top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureOld time preacher1

God is Pro-Choice John Pavlovitz - Rebuke


God is Pro-Choice John Pavlovitz - Rebuke
God is Pro-Choice John Pavlovitz - Rebuke

"This shouldn't even be a conversation.

The idea that America is here at this place and time in our planet's history, still debating whether or not women should have autonomy over their own bodies, shows we aren't maturing or progressing or evolving as a nation.

It also shows that millions of people of faith here are defiantly defying God's primary will.

Christians of all people, should be unequivocal in moments like these: God is pro-choice.

We know God is pro-choice because the Bible tells us so."






The Rebuke Introduction:


Let's be clear John Pavlovitz makes no biblical argument for why he believes that God affirms abortion. The Bible tells us so Statement, alongside the Blog titled "God is pro-choice" Wording is nothing more than click bate, false advertising mixed in with some good old-fashioned gaslighting.


Instead of a well-rounded Biblical case to support the Title header, Pavlovitz instead provides his readers with his typical stylistic; narcissistic rant writing format—hitched to a preschool-level theology on Christianity.


Zero! Nonna! Goose egg! Bible passages were used in the making of John's heresy blog post.
Thus, no scriptures were harmed during his production.

There was, however, plenty of assertions assumptions and attitude on why Pavlovitz feels God is Pro-death.

let's make this clear to John Pavlovitz: God does not affirm the demonic and evil practice of Butchering one's child in the womb. And unlike John, I will use the word of God to Thoroughly Rebuke his Unbiblical blog post.

[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"If you believe that God exists, and if you believe the Christian Scriptures to be your primary guide in understanding the character of that God—you find out pretty early on that free will is kind of a big deal."


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"Free-will"?

free will within Christianity has brought forth many debates.


Usually amongst Armenian and Calvinist.

Arminians take on the position that God has giving man kind Complete free will which he can then use to come to Christ?


Calvinists on the other hand take on the position of man's Utter depravity, so evil and wicked that man is simply unable to come to God without God acting first.


"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." - Ezekiel 36:26


I take on the position of man's complete depravity and thus man's Free will Concept as being unbiblical.


“There is no one righteous, not even one;

there is no one who understands;

there is no one who seeks God.

All have turned away,

they have together become worthless;

there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Romans 3:10-12


Scripture points not to man's will as "kind of a big deal" but Instead points to God's free will as THE only! Big deal.


“‘Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be done,

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from the evil one."

Matthew 6:9-13


Regardless of were your position is on the free will debate? one thing is clear, neither real Arminians nor Calvinists will cite free will as an acceptable excuse to kill a child in the womb.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]

"The opening chapters of the book of Genesis describe in poetic language,"


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


It appears to me that John is Already setting up his readers, (and himself), to view Genesis not as Historical but as poetic.

Why? Because John doesn't believe in the Genesis creation account and is looking for a reason to not hold scripture as Ultimate authority. Even though he will Allude to Scripture, as you will see.


True Christians believe the entire Bible, this includes Genesis 1, 2 and 3

Genesis is a historical fact, not mere poetry.

Jesus himself read Genesis as History. Read Matthew 19:4-6


“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


Simon Turpin from "Answers from Genesis" provides an in-depth and Biblical reason why Genesis is historical, not poetic. [Click to read]


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"God speaking all creation into being, fashioning out of dark and formless chaos every radiant bit of this planet and its inhabitants: all the light, shape, and color of the disparate beauty here.

Whether you're a believer or not, you likely know the Genesis story: six days of grand artistry, six days of spectacular displays of creative power, a boatload of animals, two people, a seventh day of rest in its very goodness (followed by one tree, one piece of Fruit, one serpent, and the mess that follows.)"


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."


Once again John is not providing any biblical evidence that suggests God supports abortion. Instead, John seems to be more Interest in characterizing Genesis in a Goofy unserious Description.

