Recently, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), published its Light Magazine 2022 Winter issue, Pursuing a Culture of Life. One of the articles was by SBC President, Bart Barber, entitled, “Working Toward the End of Abortion: A Pro-Life Response to Abolitionism’s Critiques.”

But the title of Barber’s piece is a bit of a misnomer. Instead of responding to critiques, the bulk of his article is spent making false claims about the abolitionist position, false claims about the law and our legal system, and even false claims about the general Pro-Life movement’s positions.

Here, we will examine a few of Barber’s most egregious claims.

Life of the Mother

Barber leads off with a “question of contention” on the issue of life-threatening danger to the mother. Yet, in spite of what Barber implies, most abolitionists agree that laws should allow doctors to save the life of the mother in a life-threatening situation, after doing everything they can to save both, even if an unintended yet unavoidable result is the death of the baby. Every single abolition bill has allowed for this either under existing law or, more often, by including an explicit provision.

Barber should be very well aware of this, but he nevertheless leads off his attacks with this erroneous claim, probably because it sounds so frightening. Yet his own “evidence” for this claim demonstrates its absurdity.

He begins by spending two paragraphs attacking a 2019 Ohio bill, House Bill 413. Barber claims that the bill “presume[s] to mandate medical procedures that do not exist in the present state of medical technology,” and he tries to use it to argue that abolitionists write bad bills.

But here’s the thing: abolitionists did not write that bill. Even more importantly, that bill has never been claimed as an abolition bill. In 2019, prior to Dobbs, a bill was not considered to be an abolition bill unless it explicitly nullified Roe v. Wade, which the Ohio bill did not. As a result, trying to ascribe that bill to the “abortion abolition movement” is extremely disingenuous.

Although that should be enough to demonstrate the lack of good faith argument, Barber digs the hole deeper. He claims the Ohio bill “presumes to mandate” a medical procedure that does not yet exist, but then he leaves out an important part of the bill. He cites line 5377 of the bill but omits two important words from that same line. There, the bill only lists attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy as an option “if applicable,” that is, if and when such a procedure were to be medically feasible. But Barber chops off the “if applicable” part.

This is interesting because, right after his attack on the bill, Barber himself says that such a procedure “would be a welcome and life-changing technology should it be developed, and we should pray for the day when it becomes viable.” Yet then he attacks a legal provision that tries to account for the procedure ever becoming viable. By not mentioning the “if applicable” part of the provision, Barber makes this part of the bill sound scary and out of touch instead of being something that accounts for the possible development of the very procedure he says we should pray for.

Later, Barber tries to use a 2022 Louisiana bill, House Bill 813, as evidence for his false claims. Barber says, “If abolitionists had succeeded in passing [HB 813] as they had written it, the definition of abortion in Louisiana would have included procedures to take the life of ectopic babies.” But that is completely false. While Barber does get it right (this time) that HB 813 actually was written and supported by the abolitionist movement, he gets pretty much everything else about it wrong.

Barber appears to believe that the bill’s removal of language regarding “implantation” in favor of “fertilization” in the Louisiana definition of “person” would have somehow criminalized the act of removing an ectopic pregnancy threatening the mother’s life.

Yet the whole reason an ectopic pregnancy threatens the mother’s life is because the unborn child has implanted somewhere other than the uterus. As the article Barber quotes says, “In an ectopic pregnancy, the egg [i.e. embryo] implants outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube” (emphasis added).

The existing Louisiana law defining “person” did not specify where implantation had occurred. So even under existing Louisiana law, an embryo implanted in a fallopian tube is just as much a “person” protected by law as an embryo implanted in a uterus. Since HB 813 would not have changed that at all, arguing that the bill would have somehow criminalized dealing with an ectopic pregnancy is ludicrous.

Even if Barber believes the bill could have been more clear on that point, the proper solution would have been for the bill to be amended to add further clarification. But instead of making suggestions or attempts to improve the Louisiana bill, the leadership of the ERLC joined efforts to kill the bill, in which they succeeded.

