The World Can Use Some Apologists

Posts Tagged / Faith

Christian Stance on Abortion

Part 4 — Compromise, Churches, and the Conclusion

Welcome to the last episode of this series about the Christian stance on abortion. In part three we have discussed two dilemmas that so now and then happen. We’ve seen that good arguments to keep the unborn alive are abound. Basically, there are no philosophical nor rational arguments for abortion that can withstand the test. That means that the emotional argument is the only one that is left, and we all know that our emotions cannot be accounted for good moral decisions. In any case, let’s get to it, let’s talk about the options we have.


Living in a democracy, Christians are free to express their values on human life. Nevertheless, we cannot force our morality on other people. This is why we need to walk down the legal ways instead. One way to accomplish a change is through politics. Our Christian ideals are clear—a total abolishing of the practise of abortion. This, however, will not likely happen very fast, and that why I propose a compromised stance.

Before I continue, I need to clarify myself a little bit. I talk about this topic with mainly the Dutch society in mind. Our country has many different political parties. And with many I do mean: Many! As far as I know we have only two political parties who are against abortion. Both parties are Christian and do not receive many votes. As a consequence, they hardly receive enough votes to shift towards a ruling position. Normally they need to form coalitions with other parties. In such situation they cannot ‘push’ their ideals. This, of course, is very frustrating. It is this situation that triggered me to think further than the ideals. Note, however, that a compromised situation is not my preferred model, neither is it for those Christian parties. But for now, I think it is the best we can do.

Good, let’s talk about this, shall we? We can find an example of compromising the ideal in the Bible. In Genesis God sets the ideals for marriage (Genesis 2:24). Later Moses allowed the people to divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). According to Jesus, Moses accepted divorce because of the hardness of the people (Matthew 19:1-9). Jesus implied that Moses compromised the ideal in such a way that at least the divorced woman could be married by another man. Likewise, Christian politicians should consider a compromised agenda. That is to say, they can try to change the conditions and time-scale for abortions—focussing on the politically feasible and not on the ideal. This way, they can change the abortion law in gradual reductions.1

I know that this requires a big change of thinking for many Christians. And understandably so, compromise on abortion can be seen as agreeing with a terrible sin. Still, we need to realise that we live in a fallen world. In a fallen world we are bound to encounter conflicting moral issues. In cases like this, Christians have to choose between two evil options—choosing the less evil and thus saving a few is better than saving none. This tactic, of restricting access to abortion through state laws (in the USA), and offering viable alternatives for women in need, has been described by a worried pro-choice columnist as ‘death by a thousand tiny cuts.’2


The tensions are high in the abortion debate. Still, we really need to maintain our best behaviour. Even though you might think of abortion as murder, on which I wouldn’t disagree, it is better to control your tongue (James 1:26). Normally women do not go through abortion lighthearted, many of them simply do not know what else to do. Most women are, just like the adulterous woman in John 8:1-12, totally aware of what they have done. You see, Jesus did not preach a sermon or told her how bad the woman in John 8 was. The woman probably knew just fine what Jesus’ ideal was, still Jesus showed compassion, grace and love. If we say that we are followers of Christ, we should do as our Master (1 John 2:6).

Pro-active Church

Women, who consider abortion, generally have no reasonable idea of the alternatives, or they are strongly influenced by their surroundings such as their family or friends. It would be good if local churches become known as active pro-life communities. The topic should be in every church’s agenda. Education is crucial to help Christians understand the dilemmas that some women go through.

Many of the human-right issues which we discuss in our churches are about foreign dilemmas. While this is of great worth, we should not, and we cannot close our eyes for the problems of our neighbours that are closest to us. Information centres can be of great use for women who feel they are stuck. We can even consider to take up arms with non-Christians in setting up such centres. Really, there are many non-Christians that are totally committed to the pro-life movement. This may be considered as another compromise, but can prove to be even more effective in reaching women because some may have not much affinity with Christians.

