prisonchaplain

Okay. As FYI, the Torah = the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is what we call the Old Testament. The Talmud is a rabbinic commentary, from roughly 500 AD, I believe. Jesus said: (Matthew 5:17-18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV) So, my point is that Jesus, if we take these writings as God's Word, and if we believe that the writers accurately recorded Jesus words (and I do), saw the continuity between the Old Testament and what would become the New Testament. When He says "The Law"--that's Torah. When he says the prophets, we basically have the Tanakh.

That's probably a fair assessment. In most cases, it's not false teaching, but an overemphasis on one aspect of truth. So, distortion is a good word. There is blessing in giving. You can't out give God. And, Christians who give to TV ministries are bound to be blessed for their giving. However, too much "seed faith" type teaching, and we begin to chase the tool of money, rather than the God we thought we would serve with the tool.

Perhaps a little story will help clarify this matter of Satan's missions against us: One evening in a backwoods Pentecostal church, the meetin' had gotten to the 'deliverance' time. On the stage was a 400 lb woman. She says, "Pastor, I need you to pray and deliver me from the demon of fat." So, the pastor whips out some prayer oil (Crisco I believe), when suddenly, a man stands, and says, "Pastor, I have a word from the Lord." It turns out, the man was Richard Simmons (the diet guru). Pastor says, "Speak, Bro. Simmons, speak!" Pastor, this kind of demon only comes out with prayer, and much fasting!"

Jesus quoted more than the Torah. His quote from Isaiah about coming to bring freedom to the captives, etc. is well known. We do not see Jesus arguing over canon in the New Testament accounts. He does say that he would not change one jot or tittle of the law.

I think you're right. He built the prayer tower. Then he went on to build a hospital that would combine the best of modern medicine with the best of healing prayer. It was the hospital that brought the pressure to raise added funds.

In response to another string, in which I was asked what I thought of "Seed Faith" (Give and God will give you 100X back), I post the following teaching: I HAVE LEARNED TO BE CONTENT Introduction: 1. Have you ever suffered terribly, and somebody said to you, “I know how you feel?” 2. Perhaps you wanted to slap them and say, “You’ve never been where I am–you do NOT know how I feel.” Scripture: Philippians 4:11-12: Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: everywhere and in all things I am intstructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. Proposition: Contentedness is not a product of circumstances. Interrogative: In what circumstances can I be content. Transition: You can be content in good times. I. You can be content when life is easy. A. When we are well-fed 1. Even the full get sick a. Heart disease b. Indigestion c. Liver disease (from alcohol abuse) d. Alcoholism 2. Full but poorly nourished B. When we have plenty 1. It’s never enough if you count on it. a. Insurance for car, life, health, home b. Savings accounts for retirement, children’s college tuition, weddings, rainy days c. “Need” for another car, a better car, a mini van, an SUV d. A bigger house in a better neighborhood e. Jewelry to make up for what you could not afford early in the marriage f. Satisfying the family by keeping up with the neighbors. Of course, as you move in to those bigger houses in better neighborhoods, you have more to keep up with. 2. The Parable of the Sower: The concerns of this world choke the life out of us just as weeds destroy the harvest. 3. The rich get sick, divorced, psychological troubled, and they ultimately die, the same as us all. 4. The rich are best able to realize that life is meaningless without God. Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon–the richest, wisest man who ever lived. Transition: No matter how hard one tries to stir up sympathy for the well-to-do, those of us who are not would lay claim to greater difficulties. II. You can be content when life is difficult. A. When we are hungry. 1. It is often said that you cannot feed a man’s soul until you fill his belly. 2. Yet, when we need God for our “daily bread,” we realize that He is all we need. 3. The discipline of fasting teaches us the powerful truth that God is our nutrition–our strength. B. When we are poor. 1. So many pastors and missionaries have testified to praying to God for their family’s next meal–and God provided. 2. The gospel seems to spread faster and stronger in areas that are economically struggling. 3. Jesus says that it is the rich that have a hard time finding God and heaven, because they are deceived by their possessions. a. They actually believe they are self-sufficient. b. The belief that we can be independently adequate is Satan’s original lie to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Transition: It is easy for the Apostle Paul to say that God is all we need, whether rich or poor. “My problem is neither,” you say. “ I am in prison! I need to be free!” III. You can be content in prison. A. Philippians 1:12-14: But I would ye should understand, bretheren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; And many of the bretheren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 1. Paul wrote these words while he was in prison! 2. Although I am here 40+ hours a week, I cannot tell you, from experience, that you can be content in prison. 3. Paul can–and he does! B. The testimony of so many of God’s people. 1. Old Testament prophets were frequently imprisoned–and even killed. 2. Jesus and ten of the disciples were imprisoned and executed for the Good News. 3. John was not killed, but served a life sentence at FDC Patmos for the Good News. C. The testimony of a Chinese Pastor-Fugitive. 1. As long as I am free, I travel from village to village preaching the Good News, surviving with what Christians feed me and give me as clothes. 2. If I am captured I will be sentenced to 10 years of hard labor. I will preach the Good News to officers and inmates alike! CONCLUSIONS 1. Are you full and wealthy today? God knows your psychological and physical sufferings. He can make you content and relieve the pain that nobody sees. 2. Are you hungry and poor today? Jesus is the Bread of Life. He can satisfy your hunger, provide your needs, and bring peace where there is inner turmoil. 3. Are you in prison today. Jesus came to set the captive free! He can free you from sin, and he will be your advocate–your defense attorney–before God and man!