Culpability of Abortive Mothers

Barber spends the next three sections of his article discussing whether women who get abortions are victims and whether they should be subject to legal consequences if they have been a willing participant in the death of their own preborn child.

The standard line of the Pro-Life establishment has been that no woman should ever be subject to laws against prenatal homicide because all women are victims, and Barber begins by arguing as much.

Tom Ascol has previously written a helpful response to this kind of claim:  “Are women who seek abortions victims? Of course, in the sense that every human being is a victim of sin and its consequences. Beyond that there is no doubt that some women are coerced and manipulated into abortion due to being trafficked or otherwise abused. As the Bible requires in making any judgment, all the relevant facts must be taken into account. But these realities do not mean that as a class all women who procure abortions are victims in some special sense, or on par with the babies that are intentionally killed by the procedure.”

In other words, in the legal sense, some abortive women are victims, and some are not.

Yet Barber begins his arguments by echoing the mantra of the Pro-Life establishment, that all abortive women are victims even in a legal sense because they are pressured into abortions by men, their families, social stigma, and the abortion industry.

Perhaps one of the chief reasons many women in our country believe there is nothing wrong with aborting a child is that even the bills pushed by the Pro-Life movement have taught them this.

The law is a tutor. When a Pro-Life bill says that the abortive mother has done nothing legally wrong, they believe it. Sadly, the Pro-Life establishment has been complicit in perpetuating this grave misunderstanding. The abolition bills Barber opposes are actually the solution.

First, once they went into effect, abolition bills of equal protection would immediately teach everyone that a human being from fertilization to birth is just as much a human being as one after birth.

Secondly, unlike the Pro-Life bills Barber supports, abolition bills would actually deal with the pressure placed upon women by their boyfriends, parents, and the abortion industry.

When was the last time someone seriously tried to talk you into or pressure you into murdering a born person? It has probably never happened to you. Why not? Because it is illegal! And if you were to go through with it, the person who talked you into it would be a party to your crime.

Yet because abortion is not currently treated as homicide in any state, guess what is not illegal. That’s right. Because Pro-Life legislation says it is legal for a mother to get an abortion, that also makes it legal to encourage her to do it. And up to threatening her life or limb, it even makes it legal to pressure her into it.

This is why, even in Barber’s home state of Texas, some previous abortion clinics are still open so, among other things, they can teach and encourage women how to abort their children. Legally.

Meanwhile, at the same time Barber says women who consent to abortion should not be legally culpable, he says that they are morally and spiritually culpable. This is a major disconnect and inconsistency. While of course not all sins are or should be crimes, abortion is the knowing and willing shedding of blood of innocent human beings. Providing justice for such a crime is the very first duty God gave to civil government when He instituted it in Genesis 9 after the world had been filled with violence before the Flood.

Barber apparently has no problem with homicide laws protecting his life. For some reason, he seems okay with considering people to be morally, spiritually, and criminally culpable for killing another human being after birth. Yet he believes the mother who kills her own child before birth somehow is morally and spiritually culpable but is never culpable before the law.

Huh?

Barber himself tries to wrestle through his own obvious inconsistency: “But didn’t this essay just declare the woman to be morally and spiritually culpable in abortion? If so, why should abortion laws not hold them legally culpable? Surely there is some prosecutable role that the woman plays? Is she guilty of murder-for-hire?”

Barber answers his own question with, “It depends.” At this point, Barber seems to unknowingly stray from the “mainstream Pro-Life view” and toward abolition by indicating he may be okay with prosecuting some women (the ones who are not victims?). He then goes on to make some confusing and erroneous statements about how criminal laws work:

“But what about that “Shout Your Abortion” activist? Is there no legal recourse for differentiating between her and a frightened teenager or a victim of sex-trafficking? I think it is unnecessary to single out women for prosecution in laws banning abortion because most states already have criminal conspiracy laws on the books. If performing an abortion is a crime, and if the abortionist is held guilty by the law, it is likely possible under existing law to prosecute any obviously and egregiously culpable woman for criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy.”