In a society where one’s own choice is celebrated, Christians have a wonderful message. Part of the Christian message is the promotion of freedom of choice—freedom of speech and the freedom to choose any religion, school, healthcare centre you like—freedom should be one of the trademarks of Biblical Christianity as long as this freedom doesn’t harm others.


Okay, let’s wrap up this topic. We have seen that that Christians cannot accept legalised abortion. It is just absolutely immoral to say that the unborn cannot be seen as human. As I argued in the previous episodes, the unborn should be entitled for all basic human-rights. This is scientifically, morally, and legally undeniable. It is our duty to protect the unborn against any harm. Why? Simply because the unborn is a human-being. Human-Rights are there to protect, not only the strong, but in the first place to protects those who can’t protect themselves.

I also argued that doctors need to do their utmost to safe the unborn from harm in cases where a mother needs treatment for a life-threatening situation, such as cancer. It might happen though, that the medics unintentionally fail to save the unborn. If this happens, and it is really unintentionally I would not consider this as immoral or wrong. Especially in the early stage of the pregnancy the baby cannot survive outside the mother’s womb. This means that medics need to prioritise the life of the mother. No, that doesn’t mean they can terminate the unborn in that stage. Absolutely not! But again, if there’s a change in which the baby gets hurt while saving the mother, it isn’t immoral. The baby needs his or her mother.

It is such a blessing though, to see that the medical achievements are progressing rapidly. Last week I read about a baby, still a foetus of 21 weeks and three days, has been saved. It was born way the soon and the doctors gave the boy 0% change. Still, the parents wanted them to try and now the boy just had his first birthday! Glory to God, who gave us a brain to use! When we use our brains to the Glory of God we can achieve great things. In this last example, saving the life of a very young boy!


Anyway! This was the fourth and last episode on this topic. Now, I am very curious about your thoughts! What do you think about my rather controversial stance on compromising the ideals? Keep in mind: Saving a few is always better than saving none.

Maybe you have some good strategical ideas of your own? I mean, I come up with just another controversial idea of working together with non-Christians… Maybe, that is just too much for you, and you have some ideas of your own? You know, we do not live our lives in order to disagree and argue with everybody and every thing, while sitting safely behind our laptops. Nope, all major changes in the world came about because of pro-active people. We, Christians, shouldn’t be laid back! Jesus wasn’t silent, He actively obeyed God in every thing. We are to follow His example!

Do take a look in the description of this video. I always try to add all relevant links. Also in that same description you’ll find ways to support me… Your support will be used for making new videos and my work as missionary in the middle of nowhere on Madagascar.

Anyway, thank you very much for watching.

God bless you, and we’ll see each-other next time!


↑ 1 Cook, E. D., ‘Abortion,’ in D. J. Atkinson and D. H. Field (eds.), The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 131-133.

↑ 2 Harris-Perry, M., ‘On Roe v. Wade Anniversary, a Letter to one Fighting for Choice’, website (03 July 2021, http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/roe-v).

Christian Stance on Abortion

Part 3 — Dilemmas

You might have heard at least one of the ‘what ifs’. What if the girl gets pregnant after being raped, what if the girl is still studying, what if the lady is a bit old. Many ‘what ifs’, and today I am going to discuss two ‘what ifs’ that might actually occur.


We have already seen in the previous episodes that the unborn needs to be considered as human-being from conception. I have given three premises from which this conclusion needs to be drawn. These premises are so basic that most can understand it. Those who ignore these premises are either scientifically, morally or legally unknowing, that’s a fancy word for dumb.

Also, Christians who ignore God’s clear involvement with the unborn, can only do so when they actively change the meaning of the Bible. There is no way they can come to the same conclusion when they apply good hermeneutics, that is good interpretation of the Bible.

In any case, do watch the previous episodes if you want to understand the whole picture I am trying to set forth. You’ll find a link to the playlist in the description of this video.


