• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

John 3:30

He Must Increase, I Must Decrease

  • Evangelism Schedule
  • Preaching and Sermons
  • Links
    • OUTREACH GUIDELINES
    • MY TESTIMONY
    • SUPPORT THE MINISTRY
    • THE GOSPEL
    • CONTACT
  • Posts by Category
    • Open Air Preaching
    • Theology
    • Witnessing
    • Just me
    • Memory Verses
    • Creation
    • Movie Reviews
    • Love

apologetics

Abortion and Women as Victims

April 5, 2016 by Michael Coughlin

In light of recent debates and misinformation about the topic, I wanted to lay out my thoughts on the recent debate surrounding whether women should be held responsible if abortion is made illegal.

In particular, what I’m referring to is a quote from this article. (emphasis my own)

A consistent pro-life position can maintain that a woman who has an abortion may be morally culpable in the taking of an innocent life, and yet still recognize that in the interest of compassion and proximate justice (e.g., ensuring the conviction of abortionists) she should be treated solely as a second victim and not as a first accomplice.

My points below do not include Scripture references to help understand the situation. That has been handled aptly here and here.

1. I do not believe that EVERY woman, (that is, 100% of women who have an abortion), are murderers of the same degree. I acknowledge that a person may have been coerced or forced in some way which could legally exonerate her of guilt before the law. I also believe our system is already set up to be merciful when appropriate, to try children differently for crimes and take into account a suspect’s mental state when trying them for a crime.

For this reason, I do not believe we should label all women “solely” as victims, innocent of the murder of children, de facto. They should be labeled as suspects in the murder of a human and let the investigation and trial take place. Judges everywhere sentence people for different reasons based on a number of factors; why deny these same judges the chance to do their job in the case of abortive mothers?

2. I believe that there may be abortive mothers who may, in fact, not actually understand they are taking a human life, as the result of the insidious deceptive teaching they have been subjected to and whatever sheltering from reality they’ve experienced. I do not expect to put a 12 year old girl who has been a sex slave for years and has been forced to down plan-b pills into an electric chair. Again, our system is able to handle these exceptions. If you don’t trust our justice system to handle these circumstances, then there is no point in worrying about making laws, etc.

3. I do believe that, in a sense, every woman alive today is a victim of a society which objectifies them, teaches them to be sexually active, then leaves them with little or no assistance when that sexual activity has undesirable consequences. Women today are taught that children are a burden, pregnancy is negative, they’re #1, abortion isn’t murder, yada yada yada.

But I do not believe that the fact that they are victims of that type of situation makes them less culpable of the guilt of murdering their child. I’m ignorant of a number of laws, I’m sure, yet still responsible for my choices.

By the same logic, I do not believe that people who molest children ought to be considered not guilty because they were also victimized as a child. Everyone is a victim of something. That isn’t the question. The question is whether that victimhood exonerates their actions. Thinking this (innocence as the result of victimhood) can be determined universally is an error.

4. I do not believe that we would extend the same sentiments to a woman who drowned her 1 year old in the tub, or a woman who had a home abortion as some seem to want to extend to women who get abortions before birth at a clinic. If a woman came with the EXACT same excuses use for abortion to excuse suffocating her 3 day old infant, we would call her sick and twisted and call her an unfit mother. I believe it is a logic error to treat preborn so distinctly differently from the born. An error which exhibits a crude rejection of Scripture’s authority.

The idea that we would allow what we call more “humane” abortions in lieu of “more barbaric” ones is barbaric itself. I am no less guilty of murder if I put you to a calm sleep with carbon monoxide as if I shoot you and you bleed out to death. Our sense that somehow one is worse than the other is problematic and is the cause of our ill-fated attempts at incremental change. I see the argument: torture, for example is worse than not torture, but the ultimate crime of murder is still the same in essence.

5. My imagination’s ability or inability to conjure a way to handle the problem of prosecuting women isn’t a logical reason to oppose it or support it. The question is – what is right? How to handle the circumstance created by right laws is something we will have to work out as a society if we get that chance. Assuming we are able to criminalize abortion forensically, I will trust the Lord Jesus Christ to help us effect a system that doles out correct punishment, correction and mercy, according to His Will. Note: calling all abortive mother’s victims removes this possibility.

6. I have heard it said that calling abortive mother’s victims and keeping them from prosecution will help us convict abortionists. I say hogwash. Let’s say you could actually cite old cases that show that that is true – do we really want to mimic the way abortion was handled BEFORE Roe v Wade? It may be the worst argument I’ve heard.

