Nestorianism and abortion

[Not David]

I believe if you are a Christian and you believe an unborn child isn't human (or person) at the moment of conception but he/she becomes one, you will have to apply that reasoning to Jesus and follow into a sort of Nestorianism. Change my mind.

 

[HisGraceIsAllYouNeed]

I totally agree. If you believe a child isn’t a person at the moment of conception when DOES it become one? Is there a magic date? It’s not a reasonable argument. In Psalm 139 David talks about God knowing about him before he was even born.

This is a really controversial subject, and it might get kind of heated...just because you differ doesn’t mean you have to get ugly. Just saying.

 

[SPF]

I believe if you are a Christian and you believe an unborn child isn't human (or person) at the moment of conception but he/she becomes one, you will have to apply that reasoning to Jesus and follow into a sort of Nestorianism. Change my mind.

I think you're probably right that it would be a form of Nestorianism.

We know scientifically that a new human being, with its own unique DNA begins it's 25 years of development at fertilization. That's fact at this point.

So if we consider how this works within the scope of just Jesus, since we know that Jesus the human being came into existence at fertilization, if the Divine Nature of Jesus was not present at fertilization, then we are left with a form of Nestorianism because it must then be asserted that somehow Jesus received his Divine Nature at a later time. Nestorianism is the heresy that there essentially existed two persons within the body of Christ. Nestorius asserted that Christ's human and divine natures were distinct and separate.

It would seem that thanks to the advancements in science (which proved that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization), that attempting to fabricate the make believe difference between a human being and a human person does indeed lead to a heretical position.

 

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

I totally agree. If you believe a child isn’t a person at the moment of conception when DOES it become one? Is there a magic date? It’s not a reasonable argument. In Psalm 139 David talks about God knowing about him before he was even born.

This Psalm is the reason why I do not champion Abortion.
God makes us in our mother's womb.

I don't think people realise whose will they are going against...This is what God tells Moses in Exodus 33:2 " And He added, “You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live.” We should just read Job 40 and do the same as Job: " Then the Lord said to Job, "Do you still want to argue with the Almighty? You are God’s critic, but do you have the answers?”
Then Job replied to the Lord, “I am nothing—how could I ever find the answers? I will cover my mouth with my hand. I have said too much already. I have nothing more to say.” "

Abortion is a authority issue. It's a sin issue. It's still a 'Did God really say...?" issue. That applies to every decision we make not just abortion to be honest.

I don't see the abortion 'debate' ending well for those who wish to continue questioning God...In fact I don't see any sin 'debate' ending well for us humans...Thank God that he is merciful and long suffering!

 

[FireDragon76]

I disagree, but I will give you credit for thinking about this beyond just screaming about how people that aren't "pro-life" are murderers, which I am tired of hearing.

I don't think the Bible reveals the kinds of details in a promise as to when exactly the soul begins. We only know Christ, as a divine person, entered Mary and experienced a supernatural conception. But I think its playing fast and loose to saying that is at all the same as to how the rest of us begin our lives. For one thing, we aren't typically virgin born, and we all have biological fathers. All we can take from this story is that Christ lived a normal life sufficient for our salvation . IF anything, his extradordinary birth actually casts doubt on the idea that human life begins in the womb from the moment of conception, because what is not assumed is not healed, and Christ did not have a normal human conception of the seed of a man and a woman. Therefore, I see no evidence from this story that would bind my conscience in the matter of abortion.

 

[Jonaitis]

I agree with FireDragon76, Jesus is a quite different than a regular conception. I mean, he was already a single person before conception, so we are forced to conclude that he was a single person at conception (when he was joined to likeness of human flesh).

As much as I am all about the abolition of abortion, defending that they are conscious and alive after six weeks (that's when the first heartbeat begins), I wouldn't necessarily use this argument. I do commend trying to think outside the box, though...

 

[Not David]

I disagree, but I will give you credit for thinking about this beyond just screaming about how people that aren't "pro-life" are murderers, which I am tired of hearing.

I don't think the Bible reveals the kinds of details in a promise as to when exactly the soul begins. We only know Christ, as a divine person, entered Mary and experienced a supernatural conception. But I think its playing fast and loose to saying that is at all the same as to how the rest of us begin our lives. For one thing, we aren't typically virgin born, and we all have biological fathers. All we can take from this story is that Christ lived a normal life sufficient for our salvation . IF anything, his extradordinary birth actually casts doubt on the idea that human life begins in the womb from the moment of conception, because what is not assumed is not healed, and Christ did not have a normal human conception of the seed of a man and a woman. Therefore, I see no evidence from this story that would bind my conscience in the matter of abortion.

The only difference was that he didn't get his DNA from his father. Saying that he has a virgin birth so he did not have a normal conception is a unnecessary correlation.

 

[FireDragon76]

The only difference was that he didn't get his DNA from his father. Saying that he has a virgin birth so he did not have a normal conception is a unnecessary correlation.

I don't see it as unproblematic, but maybe you could explain further. I mean, there's nothing normal about a conception that involves no sperm.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Christian faith speaks against biological reductionism, so I don't see this as a good line of thought. From the Reformed and Lutheran standpoint, we are all dead in the womb until we receive Christ. Even the Gospel of John says that we become children of God, not through flesh, but through God's will. That's really amazing if you think about it. It means anybody can become a child of God, no matter how bad their parents were, no matter how much they were neglected... our true life begins in adoption by God.

I just don't think the authors of the birth narratives had ethics in mind when penning them. It was the story of God invading human life in an extraordinary way, not about what is normal or natural.

 

[FireDragon76]

You probably wouldn't like this (as an Orthodox Christian), but a better argument could be made from the 51st Psalm, "In sin did my mother conceive me". That implies there is a person there to be conceived in sin. But how much we can take this verse and generalize to all people, is debatable. And it doesn't imply that the life in the womb is necessarily an innocent, for that matter (David is basically saying something almost like "My sin is so horrible, I'd be better off never having been conceived")

 

[Not David]

You probably wouldn't like this (as an Orthodox Christian), but a better argument could be made from the 51st Psalm, "In sin did my mother conceive me". That implies there is a person there to be conceived in sin. But how much we can take this verse and generalize to all people, is debatable. And it doesn't imply that the life in the womb is necessarily an innocent, for that matter (David is basically saying something almost like "My sin is so horrible, I'd be better off never having been conceived")

Well, my view of Original Sin might be different from Lutherans but I do not see how being totally depraved influence abortion, a lot of people would be considered totally depraved but we still care about them.

 

[SPF]

Well, my view of Original Sin might be different from Lutherans but I do not see how being totally depraved influence abortion, a lot of people would be considered totally depraved but we still care about them.

What he's saying is that if we take the verse to mean that David possessed an inherited sinful nature from conception that it would therefore not be a stretch to suggest that David was a morally valuable, created in the image of God, soul possessing human being from conception.

And if that is the case, then surely at the very least the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons would be immoral.

It all starts to add up.

1. From Scripture we know that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

2. Scientifically we know that a new human being, with its own identity, and unique DNA comes into existence and begins a 25 year developmental period at fertilization.

3. There are 0 Scriptural examples of a living human being without a soul.

4. John the Baptist was both filled with the Holy Spirit and leaped for joy while still in his mother's womb.

5. David indicates that he possessed an inherited sinful nature from conception.

6. While Scripture doesn't directly address abortion in a clearly outlined statement, it is clear that the ECFs acknowledged it was wrong. The Didache addresses it directly.

For me, I haven't seen any good reason to think that the unborn are any less human or any less morally valuable than the born. I don't see Scripture discriminating again a human based upon their age, developmental level, or location; so I don't see why I should.