Serious Sick Mother

What if, for example, a lady gets serious complications during pregnancy and her life is at stake? Here we, as Christians, have a problem that cannot be solved without compromising and thus adopting a more liberal stance.1 Treatment of the mother is most important since the unborn is depending on her and will also die when she dies. Sometimes mothers are advised to get a ‘therapeutic’ abortion because treatments (e.g. chemotherapy) could potentially harm or kill the unborn and to improve the mother’s changes. Yet, recent studies showed that the risks are not as big as one would expect, also women who carried to term had more change to survive their disease.2 Medical treatment should aim at rescuing both lives, However, if this fails, and if the unborn dies, it is unintentionally and along these lines not morally wrong.3 Despite all this, abortion to save the mother’s life does probably not, strictly medically spoken, exist. Although it sounds ‘noble and pure’ to those who recommend abortion, in reality it is, to say it with the words of Sloan and Hartz, a ‘real stretch of our thinking.’4

Raped and Pregnant

Another dilemma could be that a young girl becomes pregnant after rape. In the UK, raped women can ask treatment in several forms—some of which include treatment to cut off a possible pregnancy.5 But when we say that the right to life is inalienable, we cannot agree with treatments that intentionally kills the embryo. Understandably so, the raped woman will have horrible emotions but emotions cannot be accounted for good moral decisions. Bad does not become good when we feel like it. Geisler puts it like this: If morality ‘can mean anything for anyone, then it means nothing for everyone.’6


The basic content of these problems evolve around the most important question: Do we acknowledge the unborn as human or not. You see, even when the unborn will be harmed by treatments or is malformed in any other way, we cannot deny the unborn the basic human-right, which is life. So, when a certain treatment cannot wait and needs to be done, a doctor cannot just suggest terminating the pregnancy as a precaution. Doing so, is, as mentioned in part 2 of this series, scientifically, morally and legally wrong. Now, many may argue that that last premise doesn’t count. They might argue that abortion is legal in many countries and as such the doctor wouldn’t be handling illegal. Be that as it may, the mere fact that ungodly politicians say that something like abortion is okay, doesn’t make it okay! Even when earthly judges rule that it is fine, we as Christians, and thank God, with us many who have their brains switched on, cannot accept that law. For this I would like to point to my last video on Romans 13:1-7. You’ll find the link in the description.

Human life begins at fertilization, and it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.7


In the next episode I want to make a case for a rather controversial position in the debate, namely an approach that compromises on the ideals in the Christian world-view… Doesn’t that sound like a nice starter-upper for a discussion. But please hear me out first, before you start to shout at me.

Also, depending on the length of that episode, I would talk a little about our attitude in this debate. I know it is a matter of freedom to some, while others suggest we’re talking about murder. These discussions are bound to end up with cold hearts and heated heads. Anyway, let’s talk about a little more next time.

Don’t hesitate to write down your ideas, remarks or initiatives, in the comment section below. I am mostly active in my account on Odysee. Go ahead and make an account on Odysee and write your comments there. You’ll find an invitation to Odysee in the description below. When you accept my invitation we both receive some free LBC. Odysee is absolutely censorship free, unlike YouTube or other platform. On Odysee we can discuss this topic without having to be afraid of being banned. Isn’t that nice!

Do take a look in the description of this video. I always try to add relevant links. Also in that same description you’ll find ways to support me… Your support will be used for making new videos and my work as missionary in the middle of nowhere on Madagascar.

Anyway, thank you very much for watching.

God bless you, and we’ll see each-other in the next video!


↑ 6 Geisler, N. L., ‘Can Atheists Justify Being Good Without God?’, Articles by Dr. Geisler website (2 July 2021, http://normangeisler.com/can-atheists-justify-being-good-without-god/).

↑ 1 Geisler, N. L., Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010, p. 20.

↑ 2 Hoskins, W. J., Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology, 4th ed., Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Lipkins, 2005, pp. 166-167. SEE ALSO: Choi, D. X. and Morrow, M., ‘Breast Cancer: Treatments of Uncommon Diseases,’ in M. J. Dixxon (ed.), Breast Surgery: A Companion to Specialist Surgical Practice, 5th ed., Elsevier Limited, 2014.