Let’s go back to doing what we did as a country immediately before we became what we’ve now become. Hey, let’s do what immediately preceded (and possibly/probably contributed to) the legalization of abortion!

If you are having trouble with the inanity of that, I don’t know what can help. Honestly, I’m not trying to be rude or sound haughty, but the idea that doing the same thing which was tried historically and clearly seems to have utterly failed is astounding to me.

7. Ok. I get it. Do we drag every woman who ever had an abortion to court? (I don’t think that’s even on the table) See #5. We’ll have to deal with that. Courts take into account all sorts of factors when determining sentences and guilt and whom to prosecute, etc. And, as I think we are all aware, prosecutors exercise some discretion in lighter sentences – often based on the communicated remorse of the accused and their obvious rehabilitation. The point is, we have a system in place to handle all your exceptions. A system which will screw up sometimes.

8. Experience with abortion ministry is not required to be able to speak on the topic. I see folks who maintain sola scriptura in many areas espousing the idea that going to an abortion clinic and getting the finger from an abortive mother is helpful in determining victimhood (or lack thereof). Although I agree these experiences will confirm what we know from Scripture about most murderers, I do not agree that an opinion formed from Scripture on the topic outside of having participated in that ministry is irrelevant. Ultimately, we believe God opens the eyes of the blind to the truth.

Having said that, God may USE circumstances to help us to see His Scripture. That is, He may use the ordinary means of experience to help us to understand what His Scripture was already saying. And those people DO have helpful things to say in the matter.

But, suffice to say, if every abortive mother was kind and gentle and friendly on her way into a clinic, and her baby was killed with the utmost of gentleness and pain free-ness possible, that would have no bearing on the validity of the argument about whether abortive women are victims or not. Abortive mothers may be, (and usually are) morally responsible for the murder of an innocent life (as God sees it).

9. The idea that abortive mothers will testify against the very people they paid to get the illegal abortion is asinine. Maybe in some cases…but my guess is not without the leverage of their own guilt before the law laid out before them. I do understand there are legal difficulties there, but I don’t see women who obtain illegal abortions all of a sudden testifying against those people, as a general rule. Even if it worked, the cost outweighs the benefit.

Conclusion

To deny women the guilt associated with violation of God’s perfect laws and character is to deny them the very thing they need the most – God’s whole counsel to lead them to His kindness and repentance through faith in Jesus Christ. What I am saying is, in our attempt to think we are being merciful and compassionate, we are being hateful to women by not telling them the whole truth about their guilt before a holy God. Sending the mixed message of victimhood will only tend to assuage any conscience they had about it if the Lord wouldn’t intervene in some other way.

People who love and support women will stop treating them as if they are helpless, disillusioned victims of society and give them the truth about abortion, murder, God’s wrath and judgement. And one way we do that is through God’s ordained means of government enacting good laws.

Ultimately, this discussion is very philosophical. We aren’t actually dealing with this circumstance now. But how we view this discussion shows what we really think of the unborn and the people who kill them. It shows our hearts. It shows whether we really trust God to take care of us or if we think we need to take things into our own hands, by applying our human reasoning rather than God’s reasoning.

It is illogical to call abortion a criminal act, an act of murder and not at least keep open the possibility that every party to the act is guilty in some way of murder to some degree. And to compromise that truth for the sake of “proximate justice” and “hopeful prosecution of some” ultimately leads only to the loss of the argument entirely.

Before diving into comment, please read the linked to articles in the introduction.

Filed Under: Theology Tagged With: abortion, apologetics

Ministry of Encouragement

March 8, 2016 by Michael Coughlin

How well do you have to know someone before you can speak truth into their life? I had a phone call today with a testimony I wanted to share with you that helps answer that question.

But first, some background information is required.

Click here to continue reading the original post.

Filed Under: Love, Theology Tagged With: apologetics, church, discipline, God, Gospel, preaching, pride, Scripture, witchcraft

Movie Review of Risen

February 22, 2016 by Michael Coughlin

I enjoyed [Risen], generally speaking, and there were a few parts where the story on the screen and my thoughts of my own relationship with Christ brought me to tears of joy over my salvation and sadness over my sin.

Read the rest of my review here.