The 1980s were perhaps the darkest spiritual period for my movement, and for Pentecostalism in general. The "Prosperity Gospel" "Seed Faith" "Kingdom Now" etc. teachings were very prevelent. A litany of the bad fruit: 1. Jimmy Swaggart falls to sexual voyuerism. 2. Jim Bakker has a tryst with Jessica Hahn, and is imprisoned for financial misdeeds. 3. Oral Roberts infamously says that God will 'take him home' if he doesn't raise $8 million in a month. 4. Robert Tilton is exposed for having his ministry team extract checks from prayer letters, and simply dumping the letters/prayers etc. Yes, it was a dark time. In my own area, our national leadership came out to the local pastors meeting in the early 1980s, and implored them to forsake prosperity teachings that might call into question the faithfulness of some of our most faithful and faith-filled members, who happen to be of meager means. The result? About 5% walked out, left the fellowship, and started their own "prosperity churches." Lines in the sand are tough, but afterwards, our movement has stepped clear of the obvious excesses of these teachings. We are children of the King. God does want to bless us. He rewards faithful givers. However, the rewards are not always financial, or even physical. Perhaps our child will be called to a particularly successful mission. Perhaps that particularly obnoxious coworker will say "Yes" this time, when we ask him/her to come to church with us. BTW, I'm posting a teaching I did a while back on contentedness, that addresses this issue more fully and scripturally.

GEEE Chap i never figured you were a pulp fiction kinda guy LOL You know, the first time I watched it, I hated it. Then, a few years later, someone was describing the movie, and made it sound like the best thing. So, I gave it a second look, and it kinda grew on me. Maybe it was the Samuel S. Jackson quoting Old Testament prophets? Maybe it was John Travolta extoling the virtues of fries dipped in mayo? Who knows?

If I'm reading this correctly. your real issue is with power-seeking, title-seeking, and the like. Perhaps one of the prerequisites of leadership ought to be humility. Nevertheless, some people are better at childcare and education, while others excel at leadership. The proper response is that people should serve where God has gifted them. That leaders are held to higher moral/ethical/spiritual standards is a reality the Bible recognizes. Such ought not to be a source of pride. Jesus did indeed call upon leaders to "grab a towel" and wash some feet. IMHO, some of the best leaders are those who stumble into the positions. They help out and help out, and eventually find themselves out front, with everyone else in line. They say, "I never sought this...never envisioned it, but here I am."

My favorite sweet of all time has to be: Tiramasu. It's a rich, moist cake that is the BOMB! For salty junk food I love heavily salted french fries that I dip in mayo (cf Pulp Fiction). And, for every day yummy cheap snacks, DONUTS! Especially old-fashioned glazed donuts, along with a beverage that does not violate my own religious tenets.