↑ 3 ↑ 7 Prolifephysicians.org, ‘Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified? Official position statement of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians’, The Association of Pro-Life Physicians website (2 July 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20131126103951/http://www.prolifephysicians.org/ rarecases.htm).
See also: (2 July 2021, https://sites.google.com/site/abortioninformationfororthodox/cases-involving-the-mother-s-life).

↑ 4 Sloan, D. and Hartz, P., Choice: A Doctor’s Experience with the Abortion Dilemma: A Dedicated Compassionate Physician’s Forty-year Odyssey in the Service of Women Facing their most Fateful Choice, New York: International Publishers, 2002, pp. 46-47.

↑ 5 Victim Support, ‘Rape or sexual assault: information for women’, Victim Support website (2 July 2021, https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P2063_06-Rape-and-sexual-assault_women-leaflet-PMS-268-12042021.pdf).

Christian Stance on Abortion

Part 2 — Human or Not


Hi there! Welcome to the second part of this small series on abortion. I on purposely mention abortion in the first sentence of this video. Why? So nobody can mistakenly watch this video and say they didn’t know the subject.

In the first part I’ve talked about the terms as used in the debate around this topic. If you have a hard time following me in this episode, I recommend watching part 1 first. You’ll find the link in the description of this video.

Now we jump into the nitty-gritty of the debate. We are going to see whether we can consider the unborn as human or not. You might think this is a no-brainer but if I would have received a grain of sand every-time someone argued against this idea… Well, I might be able to fill a teaspoon. No, actually, people don’t often talk about the unborn as non-human. That is to say, most people would say it is a human but at the same time they argue for different qualifications of the unborn. Effectively reducing the baby to sub-human or maybe even non-human.

Is the Unborn Human?

With modern technologies we can easily follow the development of the unborn. This has its benefits but at the same time we can look at the unborn and examine it like any other part of the body. Many will look at an embryo and say that it is just a lump of cells. Still, there is much more to say about the embryo in its earliest state.


Some argue, mostly the hardcore pro-choicers, that we cannot speak of a human in the very beginning of conception. The say this because the first cells are totipotent and can still develop in different kinds of tissues such as the placenta. Then they go on and say that the placenta is certainly not an individual, especially not when the formation of the embryo did not yet start.1 Nevertheless, it is known that these cells function as an organism rather than a group of individual cells. In other words, these cells are setting the stage, as a unity in wholeness, for the person’s development.2 When people say that the embryonic cells can not be accounted for as a human because they are still in development is… Well arbitrary at best. You see, development continues in young children for many years, yet no one would dare to say that a toddler is not a person until adulthood. Maybe I shouldn’t say ‘nobody’, because there are always loonies walking around of which we would be shocked if we had a change to hear their thoughts.

But now we have mentioned it, there are those who say that embryos are parasitic, and only benefits from the mother with nothing in return.3 But scientifically this view doesn’t hold. Scientists discovered that there is no one-way relation because beneficial cells from the unborn pass into the mother’s body during pregnancy. These cells will increase the activity of the mother’s autoimmune conditions. This makes the mother more resistance when it comes to rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.4 And the research is still ongoing so what will be found next?

Yes, biologically, the unborn is a human and depending on the mother for survival. But no, the unborn cannot be seen as part of the mother since every cell of the unborn is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body. And, as said, this is certainly not a harmful relationship, but rather beneficial for both.


Ever since 1970 some of the medical establishment went through, what you can call ‘semantic gymnastics’. They had to change meanings of certain words in order to deny the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.5 This dehumanisation of the unborn is not very compelling because an adequate answer to when human life actually begins is not given. This is why others follow the logical conclusion that human life starts at conception.6 In other words, all humans are human, whether embryonic, foetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying. Saying that the embryo is human is begging the question whether the embryo has human-rights. The question that follows is whether human-rights apply to humans because they are human, or because other humans say so. If the first option is true we are secure against cruelties (at least by right). If the second option is true, our safety cannot be assured because human opinion changes over time.