Here are a few other reviews I found helpful and informative:

Variety: Justin Chang, Chief Film Critic

Todd Friel wrote:

“The sum total of the movie’s message was, believe in Jesus because He is like, way nicer than anyone.”

Todd Friel’s review on Christian Post

I heartily agreed with Ann Hornaday (who I do not know to be Christian) who wrote

Viewers already well-versed in the greatest story ever told might find their interest piqued by the filmmakers’ unconventional take. It’s unlikely, however, that “Risen” will preach to anyone outside the choir.

in this article.

Filed Under: Theology Tagged With: apologetics, Bible, Christ, church, God, Gospel, Grace, humility, Jesus, savior, Scripture

Would Christ Call Someone Unchristlike?

December 2, 2015 by Michael Coughlin

I have a general sense that wherever possible we try to use Biblical terminology. This means we say words that people often find offensive. For example, we, as Christians, should not be afraid to call transgression of God’s law “sin,” rather than “a mistake” or “missing the best.”

I think an area where this can get awful hairy is that we need to be careful to define terms. For example, when I grew up I believed the definition of adulterer was someone who was married who cheated on his or her spouse. I now believe differently (Matthew 5:28). So if you had called me an adulterer, I would have been offended at least partially because I didn’t really believe I had committed adultery according to the Biblical definition.

But the problem was not with you, it was with me. I was the adulterer by the Biblical definition of the term.

So here’s today’s rub. Recently, a writer named Karen Swallow Prior (KSP) wrote an article where she proposed calling a woman a murderer who has had an abortion is not only inflammatory, but is unchristlike.

Deut 5:17 You shall not murder.

Much kerfuffle has occurred as the result; and if you click that link now, you will be the beneficiary of some clarifying comments by KSP which I find helpful in clarifying her meaning.

My concern is twofold. 1) I believe the gauging of the terminology is being subjectively measured based on the reaction (inflammation?) of the objects of the terms using an unbiblical pragmatism and 2) I find the entire concept contradictory and hypocritical. I will try to flesh these out briefly and if there is disagreement I’ll provide clarification later. 🙂

I am also going to reserve my comments for the use of the term ‘murder’ in reference to abortion and ‘murderer’ in reference to those who have had an abortion, paid for an abortion, performed an abortion, or coerced or approved of someone having an abortion. #OxfordCommasRule I understand the argument about the other potentially inflammatory terms KSP brought up in her article and may be sympathetic to those.

1. When KSP refers to certain terminology as inflammatory, I believe what she means it that the word ‘murder’ is unnecessarily inflammatory. Certainly a professional writer of high intelligence isn’t against ANY language that could be inflammatory, right? I can’t even imagine that. The very nature (may I say purpose?) of the written word is to evoke a response from the reader. So I think her point is that there are other terms that can be used to communicate the same thought or message which are not “trigger words,” so to speak.

For example, the Bible doesn’t use every possible descriptive term for a man “knowing” his wife when communicating the reality of what is going on when Bible couples made babies. There are certain ways to describe that thought which are, shall I say, more tasteful than others. So the same thought is conveyed without language which may incite the wrong thoughts in the reader.

But KSP offers no reasoning for why this term – ‘murder’ – is so inappropriate. She simply asserts that is it inflammatory language. Considering the Bible’s use of the word murder (repeatedly Luke 18:20, Mark 7:21, Mark 10:19, Matthew 23:35, Matthew 23:31, Matthew 15:19, Jeremiah 7:9), I would argue that there is nothing wrong with the term.

Exodus 21:22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Is there any doubt that God considers abortion murder based on simply Exodus 21:22-25 above?

Now’s here my conjecture: I think that we have a situation where someone is not fully trusting that it is God who draws people unto himself and that any people he draws will come. (John 6:44, John 6:37). This is an important theological point. If you don’t really believe that God sovereignly brings the elect to himself, and that it is His Word that is the power, then you absolutely need to find ways to improve upon the Biblical language to reach our culture. Not only for salvation’s sake, but for culture change.

But, if you believe that God’s Word is the power unto salvation, and God’s thoughts (revealed through His Word) are higher than our thoughts, then you cannot possibly believe you can use better language than the Bible itself uses.

In my opinion, the reason folks want to change the vocabulary is they believe there will be an effectiveness which cannot be achieved because of what they perceive as the usual reaction to God’s actual Word. Then there are people like myself, who are 100% OK with continuing to preach God’s Word and simply trusting Him with the results…even in the face of apparent ineffectiveness – basically: me not seeing the results I expect.