No. Those in spiritual leadership are held to a higher standard. In 1 Timothy 4:12, 15 Paul tells Timothy, "...be thou an example of the believers, in word, in coversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. ... that thy profiting may appear to all." So, church leaders, whether you call them bishops and councilman, or deacons and pastors, are held to a higher example. Basically, they are expected to set the pace for the members to follow. I guess I'm confused about what "charms" you speak of. The lesson you are referring to is based upon Paul's letter to Timothy.

Interesting you should choose JOB--the unofficial patron saint of prisoners. Why, Job's writing about suffering, about loss, about a driving desire to know why evil besets us when we've been faithful--and then God's ultimate answer: I am God, who are you to advise me? Job is vindicated in the end, for his faith, and receives great reward. Who wrote it? We do not know. It may well be the oldest book in the Bible. However, I am with Red on this--the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 books of the New Testament meld together "miraculously." 66 books written of the course of some 1400 years, by roughly 40 different authors, from different cultures--yet producing a book that details the victories and failings of God's people. It is true that accepting the Bible as God's Word, true, largely literal--including the supernatural stories that are not obvious allegory or parable--requires an element of faith. There are some factors that point towards faith, and others that might give pause. My faith is not "blind," but it is faith--not purely rational conclusion. Ultimately, God did preserve his Word through the process of canonization. My understanding is that Mormons accept this too, though they've parked themselves with the KJV translation, and added faith in other writings, left the canon wide open for addition and editing, put all under submission to modern prophecy. Such a stance is also a matter of some reason combined with faith. Perhaps what we are contending about here, is who is exercising more faith and who has more reason? I'm a little confused here. As a Mormon, do you not accept the KJV of the Holy Bible as the Word of God?

A bottom-line "biblical" standard for canon--any writings that would be ADDED to the canon should complement the current standard. Of course, this next point is a difference we have: the new must submit to the old, rather than vice versa.

Mike Warnke was a drug addict who got clean, became a Christian, probably dabbled very lightly into Satanism, and who was a master story teller. He often confused reality with fiction, and after many years as a successful ex-Satanist Christian evangelist/comedian, his falsehoods were exposed by Cornerstone Magazine. Ironically, when this story broke, I was speaking with a minister, and he said, "I'm not surprised. Former drug addicts have become so adept at story telling (usually learned to get what they want from people), that they often confuse their stories with reality." Supposedly Warnke has gone through a process of rehabilitation, and still has a small ministry going--but it is a shadow of what it once was.

My guess is that the majority of churches have such missionaries--except that they really believe themselves to be believers, and have no affiliation with organized Satanism.

1. Jesus was Jewish, and clearly recognized and used the canon of his day--basically the Old Testament--primary the LXX, or Greek venacular translation. 2. Timothy clearly had a finite set of writings in mind when he said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 3. Without any canon whatsoever, some gullible believers might take the writings of the National Enquirer, or their favorite TV preacher, as gospel. 4. Ultimately, your own church has a canon. Maybe the real question is not "should there be a canon?" but rather, "who has the authority to establish canon, and what standards should they use?"