Three Premises

Good, this brings us to a threefold premise that consists of scientific, moral, and legal arguments:

  1. The scientific premise is that human life begins at conception;
  2. The moral premise is that all humans have the right to live because they are human;
  3. The legal premise is that the law must protect the most basic human rights.

Based on these premises we can conclude that human life, including that of the unborn, needs to be protected against all harm. But also, when people ignore these three premises we can safely conclude that they are scientifically, morally or legally oblivious.7 This ‘ignorance’ is disturbing, to say at least, because the premises are so basic that most can understand it.

Christian Stance

As you can see, the human life arguments are not necessarily religious because they are appealing to reason, or in other words, to our intellect instead of faith. For Christians it is important that they also have sound theological reasons though. The moral view of a Christian relies on the understanding of God and His word. In the Biblical moral view, or Biblical world-view, we have absolutes. With this I mean that we can see be certain that some things are either good or bad. Torturing a child is always wrong, regardless of the situation, time or society. Contrary, secular society’s moral views become more and more relative. What might be good for you would not be necessarily be good for me, right?

God’s involvement

You’ve already seen Bible texts popping up in which we can see that human life is to be protected. But, for the sake of argument I will highlight Psalm 139. Here David clearly says that God was there when he was formed in his mother’s womb, that is from the very beginning. In the New Testament we read that the baby in Elisabeth’s womb leaped up when Mary visited them, indicating that the foetus was well aware of the things that were going on around him (Luke 1:36,41,44). The Bible clearly shows God’s involvement with the unborn in every stage of development.

The Christian view

The question whether the expression, sanctity of life, should be applied to abortion can be non-other than yes. Christians who believe otherwise and hold the Bible as authoritative, need to go through some pretty misty hermeneutics to defend their views. Even without the theological background we cannot dismiss the facts.


Good, I leave it at this because as I said, I’ll have to make the videos a little shorter in order to be able to upload them.

In the next episode we will discuss some of the dilemmas that may arise when we hold fast to our Biblical world-view with its absolutes. What to do when a girl gets pregnant after she’s been raped? Or h, 34-37.ow about a lady who needs to go through some hefty cancer treatments?

For now, I leave it at this. I will make a playlist on both Odysee and YouTube, making it easier for you to finding the episodes neatly arranged.

As always, I am curious about your ideas, remarks or initiatives. Let me know in the comment section below. Please consider making an account on Odysee and write your comments there. You’ll find an invitation to Odysee in the description below. When you accept my invitation we both receive some free LBC. But also, it is easier for me to answer on Odysee.

Do take a look in the description of this video. I always try to add relevant links. Also in that same description you’ll find ways to support me… Your support will be used for making new videos and my work as missionary in the middle of nowhere on Madagascar.

Anyway, thank you very much for watching.

God bless you, and we’ll see each-other in the next video!


↑ 3. Baggott, L. M., Human Reproduction, Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1997, p. 33.

↑ 5. Editorials, ‘A New Ethic for Medicine and Society,’ California Medicine, The Western Journal of Medicine, 113: 3 (September 1970), pp. 67-68.

↑ 2. Flaman, P., ‘When Did I Begin? Another Critical Response to Norman Ford’ Linacre Quarterly, 58 (November 1991), pp. 39-55.

↑ 1. Ford, N., When Did I Begin?: Conception of the Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 157-158.

↑ 7. Kreeft, P., Three Approaches to Abortion: A Thoughtful and Compassionate Guide to Today’s Most Controversial issue, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002, pp. 34-37.

↑ 6. O’Rahilly, R. R. and Müller, F., Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd ed., New York: Wiley- Liss, 2001, pp. 7-8.

↑ 4. Pincott, J., Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?: The Surprising Science of Pregnancy, New York: Free Press, 2011, PP. 220-221.