KSP references Prov 14:12 in her added paragraphs to the article – ironically committing the mistake warned about therein, in my estimation. It is KSP and people who believe as she does in this situation who are not trusting in the Lord’s provision for this battle and are trying to do things in a way which seems right to man. The mere fact that Jesus and the writers of the NT had no issue with the term is enough for me to say striking the term is not an example of the fruit of the Spirit in someone’s life. (James 4:2 for example). The fruit of the Spirit is gentleness doesn’t mean we will always find words that don’t offend or inflame. It is man’s way to deviate from Scriptural language…not to stick to stubbornly.

It is quite subjective anyway. As soon as we strike the word murder from our vocabularies, there will be another term which burns the consciences of the (warning, trigger word ahead) heathen which we will be asked to strike so we can better “have conversation.” Instead, let’s be ambassadors for Christ and simply proclaim His excellencies in His language and decry rebellion against Him the same way.

It is an unbiblical view of the power and sufficiency of God’s Word which I believe is the root of calling the word murder inflammatory and unchristlike.

2. I find the entire concept of the article contradictory and hypocritical.

Secondly, and finally, (I know, I said “brief”), I believe KSP commits the very same “atrocity” she seems so concerned about. Let me explain: the words that KSP used in the article, in fact, inflamed many people! In fact, I would say it was predictable that JD Hall would be inflamed by her article (no offense to JD meant, he should be inflamed).

But that point alone, I question whether KSP could even make that assertion? If it is so wrong to say something which can inflame – then she can’t even say what she said because that statement itself is inflammatory! Albeit I think that is foolish. I think it is OK to say inflammatory things, the question is whether those things are objectively true and/or reasoned from objective truth and Scripture’s teaching.

Does that mean we need to say ‘everything’ that is possibly true in every possible way we could say it? No. Does it mean we must never use words which are predictably inflammatory? No, I don’t believe so. Because that is what Christ did, did he not? He used terms which were inflammatory enough to get him killed! And He knew he was doing it and the reaction he’d get, yet he remained perfectly gentle and meek and all those things that are misunderstood about the fruit of the Spirit. (Gal 5:22)

Maybe being gentle and meek isn’t the same as abandoning Scriptural terminology for the sake of a hearer’s conscience and sensitivities?

So here’s the question: if it is unchristlike to call someone who kills an innocent human being a murderer, how unchristlike must it be to call someone unchristlike at all? I mean for basically any reason? The fact is that we are to label people unchristlike for acting in a way which is contrary to how Christ acted or His Holy Spirit would direct us through His Word. But referring to crimes against God and humanity in plain terms is never something condemned in Scripture. If calling a murderer a murderer is unchristlike, then calling someone who is unchristlike “unchristlike” is a great sin!

So would Christ call someone unchristlike? Absolutely. But not in the worldview espoused by the KSP article. That Christ is only capable of inviting people over for no-strings-attached bar-be-cues and hoping the person will ask him where He got the gleam in his eye. So either KSP is right and her article cannot be considered meaningful or she is wrong, in which case her article cannot be considered meaningful.

I am not professing to know KSP’s heart; I’m not calling her a non Christian, nor do I even for a moment pretend she wouldn’t really want to end or at least outlaw abortion. What I am saying is the article in question commits logical errors and exhibits a view of Scripture which I perceive as “lower” than the way most of us think it ought to be perceived. I think it is a worldly influence which causes a person to abandon (at least partially) the Scriptural mandate to confuse the wisdom of the wise with God’s wisdom, and now our own.

That’s my 2 cents. I can tell you this from a personal experience. I would have loved if you would have not called me a racist prior to my salvation. I seriously found the term inflammatory. I hated hearing it. Yet that is what I was. And it really made no difference what you called it. I liked it and you were wrong in my eyes for calling what I did racism (despite the evidence). But God, who is rich in mercy, drew me to Himself and saved me. And once that occurred, the language didn’t bother me. My subjective feelings never really mattered, just God’s objective truth in the matter.

Filed Under: Gospel, Love, Theology, Witnessing Tagged With: abortion, apologetics, attributes of God, Bible, Christ, church, God, Gospel, humility, Love, people, power, preaching, Scripture, sin

Western “that team up north” vs THE OSU Outreach Report

September 30, 2015 by Michael Coughlin

First off all, hat tip to Jason Marianna for reminding me that “THE” is all caps when referring to THE OSU.