Another teaching outline for your reading pleasure...brought to you by -- (thought it would be nice to show you a video clip of me in action. ). FIFTEEN TESTS FOR LEADERS Introduction: Overseer is a pastor, reverend, minister, chaplain, or shepherd. A deacon is a person dedicated to servant-leadership. They help with practical ministries of the church–and yet are esteemed as spiritual leaders. Scripture: 1 Timothy 3:1-10: 1Tim.3 [1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) [6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. [8] Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; [9] Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. [10] And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Proposition: We should understand the standards to which those in positions of spiritual authority must live by. By learning these characteristics we can gain an understanding of how God would have all of us to live. Interrogative: What are the standards to which those in positions of spiritual authority must live by? Transition: Leaders should lead by example. I. They should be ABOVE REPROACH A. Spiritual leaders should be without blame. B. Of course all have sinned, and nobody should be quick to judge. C. Yet, if one is continually being blamed for problems that are truly sinful, before he seeks ministry he needs to get victory over his temptations! II. They should be THE HUSBAND OF BUT ONE WIFE A. Different denominations have interpreted this verse in different ways. 1. In the Catholic church the priest cannot be married at all. 2. Some churches insist that a pastor must be married, based on this verse. 3. Some argue that this verse only refers to polygamy, and say it is OK for those who have been divorced and remarried to serve as pastors. 4. Others say that those who divorce and remarry should not serve as pastors because of this verse. B. Surely, those who are spiritual leaders must strive to have healthy loving marriage relationships with their spouses. III. They should be TEMPERATE A. Temperance is very similar to moderation. B. People will argue over whether or not Christians should drink, smoke, gamble or even dance. C. Surely spiritual leaders should not over-indulge in any such activities. D. Those who struggle with alcoholism, or behavioral addictions should get victory over those struggles before they seek to serve as spiritual leaders. IV. They should BE SELF-CONTROLLED A. Those with short tempers need to gain victory before they apply for ministry. B. Those who over-eat, who are lazy, or who are impulsive need to gain mastery over their lives before they would seek to guide the lives of others. V. They should be RESPECTABLE A. Do you have habits or behaviors which you consider personal, but which annoy others? B. Sometimes we must give up freedom in order to serve as leaders. C. Example: Drinking. 1. May or may not be sinful. 2. However, I gave it up, because people inside and outside of the church generally do not respect religious leaders who drink. VI. They should be HOSPITABLE A. A pastor once said, “Ministry would be all right if it were not for the people.” B. If you do not like people, you should not seek to lead. C. We need to love people and come to the place where we take pleasure in showing them an enjoyable time. VII. They should be ABLE TO TEACH A. One does not have to be a great speaker to be able to teach. B. Both Moses and Paul were poor speakers. C. However, you should be able to communicate clearly what Jesus wants of people–both by your speech and the way you live. VIII. They should be NOT GIVEN TO DRUNKENNESS. A. People argue about whether it is okay for Christians to drink. B. Surely spiritual leaders should not drink to the point of embarrassment, intoxication, or unconsciousness. IX. They should be NOT VIOLENT, BUT GENTLE. A. If you can turn your fighting spirit against sin and the Devil you can be a great warrior for Jesus. B. If you insist on turning your anger against people, the Bible says you are not qualified for ministry. C. How can you say you love God whom you cannot see, if you fail to love people, whom you can see? (1 John 4:20) X. They should be NOT QUARRELSOME A. There are times when we must “fight” for what is right. B. However, some people are always looking for fights. C. The Bible tells us that as much as possible, we ought to live peaceably with one another. (Romans 12:18) XI. They should be NOT A LOVER OF MONEY A. Yes, God promises blessings to those who serve him. B. Yes, prosperity is there for those who are faithful to God–particularly in their tithes and offerings. C. However, the blessings of God can take many forms. 1. Perhaps rather than a second or third late-model car, God might bless you by calling your child to be a missionary. 2. Perhaps rather than a promotion, God might call you to a less demanding job, so you can spend more time with your family, which may desperately need your spiritual leadership. D. The important balance to the prosperity vs. not loving money teachings in the Bible is Matthew 6:33. 1. Seek first God’s kingdom. 2. He’ll get you whatever you truly need. XII. They should be MANAGE THEIR OWN FAMILIES WELL AND SEE THAT THEIR CHILDREN OBEY THEM WITH PROPER RESPECT A. People have different styles of parenting. Some are very strict and others are more relaxed. B. What is important is that you take the time to train your children. C. Sometimes your children will resist instruction. This is when you are the mean, old-fashioned father. This is when your child might say, “I hate you!” D. A real father will lead his children, rather than merely befriending them. E. If you are too busy to train your children you are too busy to minister to others in the kingdom of God. XIII. They should NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT A. I’d prefer a young Christian adult to an old Christian baby. 1. I’d be happy to work with one who’s been a Christian for six months, but has proven stable, hungry, and who has shown continual spiritual growth. 2. I would hesitate to work with someone who’s been in the church 20 years, but who is lukewarm, easy to offend, and who is spiritually an infant. B. Having said that, if God calls you to leadership, do not be in a hurry. 1. God has time. 2. He will make it work. 3. Let him prepare the way for you. XIV. They should be OF GOOD REPUTATION WITH OUTSIDERS. A. Sometimes we Christians are naive. 1. Because someone is a brother in Christ, we do not want to be judgmental. 2. We turn a blind eye to obvious problems in people’s lives. B. However, a Christian leader should be known in the community as someone of strong moral character. XV. They should be HOLDERS OF THE DEEP TRUTHS OF THE FAITH WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE A. Christian leaders should know the beliefs of the church or denomination they belong to. B. They should teach the truths of their fellowship without hesitation–and with enthusiasm. C. As an example, I am ordained by the Assemblies of God. 1. My church believes in the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and in speaking in tongues. 2. Because we are in a chapel setting, with brothers from many different churches, I do not make an issue of this teaching very often. 3. However, if asked, I will gladly explain and defend my church’s belief. 4. In fact, I have on a few occasions offered a special teaching on this issue, by request. CONCLUSIONS 1. If you believe God is calling you into spiritual leadership, these are the characteristics you need to develop. 2. Examine yourself, and ask God to help you become qualified for the high calling. 3. The Bible warns us about false teachers. 4. Never accuse someone because they rub you the wrong way, ask for too much money, or because you just do not like them. 5. However, if someone is truly a false teacher, these tests will demonstrate where they are wrong. 6. Remember too, that most of the time, when spiritual leaders are weak in an area, it means they simply need to pray through and get victory. 5. It’s only when a leader is unteachable, unrepentant, and hostile towards the Truth, that they should be treated as wolves in sheep’s clothing.