Pre-schooling Genesis 1, 2, and 3 while Making a Weird Reference to the flood with his "boatload of animal" comment.


The point is, nowhere In John's Paragraph statement is he Demonstrating that God supports abortion.

In fact! on the contrary. John is Actually describing Creation and life not destruction.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]

"The heart of the Creation narrative, is God giving human beings the right to determine their own path.

They are divinely endowed with self-determination.

They are co-creators in their own stories."


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


heresy steam shovel
heresy steam shovel


It is in this section where John ditches the heresy shovel for the heresy steam shovel, in what will be John's undoing for his arguments as nothing more than Satanic.

Stating that you are the "Co-creator" of your own story is false. You are not a god, and you have no equal standing before God. That should be obvious, but clearly, it's not obvious to John Pavlovitz.


Where John gets the idea of Co-creator? is Beyond me? Oprah Winfrey, Joe Olson perhaps?

What I can tell you is he didn't get it from Scripture.


Nowhere in Scripture does God say mankind is co-creator of this world, or of your destiny. On the contrary, God rebukes the idea.

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone—

7 while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors

when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment

and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10 when I fixed limits for it

and set its doors and bars in place,

11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;

here is where your proud waves halt’?

Job 38:4-11


John finds himself in a major Contradiction in his statement:

"The heart of the Creation narrative"

Why is this statement a contradiction? Because what does creation Imply? life, to bring something into function.


Creation doesn't imply death and yet John is trying to argue that God is pro-death by using creation language.


furthermore, Johns locks himself into Genesis 1 and 2 with his creation narrative statement.

Which honestly is great! Since Genesis 1 and 2 is where it matters.


Why? Because Genesis 1 and 2 are the pre-fallen world. This means the standard of what God made Good is found in Gen 1 and 2.


Nowhere does God give the reader any Indication whatsoever that death should be looked upon as a Positive, in Gen 1 or 2. As Death is not a concept in the Pre-fallen world.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]

"They are not mindless robots or blind sycophants.

They get to choose, because God wants them to choose.

God doesn't choose for them, and other people don't choose for them, and the Government doesn't choose for them."

[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


Mindless robots?

I would caution people to stop using the robot analogy. It's only been a very short period in history, that Mankind could even create something that can be called a robot. A mechanical device that has preprogrammed capabilities to do certain acts and actions isn't a living Being. Thus the Comparison should be rejected.


sycophants? This is a rather weird choice of word to use.

Why? Well, let's look at the definition of the term real quick.

"insincere flattery to gain advantage"


Pavlovitz Assumes that only Free will can produce people who truly love God?

Any changed brought to a person by God first would mean that the person would secretly be disingenuous?

But, Scripture is clear, unless you've had God change your nature you will not love God.

Man hates God and will do whatever he can do to run from him. Man needs to be tripped and needs to have God do a miracle in his life.


choose? Yes, God does want you to make choices. But he wants our choices to be in alignment with his standards. Your ability to choose is not a blank cheque for you to commit sins that go against God's standard. Your ability to choose should not be confused with You believing that God affirms your choice.


Ecclesiastes 8:11

"Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil."


The government doesn't choose for them?


The governments role? The government is supposed to be there when you make the wrong choice that ends up harming another human. The government's role is to be God's deacon here on this earth, to dole out the appropriate punishment to those violators, who break the law, which includes murders. Read Rom 13.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"Anything else is a form of slavery—and God emancipates people from all kinds of captivity."


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


It is unclear to me how slavery enters the topic of God being pro-choice?

That sounds like a different topic altogether?


to add to the confusion is the term "emancipates"

I want to put the definition of what emancipate means.

This is from Wikipedia.

"Emancipation is any effort to procure economic and social rights, political rights or equality, often for a specifically disenfranchised group, or more generally, in the discussion of many matters."


As you can see even the secular terminology makes no mention of abortion.


Therefore, I will leave the topic of slavery for a different discussion.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"Though not a literal account, the book of Genesis presents"


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]





John makes this rebuke difficult, not because he presents bible passages that need to be explained.