Saturday, September 26, 2015: Joshua Richards and I preached the gospel from about noon to 3pm at the usual spot, Lane and Olentangy River Rd, prior to the Buckeyes’ victory over the Broncos of Western you know.

I only brought a couple hundred tracts with me, and we were able to distribute them all! Pray, dear Christian, that God would bring someone to repentance and faith as the result!

Reading the Bible in public

After Joshua preached for the first time, I delivered this sermon (embedded below). The scripture read included Psalm 14, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:10-27; Psalm 1, Psalm 149, and parts of John 10. I have said this before: for many Christians, this is more reading that you are willing to do in a day…or even a week. I’ll confess – some days, that is a problem for me too! Together, let’s repent of our apathy toward God’s Word, shall we?

After Joshua preached a second time, I read the entire book of 1 Peter in the open air and followed it up with 19 minutes of preaching, using 1 Peter as my launching point. At one point, there was a large group of people waiting for the light to change including many children. I was so joyed to have the chance to tell them of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. I also read Psalm 23 aloud during that preaching stint. Overall, we filled about 2-2.5 hours of preaching. How we wish for more laborers to join us!

You can see the pedestrian traffic in this picture.
You can see the pedestrian traffic in this picture.

Here's Joshua preaching the futility of human works to please God, but Christ's power! pic.twitter.com/67t7ldU4hL

— Michael A. Coughlin (@ABereanOne) September 26, 2015

Our culture is so hateful toward God’s law that there was a truck that kept driving by advertising strip clubs with loud music and large images on the side of the truck. Two young ladies women were walking around passing out free passes to a gentlemen’s strip club, as well. Much prayer is needed for our culture and for those of us engaging the culture with the gospel!

While Joshua was preaching, I followed an idea he gave me and I was able to offer prayer to a young man who had been recently injured. That was a really neat way to engage people and get their ear.

Praise Almighty God for His good work that day. His gospel must have been heard by thousands, and He will do as He pleases!

Filed Under: Gospel, Open Air Preaching, Theology, Witnessing Tagged With: apologetics, attributes of God, Christ, Courageous, Creation, discipline, God, Gospel, Open Air, people, preaching, pride, Righteous, savior, Scripture, sin

How to Protect Yourself from Deception

August 27, 2015 by Michael Coughlin

I preached this sermon this week at church. Here are the images which are referred to therein:

Picture1

Picture2

Picture3

Filed Under: Gospel, Love, Theology, Witnessing Tagged With: apologetics, Bible, Christ, church, Courageous, discipline, glory, God, Gospel, Grace, Holy, leadership, Mercy, pride, Righteous, sin

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 13
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

My Budgeting App

You Need A Budget

The Bible Memory App I Use

The Bible Memory App - Bible Memory Verses

Recent Posts

  • ESV Preaching Bible, Black Goatskin Leather for Sale
  • More Lies and Clickbait Instead of Reporting Facts About Ohio Protests
  • Stimulating Your Thoughts About the Stimulus
  • Evangelism Schedule
  • New Podcast

Tags

2018 OSU abortion Adam apologetics attributes of God Bible catholicism Christ church Courageous Creation discipline end times evangelism Forgiveness glory gluttony God Gospel Grace Hollywood Holy humility Jesus Joy leadership logic Love Mercy Movies Ohio State Open Air Oracle people power prayer preaching pride programming Righteous savior Scripture self-control sin witchcraft

Recent Comments

  • Rusty on TTUN @ tOSU Ministry Report – Nov 24, 2018
  • A(nother) Surprising Work of God » Things Above Us on Nebraska @ tOSU Ministry Report – Nov 3, 2018
  • Mid-October 2018 Presuppositional Apologetics’ Links | The Domain for Truth on Minnesota @ tOSU Ministry Report – Oct 13, 2018
  • mcoughlin on Indiana @ tOSU Ministry Report – Oct 6, 2018
  • Jeff Mardling on Indiana @ tOSU Ministry Report – Oct 6, 2018

Categories

  • Creation
  • Gospel
  • Just me
  • Love
  • Memory Verses
  • memoryfeedmichael
  • Movie Reviews
  • Open Air Preaching
  • Prayer
  • Technical
  • Theology
  • Uncategorized
  • Witnessing
2018 © MichaelCoughlin.net

Copyright © 2022 · Things Above Us on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in