That was one of his points. Another of his points was that ALL laws are based on morality. If you define morality very broadly (for example - it is moral to drive 64 miles an hour on the highway but immoral - and hence evil - to drive 66 miles an hour) I guess you could find tenuous and convoluted ways to make that case for many laws. But, how can you say MOST. I personally have no idea how many laws of what kinds there are. I know that the or one of the most regulated industries in the country is the nursing home industry. There was books full of laws that specify, for example, how many holes per square inch the window screens should have and how many foot candles of lights the over-bed lights must have. I suggest that the number of holes per square inch in screens in not a matter of good and evil. I imagine there are more procedural and mechanical laws in existence than there are laws that can properly be understood in terms of good and evil. In terms of quantity of laws, you may well be right. In relation to whether or not morality can be legislated, the point that a significant number of laws attempt to enforce morality, Traveler is right. 64 vs. 66? The line has to be drawn somewhere, in order to enforce the moral imperative against driving at a rate that signficantly raises the risk of accident. The point is not whether all or most or a signficant # of laws enforce morality--the point is that morality can be and is legislated.

I think we agree. What you've added does not contradict, but rather completes my thought: Yes, when we sin we must MAKE AMENDS. You are right--and I did not put that idea in my teaching. However, I think you agree, that we should be ready to face any natural consequences as well--and that those consequences do not negate God's forgivness. Ironically, most churches that practice Believers' Baptism also immerse (mine is no exception). Most churches that practice sacremental baptism (salvation is in the ritual) allow sprinkling. Of course they also baptize infants. The LDS is unique in combining sacramental baptism with immersion, and waiting until the child is old enough.

The best argument I have heard IN FAVOR of the death penalty is that capital punishment is pro-life. How so? The only punishment for heinous murder that recognizes the value of life is execution. The murderer willfully and viciously took a life. The only answer to that crime that fully recognizes what was taken is execution. Frankly, I'm still uncommitted on this issue. I do not believe capital punishment violates God's standards. My own qualms are that our system of administering it is not acceptable. To accuse an evangelical or a fundamentalist Christian of situational ethics is the equivalent of poking us in the eye! OUCH! I understand your reasoning. Quite frankly, the common prolife position of "except danger to the mother's life, rape, incest" is partially 'realism," and partially a sincere belief that the victims of violent crime should not be required to bring to term the product of said crime. Additionally, if a mother's life is threatened by a pregnancy, then the mother would have precedence over the baby. Keep in mind that babies are not able to live outside the womb until between six and seven months. So, Maureen's example where both mother and baby dies is not unrealistic.