First, saying “it depends” and “prosecute some women” is contrary to the position of almost every single organization in the Pro-Life movement Barber claims to be representing, including the ERLC. Under bills pushed by the Pro-Life establishment, it does not “depend.” Every single woman who aborts her own child gets a free pass, regardless of how clear her intent or how heinous the circumstances.

Since Barber seems lost here, let’s remember: abolitionists are the ones who say “it depends” and “prosecute some women.” Abolitionists are the ones who say to let the justice system consider each situation on a case-by-case basis. Allowing the justice system to “differentiate among the Shout Your Abortion activist, a frightened teenager, or a victim of sex-trafficking,” is the abolitionist position. The Pro-Life establishment position Barber says he supports is the one that says none of them should be penalized for killing their own because they are all legal victims.

At the same time he seems to misunderstand these positions, Barber also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law and the legal system. The bills passed by the Pro-Life movement for decades have explicitly stated that no woman may ever be prosecuted for aborting her own child. So not even the “Shout Your Abortion” women can be held legally accountable for murdering their children. As a result, contrary to what Barber claims, they cannot be prosecuted for criminal solicitation or conspiracy either. That is not how the law works.

Pro-Life Law

Some of you may be questioning the claims made here about Pro-Life bills. Please look at the laws for yourself. Here are a few examples of these kinds of legal provisions from Barber’s home state:

“This [homicide] chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is…conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child.” Tex. Penal Code § 19.06.

In other words, you cannot charge a mother with homicide of her own child, whether she solicits or conspires with someone else to do it or not.

Here is similar language from the 2021 Texas Heartbeat Act:

“[The Texas Heartbeat Act] may not be construed to authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.206(b).

And here is more language from the 2021 Texas Human Life Protection Act (i.e. the “Trigger Bill”):

“[The Texas Human Life Protection Act] may not be construed to authorize the imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability or penalties on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003.

All of these laws were introduced by Pro-Life politicians, enacted by Pro-Life majorities, and signed by Pro-Life governors. And laws like this are not just in Texas. This is the way Pro-Life bills are written around the country because Pro-Life organizations like the ERLC oppose any abortive mother ever being legally accountable for murdering her own child.

Burden of Proof

Barber goes on to talk about how the burden of proof should not be on the woman (as if anyone had been arguing otherwise): “Let abortion abolitionists seek to prosecute women under these existing laws if they must [not possible, as discussed above], and if they cannot meet the requisite burden of proof, then it is in no way necessary or just to take the burden of proof away from these activists and place it upon the woman instead.”

Yet again, Barber displays his unfamiliarity with basic concepts of criminal law and tries to make it sound like abolitionists would require mothers to prove their own innocence, but that is completely false.

In our American system of justice, every criminal defendant is presumed innocent, and the burden of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the government. If that is what Barber says he wants, fantastic! That is exactly the way it would work under every abolition bill of equal protection because that’s exactly how it works when someone is accused of homicide of a born person.

Medication Abortions

Another glaring issue throughout Barber’s article is that he repeatedly ignores the existence of medication abortions.

At one point, Barber says, “What is the murder weapon? It’s a set of surgical tools, right? Who operated the murder weapon? The abortionist did. The abortionist is the murderer, and any law banning abortion should identify the abortionist uniquely as such.”

Ignoring the whole murder-for-hire issue for the moment, what about the abortions where there is no abortionist wielding surgical tools? Even before Dobbs, the majority of all abortions were medication abortions. The mother takes the pills herself.

Mr. Barber, welcome to 2023, where Pro-Life bills regulating surgical methods have simply redirected the demands of the abortion market toward earlier and easier methods. How do we stop that? Should we criminalize the pills, which also have positive uses? Would outlawing guns stop murders of born people?