No, John makes this rebuke difficult because on one hand, he references to genesis as the go to place to prove that God primary free will gift, applies to those who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.


But then in a very short period of time John reverts back to his true feelings about the Genesis account. Which is to reject it's historical Credentials as not being legitimate.


Which is it John? Is Genesis authority or not?

Either way, Jesus Took Genesis as being literal and therefore I will rest on the side of Christ for Origins. [See Matthew 19]


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]

" The Maker of All Things as creating every member of humankind inherently good, specifically original—and able and qualified to decide who they are and what they do, and how they live and move and breathe through this life. "


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"Every member of humankind Inherently Good"?


Any Christian who teaches people are morally "Good" in a fallen world is nothing more than a Boldface liar! a Fraud!


I don't know how else to call it? Scripture doesn't teach that we sinners are "Inherently Good."


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"For professed Christians, it is antithetical to that God's intentions, to attempt to legislatively control a woman's body, because the higher Law says that she is in control of it. Period."


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


John can use all the big boy words he wants.

(antithetical: directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.)

won't help him under Cross-examination.

We've gone through more than half of John's article and to this point John has provided no scriptures that support his free will for murder scheme.

He has contradicted himself by not even believing in the very authority that he's trying to cite from.



"the higher Law says that she is in control of it. Period."


When did John bring up God's law? Up to this point, he's only spoken about Free will. Surely he can't be thinking that Free will is God's law?

If John is speaking about God's law? Then John, show me where in God's law does God permit a woman to kill her unborn child?

[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"There is no Biblical precedent or Scriptural justification for a person of faith to partner in any human-made law that supersedes the free will of a woman."


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


This is Idolatrous. John just stated that the courts can't go above God's law, now John has taken God out of the picture altogether and has now elevated women's free will to the position that God was in just a paragraph ago.

In other words, John has now turned women into gods.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"This isn't about abortion.

It isn't about the semantics of pro-life or pro-birth or anti-abortion labels.

This isn't about the minutia of when you believe life begins.

Those are diversions from the central issue at hand.

For professed Christians, this shouldn't be about debating anything but whether or not women should be allowed to have what God has already given them: choice."


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


As we have already established Genesis 1 and 2 in the creation narrative are about building life, and not destroying it.

Did God give Adam and Eve the ability to choose? Yes, he did and as we will soon see, the choices that they make doesn't end well.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"And for any supposed believer who claims the Bible to direct them, arguing against a woman's right to choose is arguing against the very heart of God as depicted in the Scriptures."

[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]

Where does Scripture argue that you have free will to take the life of a Child?


"the very heart of God "

If you want to know what the heart of God has to say about killing one's child?

Then read Ezekiel 16:5-6


"you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!”


God describes graphically how the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites dealt with their unwanted children. God uses their demonic practice as a metaphor to describe how God saved Israel.


But, if you use John's logic? You now have God in a Contradiction. Why? Well, why was it not okay to Abandon your child to death in the Old Testament? But it's perfectly okay to do this in 2022?

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8; for more insight into this passage, check out the link provided. Click.)


God hated when people Murder their Children in the Old Testament and he hates it today.


[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"I am a Christian man and I am pro-life, in the sense that I am pro the lives of women having autonomy over their own bodies. Beyond that, I yield to what they do with that autonomy, because I nor anyone else should have jurisdiction there."

[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]


"Christian man"

John can call himself Christian all he wants, doesn't make him one. His fruit is not per repentance of sins. instead, John encourages people to engage in sin. John is aligned with the devil system.


"Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" Matthew 7:22 - 23

"pro-life" John's takes on the old switcheroo tactic. John understands the term abortion comes with a rather negative stigma attached to it. He understands the difference between pro-choice and pro-life terminology. Pro-life is a positive term whereas Pro-choice is a negative term. This is why he's trying to co-opt the term for his pro-death outcome.