I agree with my fellowship that Water Baptism is a testimony to the salvation story that has already taken place in my life. To make baptism a prerequisite of salvation would seem to be to require a "work." Rather, like good works, water baptism is a fruit of salvation. The going under the water represents the death and burial of Jesus, and the death and burial of 'the old man'--my old life, my old ways of sin. The coming out of the water represents the resurrection of Christ, and my resurrection to new life, freed from the bondage of sin. This view is called the Believer's Baptism, or Credo (creed, belief) Baptism. As such, we see John 3:5: Jesus answered, Veryily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. as having two possible meanings: 1. born of water could simply mean natural birth--which contrasts with being born of the Spirit, or 'born again.' 2. "water" often means spirit in John's gospel. It is quite possible that verse 5 could be translated, "born of water, EVEN of the Spirit." Indeed, verse 8 only mentions being born of the Spirit. Note also that at the time Jesus was having his dialogue with Nicodemus (a Jewish Teacher, not a follower of the Way), the only water baptism was that of John--a baptism of repentence. Having said all this, water baptism is an extremely important commandment, that must be obeyed. Too often, when I see so-called converts hesitate to be baptized, what I am really seeing is someone for whom Jesus is Savior, but not Lord. Quite often the reason for hesitation is hidden sin.

My guess is that most sodomy laws were symbolic in nature. They were enacted by politicians appealing to a fundamentalist Christian electorate, as a way of saying we will stand for righteousness and goodness. I could also understand that, with government engaging in higher tech. surveillance than ever before, that what was once symbolic could indeed become Well, of course, not every law is a statement of morality. But, most are. It is immoral to drive at so high a rate of speed that the risk of accident becomes significant, so we have speeding laws. Other traffic laws--ditto. It is foolish, and perhaps immoral, for members of society not to be willing to defend their neighbors, so we pay taxes for military, law enforcement, and courts. Our drug laws are an obvious community standard that is legislated. So while contract law, business law, etc. might often be process-oriented, most laws have an element of morality to them. So, the old canard that we cannot legislate morality, is simply not true. I'm fairly certain this was Traveler's point.

In a society and government such as ours, agreement comes through the political process. In order for government to interject itself into moral standards, the level of agreement must be quite strong. 50.1% is usually not enough of an approval rate to garner dramatic change. Additionally, there are times when a weak majority may get a prohibition (or permission) passed, but the law ends up being more symbolic than anything else (just how often were sodomy laws actually prosecuted, anyway?). And, quite often, such laws are eventually overturned (55 saves lives!). When in doubt (and we're in doubt quite often), 'tis best to do nothing. Finally, in areas that are truly moral in nature, we develop moral strength when we choose to do what is right, rather than being coerced by government force to comply. Self discipline is far healthier for society than a populace that is constantly learning "not to get caught."

Probably the biggest source of misunderstanding between Mormons and evangelicals on this doctrine of salvation is what it means to be saved. Generally speaking, Mormons emphasize the life of salvation, whereas evangelicals emphasize the moment of salvation (or conversion). Those of us evangelicals who are of the Armenian tradition, and do not teach "the perserverence of the Saints" (as Calvinists do), are particular close to you in our teachings. To quote from the rather lengthy teaching above: 2. Obedience to God and good works are the normal outcomes of having faith in Jesus. 3. When we sin as Christians, we must repent, confess our sins, and we must endure the consequences of our sin. So, yes, the true Christian will not only believe, but also do (or not do). Additionally, believers understanding that when they fall short, and repent, there still may be consequences to their actions. Bottom-line: I believe we can both say, "Amen--so be it."

This has the potential to be an interesting conversation. However, I'm a bit uncertain as to where you are arguing from, here. I've not sensed that you are in favor of criminalizing all abortions, but rather that your contention was "all or nothing." Am I wrong here? Do you favor criminalizing all abortions? Is your frustration with most prolifers that we are practicing "real politik" in order to get most abortions banned, but in the process losing our moral high ground? Or, are you suggesting that there can be no consensus, so mothers should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to have an abortion, unhindered by government? Furthermore, are you one that argues that a true pro-life positions requires one to be against the death penalty as well?