Instead,the proper way to deal with prenatal homicide is not to try to imagine every possible tool, chemical, and method someone may use to kill a preborn baby and then try to outlaw it. That would be impossible. The right way to deal with prenatal homicide is the same way we deal with postnatal homicide: to prohibit the act of causing the death of another person if done with criminal intent. And do not give anyone a license to kill. Make the prohibition apply to everyone.

Conclusion

Barber winds down his article by defending his own state representative, Jeff Leach, as well as Oklahoma senators Greg Treat and Jason Smalley, because Barber alleges they were criticized by abolitionists merely because these legislators “prefer the pro-life approach over the abortion abolition approach.”

The irony of this is that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Barber said this: “The abortion abolition movement has, so far, been unable to pass legislation even in the most pro-life states in the Union.”

This is a self-own, because what Barber fails to mention is the primary reason why the abolitionist movement has, so far, been unable to pass legislation in the most Pro-Life states in the union. You see, Leach, Treat, Smalley, and other Pro-Life politicians do not merely “prefer the pro-life approach over the abortion abolition approach.” Rather, they are the ones who are killing the abolitionist bills. And they are doing so at the urging of Pro-Life organizations like the ERLC and Pro-Life leaders like Bart Barber.

Perhaps the culture in many states would start believing a fetus is a person if we all started acting like it. Perhaps we should all agree to support bills that try to protect their lives with the same laws protecting the lives of all other human beings. And perhaps we could truly abolish abortion and pass those bills and if the Pro-Life movement and its leaders like Bart Barber would stop killing them.

Regardless, we will continue to strive to do God’s will God’s ways by seeking to love our preborn neighbors as ourselves by protecting their lives with the same laws that protect ours.

Here is a question on which I have been musing for the last 2 years:
If the present generation of Americans were given the opportunity to form a new nation, could they create one equal to or greater than the United States of America?
The answer is an undeniable “no.” The only people who would dare to argue otherwise are those who believe that the USA is a nation that should be torn down or, as President Obama put it, “fundamentally transform[ed].” The problem is that most of the key leaders in this country fit into that category. I’m talking about leaders in the political, educational, cultural, and religious realms.
Establishment politicians have demonstrated their wickedness time after time by their inaction in the face of various moral insurrections led by domestic enemies who want to pursue President Obama’s vision to its logical conclusion of destroying the very foundations on which America is built. Witness the Black Lives Matter riots, covid vaccine mandates, legalization of so-called homosexual “marriage,” and forcing girls not only to share but to celebrate sharing toilets and locker rooms with males. Beyond inaction, too often and with increasing frequency legislative bodies actively aid and abet these domestic enemies by pushing bills and legislation that promote their insurrections. Witness the most recent example of the US Senate’s vote to pass the misnamed “Respect for Marriage Act” by a 62-37 vote. This latest maneuver is especially illustrative of political wickedness because it gives “statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.”
Do you see how they operate? By tying the abomination of homosexual “marriage” to the legitimacy of interracial marriage, the Senators could threaten anyone who voted against it with the career-ending stain of “racism.” By misnaming it the “Respect for Marriage Act,” they simply lied about its attack on genuine marriage so that unthinking & unsuspecting people would think favorably of it and reason that, of course, we should be for respecting marriage! It reminds me of Hitler’s euphemistic “Final Solution.” After all, who doesn’t want problems finally resolved?
Such tactics illustrate Jesus’ words in Luke 16:8, “For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.” That’s true not only for our politicians but also for the creators and producers of our entertainment industries and other influential shapers of our culture. From executive producer for Disney Television Animation, Latoya Raveneau’s giddy celebration of her success in pushing Disney to promote her “not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” to Harvard graduates’ open (and, sad to say twenty-five years hence, highly successful) bold strategy to “overhaul straight America,” they have let slip their dogs of war to great effect on the Christian ramparts of this once-great nation.
The educational institutions of this nation, for the most part, serve as fifth columnists for the moral terrorists seeking to destroy the United States. By that I mean that US citizens are financing most of these institutions through forced taxation to further the agendas of those who are working to eliminate every vestige of righteousness from our borders. Parental protests of school boards across the nation over the last few years have exposed corrupt curricula and activist teachers that seek to push the racism of Critical Race Theory and the perversion of LGBTQ+ ideologies. Some even promote (serendipitously at great financial gain) child abuse through “gender-affirming” mutilation.
On April 26, 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education filed a report to the US Department of Education on the quality of education in America. The name of the report signals its findings, “A Nation at Risk.” While the commission focused almost exclusively on academic metrics, what they found led to this chilling assessment:

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves….We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.