This is easy to deal with, By simply asking John:

Does your pro-life understanding result in a child in the womb being killed? Yes or No


"I am pro the lives of women having autonomy over their own bodies"

Except for the defenseless women that are being slaughtered inside the womb, those women John doesn't care about.


"Beyond that, I yield to what they do with that autonomy, because I nor anyone else should have jurisdiction there."


So it's not about God after all it's about your position. We can just go ahead now and change John's title Header. "John Pavlovitz is Pro-choice."

[continue with John Pavlovitz article; "God is Pro-choice."]

"Christian, you're entitled to believe that life is sacred. I certainly do.

You're entitled to believe that embryos are sentient human beings. I disagree with that assessment.

But you're not entitled by any Scripture passage or any Biblical mandate, to legislatively force your will upon another human being, no matter what justification you make for it.

If you want to argue that, you're fully welcome to.

You're just going to have to take your agenda above me and above anyone else—to a decidedly pro-choice God."


[continue with John Pavlovitz rebuke of an article; "God is Pro-choice."]

Christian, you're entitled to believe that life is sacred. I certainly do.

With certain conditions attached. They have to be outside the womb.


embryos are sentient human beings. I disagree with that assessment.


John doesn't understand basic biology. Embryos are the building block of life. What does he think happens? Human Embryos evolve into chicken eggs?


Once again John finds himself in a contradiction with God.


For you created my inmost being;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

your works are wonderful,

I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you

when I was made in the secret place,

when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my unformed body;

all the days ordained for me were written in your book

before one of them came to be.

Psalms 139:13-16



you're not entitled by any Scripture passage

Sure we are. The Entire Bible is filled with passages that refute that silly and baseless claim.

I'll just provide two.


Rescue those being led away to death;

hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”

does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?

Does not he who guards your life know it?

Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

Proverbs 24:11-12


"You shall not murder". Exodus 20:13


I could keep going. Whereas, John can't even start. No bible passage! not a single one can be sighted by Johns to back up his outlandish claims.


Other than Free will he declares God pro-Murdering of children. I think it's clear that whatever goddess John is worshiping? It is clearly not the God of the Bible.


One last nail:





Before I close there's just one last nail that needs to be hammered into John's Christian heresy casket.


Let's take one more quick look at this statement again.


"The heart of the Creation narrative, is God giving human beings the right to determine their own path." They are divinely endowed with self-determination. They are co-creators in their own stories."


The reason I've marked this statement in red is for the simple fact that this statement clearly show the dilemma that John has now placed himself in.

And it's not a good dilemma to be in.


That dilemma is how dose God call Eves action sinful while calling millions of woman murderous action today Good?

All Eve dose, is eats a piece of fruit, and for her action God Cursed the entire world?


For those who are born again Christians, understand that Eves problem wasn't that she eat one peace of fruit, it was that she disobeyed God's commandment .


Eve's Obedience to God was supposed to be more important then Eve's Free will.

And yet she chose herself over God.


I'm not sure if John has thought his free will justification out clearly? Either he hasn't or he has such lack of respect for Genesis that he doesn't care about the Inconsistency that he has created. Remember John thinks Genesis is Poetry and not to be taken Literal.


I have No confidence that John could find a adequate explanation that could accounts for why Eve's free choice was wrong, but millions of women's choices today are find?

I just think John cares more about sounding as if he has found a Christian position on slaughtering one's child in the womb.

Just good enough to fool some naïve woman.


Justifying abortion using Free will Argumentation will only get you so far before the House of cards comes collapsing on you. You will Eventually have to do what John did, which is to affirm the sins of Eve.

Disobeying God's commandments are not seen as sins to John, and that's Because the concept of sinning against a Holy, Holy, Holy God is far from John's ability to process.


Therefore I pray for John, to see his errors and to repent of his murderous endorsement that claims abortion is perfectly endorsed by God.




0 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page