Loss of Infants: What is their Destiny?

What comfort can we offer to parents whose infant dies in infancy? And what is the real tragedy of abortion?
Reformed Confessions have spoken to this issue, Charles Spurgeon has addressed the question, B.B. Warfield has as well, and many of us have some view on what happens to infants dying in infancy or babies that are mercilessly slaughtered in their mother's womb. But there is no clear unanimity from Christian theologians over the centuries.
Preaching on 2 Kings 4:26, Spurgeon made this comment:
"As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect."
Some of the exegesis and theology that has been used to defend the idea that all infants dying in infancy are saved has not always been biblically sound. In addition, a type of sentimentalism can enter into our thinking that isn't actually grounded in God's Word or his character. 
The Reformed doctrine of original sin, which usually includes imputed guilt, essentially means that there is no such thing as an innocent child in the eyes of God. All infants are guilty and corrupt before God, at conception, because of original sin (Rom. 5:12ff; Job 14:4; 15:14; Ps. 51:5). Those who go to hell are not there simply because of what they did, but because of who they are: they are sinners who have not been covered by the blood of Christ. Their identity remained "in Adam" (who they are) and so they have acted in accordance with that identity (what they have done). Because of original sin, and all that means, there really is no "age of accountability." We miss the point if we ask, "When does a child first sin or become accountable?" (Which is why references to Rom. 1:20 do not really solve much in this debate).
Moreover, many appeal to the goodness/love of God as the chief reason for why all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven. But this truth about God's nature cannot be made into a wax nose so that we can do with this attribute whatever makes us feel comfortable. People have made similar arguments for universalism, annihilationism, and homosexual unions. A loving God, so the argument goes, would never do this or that or disapprove of this or that. Think about that argument and then read about the worldwide flood in Noah's time and what that would have meant for the many young children who were engulfed and drowned by the waters of judgment.
Whether we are comfortable with this truth or not, the Bible clearly distinguishes between the infants of believers and the infants of unbelievers, both in the Old and New Testaments. The children of believers are "holy" (clean) whereas the children of unbelievers are not "holy" but "unclean" (1 Cor. 7:14). This New Testament teaching continues the basic difference between Israelite children and the children of the surrounding nations in the Old Testament, who were unclean (also sometimes called "dogs", Matt. 15:26).
In Deuteronomy 20, God commands the destruction of (unclean) children (Deut. 20:16-17). Read also Joshua 6; read 1 Samuel 15. The destruction of these pagan children seems harsh, until we realize they would likely have grown up to engage in the "abominable practices" of their parents (see also Ps. 137:8-9; Isa. 11:16). The seed of every known sin is present in the heart of an infant. 
Some authors who address this topic seem to (perhaps conveniently) miss or ignore the biblical data that proves that God's love and goodness does not mean he will not command the destruction of children in certain contexts. There's a corporate solidarity - whether in community or family - in the Scriptures that is perhaps lost to a lot of us today or not fully appreciated.
With this in mind, I do not believe we can say that the infants of unbelievers will definitely go to hell. However, I do not believe, based on the above, that we can say they will definitely go to heaven. Personally, I am agnostic on that specific question. But I do not believe, contrary to some, that the biblical evidence requires us to say that all infants dying in infancy will go to heaven.
Nonetheless, we can speak more definitively to this issue when it comes to the children of believers.
The Canons of Dort address the topic better, and certainly more pastorally, than the Westminster Confession of Faith, in my view:
1st Head of Doctrine, Article 17. Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy.
The basis for having this hope is not merely the goodness of God, but the goodness of God as revealed in his covenantal promises towards his people. The children of believers are holy, and thus their identity is not, as far as we are to judge, "in Adam". They have been set apart, with a new identity (i.e., they are holy). The issue before us concerns the judgment of charity, not our ability to infallibly know the decree. God's Word seems to give us some grounds to make these judgments, which, as a pastor, I am glad to offer to bereaved parents in my congregation who have lost an infant.
In short, our identity (as justified children of the Father), not our works, is the primary basis for where we end up in eternity.
How does this relate to abortion?
The great tragedy of abortion is that it robs a child the privilege of hearing the gospel and being saved from this world of sin and misery. In the case of infants of unbelievers, this is especially tragic. Why?
Once we grasp that God could, based upon his righteous nature, and because infants are guilty in Adam (i.e., original sin), send these children to hell, we are faced with the true horror of abortion. Christians understand the eternal consequences involved in any human life. We have the greatest reasons to be against abortion.
Again, I am not saying that God sends the children of unbelieving parents to hell. But I am saying the Scriptures do not give us quite the grounds that some (e.g., Spurgeon) think for saying that he will certainly save all children dying infancy. This view, advocated by some, where all infants, regardless of whether they are the infants of believers or unbelievers, go to heaven when they die in infancy might lead to a sort of "happy guilt" (felix culpa) - 'abortion is bad, but at least they all go to heaven' type of attitude. However, since we can't know, the stakes are so very high, which is why we should aim to end abortion in order that we can aim to win these children to Christ.
The WCF (10.3) says, "elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit..." - a view that could still allow for all infants, without exception, to receive salvation, but also allows that not all infants will necessarily be saved. Certainly the Westminster divines, based on the public directory for worship, which calls the children of believers "Christians", would have likely been in agreement with the Canons of Dort on this issue.
Pastors have grounds for giving real comfort to Christians who have to deal with the tragedy of losing a child, especially infants (see perhaps 2 Sam. 12:23, which involves a covenant child). I cannot offer that same comfort to an unbeliever. Yet, that doesn't mean an unbeliever's child cannot be elect. It only means that I do not have covenantal grounds for offering that comfort.
Those who do not see a covenantal difference between the infants of believers versus the infants of unbelievers have to maintain that there cannot be any difference between the child of a Muslim parent and the child of a Christian parent. That is why some seem to speak of "all infants" going to heaven without reference to a distinction between the children of believers versus unbelievers. In one respect, I find this view appealing for many reasons, but I have to admit that it may not enjoy quite the biblical support that is needed.