One can only imagine how those 1983 sensitivities would evaluate the devolution of the American educational complex of 2022. Former failing pedagogy has been supplanted by LGBTQ+ promoting curricula. Listen to some of the teachers who teach that curricula by spending a little time on this site. And then consider that American taxpayers are required to continue financing the insurrection.
One of the greatest disappointments of the last several years has been the failure of so many Christian leaders.
And what have the “sons of light” been doing during this fundamental transformation? For the most part, they have been following feckless leaders who, if not fully complicit in the moral rot and godless degradation of this land have nevertheless facilitated it by their incompetence or cowardice (and in some cases, both). If they were not exhorting us to practice “pronoun hospitality” by participating in the self-deception of those suffering from gender dysphoria they were reassuring us that “God only whispers about sexual immorality.” As it was in the prophet Jeremiah’s day, so it is in our own:

“From prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:13b–14).

One of the greatest disappointments of the last several years has been the failure of so many Christian leaders. In too many cases they have lacked courage and conviction. Simple, God-fearing believers have been repeatedly lectured by our betters to toe the cultural, political, and educational party line during their attack on the moral order over the last few years. We saw erstwhile trusted leaders shut down their churches at the command of civil magistrates while marching in support of Black Lives Matter protests as if the virus magically withdrew from all public virtue signaling. We were told there is no Christian basis for abstaining from the covid vaccine. Indeed, we were shamed by accusations that refusal of the vaccine is a violation of the second great commandment.
As we watched businesses destroyed, livelihoods forever altered, children’s education retarded, and parents and other loved ones suffer and die alone in hospitals, sycophantic Christian leaders continued to scold us with reminders that pastors are not medical doctors and that we must always trust the science™ regardless of how often or flagrantly those championing that “science” refused to abide by it themselves. Failure to do so, we were assured by such leaders, is to buy into wild conspiracy theories. To add insult to injury, as facts have continued to come to light that expose the failures of our leaders, they continue to refuse to admit their failures. This is both strange and revealing for those exalted to lead practitioners of a religion of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. True grace sets Christians free to live in faith and repentance. As Martin Luther put it in the very first of his 95 theses,

When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Matthew 4:17) he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

Is a person who refuses to acknowledge his mistakes even practicing the same religion as Luther?
My love of a nation full of neighbors will not let me feign ignorance or remain quiet in the face of such demonic assaults on them. I want them to know the true God through faith in Jesus Christ.
I write as a Christian and a pastor. But I also write as a patriot. To some, that evokes charges of Christian Nationalism. Honestly? I don’t care. The longer I have lived as a Christian, the more clearly I have come to see that the second great commandment requires at least a modicum of patriotism. How can I love my neighbor as myself if I do not want my neighbor to enjoy the blessings and freedoms that I desire? And if I see those blessings and freedoms being destroyed by frontal assaults as well as by espionage and betrayal, is it loving to do nothing and stay silent?
If I know that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34), then how can I be ambivalent about the legalized slaughter of unborn babies or have my convictions so disconnected from my voting that I approve of a Christian voting for a Democrat candidate (whose party platform guarantees the protection of abortion on demand)? What kind of hatred must govern my affections for the person who is himself caught up in sexual perversion as well as for the children whom he grooms to declare that Drag Queen Story Hour in public libraries is “one of the blessings of liberty?”
My love of a nation full of neighbors will not let me feign ignorance or remain quiet in the face of such demonic assaults on them. I want them to know the true God through faith in Jesus Christ. I want them—and myself—to “live a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2b). That is why I will pray for “kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Timothy 2:2a) as the Apostle Paul instructs all Christians to do. And such prayer leads me to action. Because it is insincere to pray for that for which I am not willing to use God-given means to acquire, I will also vote for those civil magistrates who will stand against wickedness and serve the cause of righteousness. And I will encourage all my Christian brothers and sisters to do likewise.
If that’s Christian nationalism, so be it. As Craig Carter so astutely noted recently, “if so, then maybe we could use a little old-fashioned Christian Nationalism.” Because one thing is certain. Our forefathers who founded this nation stood on the foundation of Christian thinking and Christian living that made possible the kind of democratic republic we have enjoyed. Those foundations have been intentionally destroyed by purveyors of wickedness. And the people of God have stood idly by as it happened.
The church of Jesus Christ has been commissioned by our Head to make disciples of all nations. The way that we do that is by teaching and preaching the Word of Christ—all of it, including both law and gospel. It is time that God’s people humble ourselves in the face of the undeniable reality that we have not fulfilled this commission very well in the last few generations of these United States.
May God grant us the grace to repent, to seek His favor and the power of His Spirit, and to give ourselves wholeheartedly to proclaim the lordship of our Christ throughout this nation once again.