Christian Stance on Abortion (part 1 - Clarifying the Terms)

Christian Stance on Abortion

Part 1 — Clarifying the Terms


Talking with my daughter is often an interesting experience. She is almost 17 and her view on the world isn’t much different from that of mine. However, the things that she reads, hears and discuss on the internet are pretty challenging. I kind of thought that the whole issue around abortion wasn’t discussed anymore—people are saturated and just don’t want to hear that debate anymore. I was wrong! The topic is very much alive, and not only among the older generation. Turns out that many teenagers have a hard time getting their heads around this topic.

When I uploaded my last video, the one on Romans, I asked her what she would like me tackle next. Abortion! Was her direct answer. I asked her why, and she said that it was the first thing that came to her mind. When you ask me about the first thing that pops up, it would definitely be something else. Not to say that abortion isn’t important. No, it is one of the most important things we as Christians ought to discuss. It directly touches on our worldview. But I have studied the issue so often, I have discussed it a trillion times, so I guess I am the one who got saturated, maybe even doused off. Shame on me!

Anyway, instead of doing a different topic I decided to comply with her request. I’ll take one this topic first. The problem however, is that there is so much to say about it. My last video was about 30 minutes. Way to big for me to upload it while I am in our village. Good thing we were still in a bigger town. Nonetheless, I do not want to shorten, or hasten this subject, so I think I’ll just have to make it in another series… Sorry about that!

During my theology studies we also had to deal with ethics and how to come to a good understanding of Biblical morality in contemporary times. Most of the examination had to be done through essay writing. Often we could choose between several titles or subjects. I already had a hard time studying the ethical dilemmas of today’s society and dumb as I could be, I choose to write an essay on abortion. Back then my wife and I already had four children of our own and I just couldn’t get my head around this matter. I wrestled, I groused at everybody, I cried, and I protested. On the one hand medics are capable of saving the premature, while somewhere else unborn of the same age are aborted. How do we approach human life in such? Or can it be that this debate is not relevant as the unborn is not human yet? In the end, I shouldn’t say this, it felt like giving birth to a child myself. All in all, I finished the essay and received a high mark.

The Approach

Okay, here is how I would like to approach this topic. I will mostly follow the lines as used in my paper. You see, some Christians are mute on this topic. This is unfortunate and unnecessary because there are good theological and reasonable arguments to take a firm stand in this debate. We are not going to discuss the issues from a theological standpoint only, but also from a secular, that is not related to religion, perspective. Especially the arguments that appeal to reason are a bit of a challenge. More often than not, this approach is considered to be cold and heartless. This is not strange if you that the world around us is rapidly changing from an intellectual orientated society towards an overly anti-intellectual one. Many prefer emotional arguments to facts (just see what is happening during the covid drama). Anyway, in the end I will try to give some suggestions on how Christians can participate in the debate overall.

Clarifying Terms

Before I start it might be good to clarify some terms. Terminology makes a distinction in development. Often the unborn is referred to as an embryo in its earliest stage of development and when this stage is over the foetal stage begins (normally eight to ten development weeks for the embryonic stage). These terms do not make matters easier though. Emotionally people tend to take a different stance towards ‘something’ which is called an embryo than towards the term ‘baby’ or ‘child’. Still, I will use the terms ’embryo’ and ‘foetus’ because they signify the period of development.

I might use the term ‘sanctity of life’ somewhere down the line. ‘Sanctity of life’ is generally used by those who oppose technologies or practices that they believe break the clear value of human life. It is best understood as the respect that is owed to human life as the gift of God (Acts 17:25). The Bible teaches us that we have the duty to protect and respect human life (e.g. Genesis 9:5). The Bible is clear about the respect and responsibility we as humans have towards each others’ life (Genesis 4:9; Deuteronomy 21:1-9).1 For Christians this means that all human life is sacred and that this does not depend on culture, race, state of consciousness, colour, physical ability/disability etcetera (Acts 17:26).