Naturally, there are many other questions that arise when this issue is discussed. Yet, regardless of where we stand on this issue, and I do believe there are important practical consequences for what we believe, we certainly can all say: "will not the judge of all the earth do what is right?" (Gen. 18:25)
The release of a video showing Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Planned Parenthood's Medical Services Department, allegedly speaking of how to extract the body part of aborted children for commercial purposes is shocking but should not shock. Indeed, if you are shocked, you need to ask yourself why. It actually represents in miniature the quintessence of much of modern culture.
First, it is the logical outcome of the chaotic notion of the self that now rules in the West. If the self is a psychologically self-determined identity, then those incapable of such are not persons until such time as they can do so. Peter Singer has merely given systematic philosophical form to what many people unreflectively believe. Thus, if you call Bruce Jenner 'Caitlyn,' you have no right to be shocked.
Second, it is the logical outcome of denying personhood to the unborn child and maintaining that it is simply part of the mother's own body. Within such a framework, extracting body parts for commercial reasons is no more obnoxious than selling one's hair to a wig maker. If you typically talk about fetuses and not about unborn children, you have no right to be shocked.
Third, it is the logical outcome of individual sovereignty over our own bodies. If you believe that you have the right to do with your body what you will, sexually or otherwise, then you have no right to be shocked.
Fourth, it is the logical outcome of the commercialization of the body. If you watch pornography or if you think prostitution should be legalized, then you have no basis to find the commercial aspect of this action distasteful or morally objectionable. You have no right to be shocked.
Fifth, it is the logical outcome of a therapeutic world which has made the masters of medical technique into the moral philosophers of our society and where truth is identified with being cured, whether the ailment be physical or psychological. If it can be done and it if helps somebody somewhere, then not only ought it to be done - it must be done and to demur is immoral. If you think medical research trumps everything, you have no right to be shocked.
In fact, Planned Parenthood is not to be condemned. Surely it is to be congratulated for having so perfectly summarized the spirit of our age.

Why I Filmed My Abortion

Emily Letts, who apparently has received death threats since the release of her video, got pregnant and immediately decided she was going to have an abortion. In order to help others understand that abortion is safe and perhaps even painless, she filmed the procedure. According to Cosmopolitan, it is a "non-graphic" video. I watched it. I wish I had not.

Once I completed the video (about 3 minutes), I realized I just watched someone murdered. This was not the Hunger Games on the big screen or the latest bloody horror film. This was real. We can film children murdered and not be required to give an account to law enforcement. I guess I knew that but viewing the video resurfaced that idea. Real life was taken on film. Interestingly, even Ms. Letts recognized that was she was taking a life. After her abortion, she said,  

"I don't feel sad. I feel in awe that I can make a baby. I can make a life."

Emily: You do not feel sad now, but you do not know how you feel in the future. Perhaps it is all of the media attention you have garnered since your video that may be overshadowing what you feel deep inside. Popularity can do wonders for suppressing the truth. 

Yes, I am thankful you can make a baby. There are many women who desire to but are unable. However, I do not appreciate that you, or perhaps more broadly, people in this nation, can "create" life and take it. Although the video is non-graphic, in that you do not see what occurred behind the sheet, we know what happened. 

As angry as this makes me, and perhaps you, too, there is hope for Emily. I think it is easy to get angry at what she did. Perhaps it is harder to pray for her and know that the free grace of God is available to her, like all others, because Christ's life was taken and he arose from the grave! 

I am not attempting to wash over the horrible event that took place in the video nor the terrible events that take place at hundreds, perhaps thousands, of abortion clinics all over the US, but I cannot disregard the grace of our savior that is available to her. I wonder how many Christians know her. Can they console her, love her because she is created in the image and likeness of God, and tell her about a gracious and loving Father who sent his Son to live, die, and rise on behalf of sinners?

What a great testimony that would be for Emily Letts if she became a Christian. God saved Saul (Paul). He saved me. It is within his reach to save Emily. Let us pray to that end. Let us also love her, as well as speak the grace of the gospel to her if she crosses our path.

And Molech laughed

Because he still has those who offer to him.

May God have mercy upon us.