Follow Tom Ascol:

This edition of the Founders Journal puts together articles on a broad spectrum of specific topics but all informed by the big ideas of the Reformed Confessional heritage.  

Ottavio Palombaro, in addition to having gained a (Th.D.), also gained a Ph. D. in economic sociology along with a BA in cultural anthropology. His expertise includes a wide range of theological, sociological, philosophical, linguistic, and musicological subjects. His article in the Founders Journal focuses on John Knox and his biblical/theological/existential interaction with the question of female leadership broadly conceived. He describes the purpose of the article as an evaluation of “whether the view of John Knox on gender and leadership was Biblical and what lesson can be learned from the controversy between John Knox and queen Mary as applied to today’s shifts in gender and sexuality both in society and in the church.” As a fundamental principle of biblical presentation, Knox said, “So I say, that in her greatest perfection, woman was created to be subject to man.” That principle then is teased out through actual biblical phenomena as noted by Knox and elucidated by Palombaro. To those who may be deluged by post-modern standards having the shock of Knox come before them, concluding that he was a “horrid man,” the author noted that “they are using modern glasses in retrospection, neglecting the contextual historical as well as cultural realm into which Knox blew his apocalyptic trumpet.” None can doubt that Knox was a Calvinist, indeed a fully convinced Reformer with a biblical worldview, but, as Palombaro observes, that does not mean that he was a chauvinist. Rather that could mean that he had a more profound and excellent regard for femaleness than any of today’s so-called egalitarians. Judging from Knox’s grasp of biblical womanhood, Palombaro writes, “Just as women are to submit to their husband in the family, and just as men should be pastor in the church, so the issue of women in the military or transgender males playing female athletics are examples of how Knox had a point in his consideration upon human constitution.” This is a highly relevant and salubrious sip drawn from an aged and tested wineskin.

Chris Osterbrock earned the D. Ed. Min. in Biblical Spirituality from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Presently he is a PhD Student in Historical Theology, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. He serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Wellsboro, PA. and is author of What is Saving Faith? Chris presents us with a symphony and chorus of inexhaustible beauty in the “The Stingless Death,.” While this theme of Christ’s victory over death, even the wages of sin, is a universal Christian theme, the author focuses on the Baptist tradition of interpretation and practical application of 1 Corinthians 15:55. Keach, Gill, Wallin, Booth, Fuller, Ryland, Jr., Boyce, and several others have their say on this triumphant song. Osterbrock notes, “The individual authors may elucidate different sides of the gemstone, but Particular Baptist tradition holds together a cohesive interpretation. Herein we examine how this verse was understood in Baptist life through 200 years.” Among the facets of this scriptural gem, Baptist exposition has explained “the providence of God in death, a secured new life to come, a song to be sung in sanctification as well as glorification, and a song applied as a salve to extinguish sin in the present life.” It has given rise to celebrative imagery of intense poetic impulse such as the exclamation of Abraham Booth, “Thy haggard form I plainly discern; but where, where is thy sting? . . . for, behold! Thy sting is entirely and eternally gone. Jesus, the glorious victor, has plucked it from thee.” And finally, this ultimate enemy becomes the path to unblemished holiness. “Here in death,” the author deduces from the expositions investigated, “the Christian finds perfect mortification of sin and depravity, and in death there is the perfect sanctification of the body and soul for glory.”