Good as I said, I’ll have to make the videos a little shorter, which is a bother for those among you who just want to see the whole topic in ones. My apologise for this…

Anyway, in the next episode we will see whether we can talk about the unborn as human-being. I will not just suffice to say ‘yes’… Which would be an easy and fast move. Nope, we will study this question both from the biological and philosophical point of view. The nice thing about that approach is that it will give us three interesting premises to work with.

For now, I leave it at this. I will make a playlist on both Odysee and YouTube, making it easier for you to finding the episodes neatly arranged.

I am curious about your ideas, remarks or initiatives. Let me know in the comment section below. Please consider making an account on Odysee and write your comments there. You’ll find an invitation to Odysee in the description below. When you accept my invitation we both receive some free LBC. But also, it is easier for me to answer on Odysee as I have a hard time opening YouTube and Bitchute.

Do take a look in the description of this video. I always try to add relevant links. Also in that same description you’ll find ways to support me… You don’t have too! But I would appreciate it! Actually, I would like to thank those among you who already supporter me. It is a great help in both my work as missionary and in making these videos. I very much appreciate your trust!!

Okay, like always, thank you for watching.

God bless you, and we’ll see each-other in the next video!


↑ 1. Vere, D. W., ‘Sanctity of Human Life,’ in D. J. Atkinson and D. H. Field (eds.), The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 757-758.

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Conclusion – They have proven Boston’s points


The conclusion of why people won’t accept the Gospel:

They have proven Boston’s points

Introductory video

The first video was an introduction to this series. And yes! Right away I made a mistake. Not a huge one, but I did misrepresent Calvinism by stating that Calvinism says that ‘it is all predestined thus we don’t need to evangelise’. A good thing that a brother from my home country pointed out that this is actually called hyper-Calvinism, which is by no means mainstream among the Calvinists.

Anyway, I didn’t even start talking about the reasons Boston gave, but some already felt the urge to comment in a way that gives away their dislike of faith. One viewer said:

“There is only one reason needed to reject religion… Not needing your emotional needs met by fantasy & delusion.”

It is a rather funny way in which the little chat went it’s way, but you can read that for yourself. Nevertheless, the comment made one thing clear. Many unbelievers mistakenly assume that following Jesus, who is a divine Person, is the same as following a religion, which is a system. Then, also the assumption is that someone who believes in Christ basically does so because it feels emotionally good. This last thing might be true for Christians who don’t have anything to fear but how about those who follow Christ, knowing that it can cost their lives? Do they do that because they like to feel all fluffy inside, or do they actually have good reasons? I’ll let you decide about that.

There was another interesting comment:

“I really don’t understand why Christians say non-believers feel guilty or just want to keep sinning. That is absolutely nonsensical to me how someone who doesn’t believe in a divine creator, would for some reason still believe in the rules set by that creator.”

So, now the questions arises who actually decides right from wrong? If it is dependent on humans we are in big trouble! That would be the end of our civilisation. Look at the past what happened when humans started to decide what was good and what not. So, the moral giver need to be above the rules. It needs to be someone who is mighty enough to ultimately enforce the rules. Sounds like God to me. An unbeliever who still obeys these moral rules is thus simply obeying God without him or her realising it. This comment came from someone who was very honest about his or her past. He or she used to be a believer and read the whole Bible but could not get satisfying answers on hard questions. The result is sad, and I feel sorry for this person.

Overall, a very interesting start of a series. There were many very positive comments as well. Let’s conclude this one with the comment given by Grumpy:

“All we can do is strive to live our lives according to Christs teachings. Share the message of salvation and pray for all mankind, believers or not.”

Video 1 – No due sense of spiritual want

Boston in essence stated that humans are inherently in love with their own belongings and that they believe they have enough. That what they have might help them in the here and now, and because of this they think they don’t need anything else. In fact, an unbeliever doesn’t have a clue about that what he or she is missing. They don’t see that they lack the treasure of eternal life and the spiritual richness that comes with it. In other words, they don’t know what the miss.