Craig Biehl earned his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary. His books deal with the power of Reformed theology in promoting Christian spirituality, the power of orthodox thought, and the futile systems promoted by unbelief. In his article, “Are God’s Justice and Mercy Incompatible?” Craig Biehl unfolds the consistency of biblical orthodoxy to engage serious philosophical objections to the Christian doctrine of God. Letting Theodore M. Drange speak for one specific argument against the existence of God, he sets forth this supposedly inescapable moral dilemma. A god who is just—and a god must be just—would “treat every offender with exactly the severity deserved.” But a god must show the tenderness of mercy and so would treat “every offender with less severity” than deserved. Since these necessary attributes for a god contradict, a god cannot exist. Mercy perverts justice, and justice militates against mercy. Biehl brings to this unbreakable dilemma the biblical teachings on the person of Christ and the nature of the atoning work of Christ. “As a man, Christ was the perfect substitute for mankind. As God and man, He was the perfect mediator between God and man. And as God, His suffering and death paid an infinite penalty for the sin of mankind. This He did once for all time, never to be repeated.” The substitutionary, propitiatory atonement made by Christ in covenant obedience to the Father fully satisfies the demands of both justice and mercy. God is “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ” (Romans 3:26 NASB). Does this violate either absolute justice or the extension of mercy to the violator of God’s law? Biehl shows that “In this way, salvation by faith upholds God’s righteous justice. ‘Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law’ (Rom 3:31).” In this justice-is-contrary-to-mercy objection to the God of the Bible we have “an example of what besets the best of atheistic arguments.” As Creator, Sustainer, and Judge—and whose image actually establishes all the rules of logic, justice, compassion—God solves this apparent moral contradiction “according to His wisdom.” But, as Biehl points out, even this infinitely powerful, logically consistent, and surpassingly wise solution appears to rebellious man as foolishness. But to those who believe, it is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Robert Gonzalez, Academic Dean and a professor of Reformed Baptist Seminary since 2005,  in “The Saving Design of God’s Common Grace” gives an exposition of this fundamental biblical proposition: though common grace “does not guarantee the salvation of its recipients,” it is nevertheless “saving in its design.” In accord with Romans 2, “God sincerely intends the kindness and patience he shows to all sinners (whether elect or non-elect) to lead them unto saving repentance.” After arguing this case with careful exegesis and in interaction with the hyper-Calvinist wing of theologians, Gonzalez concludes “from the evidence above we may conclude a saving design in the indiscriminate common grace God showers on all men whether elect or non-elect.”

This is of the nature of a Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation theological idea. Although it is perfectly just and holy for God to allow humanity to choose its own course of action on the basis of its preferences, God’s calls to believe the gospel or repent heartily from sin are in their nature calls for restoration to a non-cursed relationship with God. He calls neither to hypocritical faith nor merely feigned repentance. He is under no moral impetus, however, to provide effectual grace by which saving faith and repentance are truly manifested. He may justly leave all men or as many as he deems it fitting and consistent with his wise decrees to continue in their course of purposeful rejection of both his moral commands or his overtures of engagement for restoration. Both the call of the gospel and the call of creation and other manifestations of common grace have as their absolute moral end a cessation of rebellion against God and an inclusion as a true worshipper of Jehovah.

Each of these articles looks seriously at the Reformed confessional stance and shows its powerful relevance to any moral, cultural, or religious issue.