Among the comment there was one from a fellow Dutch man. It is written in Dutch, but I will translate some interesting points.

“When I read the Bible I get the overarching feeling to stay away from this figure [God]. Plagues, infanticide, drowning everybody, and at the end the only comfort one gets is for not being tortured for eternity.”

After this he says something about my behaviour and that I am not on the right track to receive the salvation I preach. I leave that bit aside because I never received an answer when I asked him about it. The first part, that bit about the horrible God, is what I call a typical Dawkinian move. Richard Dawkins is doing this all the time. He portrays the God of the Bible as a horrible being, not worth any worship.

Two things wrong with this approach. Firstly, the god who’s being portrayed like this doesn’t sound like the real Biblical God. So, together with apologist John Lennox, I don’t believe in the god as described by Dawkins. It is just a wrong picture of the Biblical God and indeed, such a god doesn’t deserve any praise. This approach can be categorised under the logical fallacies, and it is called the straw-man fallacy. Secondly, when I tell you about emperor Nero you would be a bit bonkers to say that he didn’t exist right? However, if I follow the line of the argument given, I would say that Nero was crazy, a murderer and complete lunatic, so you should not believe he existed at all. Well, I hope it is clear that this line of argument doesn’t work. Neither does it with God. Even if God is like my fellow Dutch man says He is, it doesn’t make Him disappear or go away. He still exists, whether you like it or not.

I would also read this comment:

“Which religions are the wrong ones and how do you know?”

I can be short about this one. I’ve already made a video about this question, you’ll find the link in the description below.i

Video 2 – No true sight and sense of their own sinfulness

Reason two given by Boston is the lack of correct self reflection among many unbelievers. They have no clue about the terrible state their in because of their own sin. Many are masters in sweet talk away their own bad behaviours.

Oh yes, I do lie so now and then. Who doesn’t? We all lie but that doesn’t make me as bad as Stalin.”

Sure, I have done wrong things in my live… But that doesn’t make me the same as a serial killer!”

As long as the unbeliever thinks he or she is doing fine, they don’t see the need of a Saviour.

In the comment section this one made me laugh:

“Christianity was a way to destroy our culture and Pagan Gods which were part of our tribe/genetic heritage. Christianity is communism, ill pass.”

Christ did not order us to destroy cultures and the rituals that comes with it. Actually, He came to set us free from oppressing belief systems. Changing cultures is not the task of an evangelist. Christ can be worshipped in many different settings and in many forms. The rural Africans can worship Him with their drums and dances and the ‘stiffer’ European can remain seated while singing. It doesn’t matter because God wants to be worshipped by people who do so with all of their hearts. For those who are interested, I’ve written an article about this topic. You’ll find the link in the description below.ii

Then, to say that Christianity is communism… O boy! Someone needs to get some history lessons here. Communism is all about abolishing religions, especially those nasty followers of Christ. You know, these people who want to give away their money to the work of God instead of to the work of the communist party. Those people who want to teach you that you are created in God’s image which means you are an individual and not just a link in a society that needs to produce. Also, what sets communism apart from Christianity? Right! Freedom of speech. Christians have always challenged regimes concerning freedom of speech. Again, you’ll find a link to a video about this in the description.iii

Video 3 – They have no idea about ‘the clouds of wrath which are hanging over their heads

Many unbelievers seem to be at ease with their world-view. Seemingly relax, they live their lives. Not nervous about the things that are coming. They believe that this life is all there is and that they need to make as much as possible out of it. If they only realised that the anger of God is as real as can be. God’s anger about all the wrongdoings has been satisfied by Christ’s offer. The solution is there, but many unbelievers just don’t realise they need His offer to avoid being under God’s wrath.

Many nasty comments on this video and also many very encouraging comments as well, which is nice. How about this comment:

“And the reason people do not believe in god now is because most people can read, lol. (well, it’s a main reason, most people are becoming atheists… they are atheist because they read the bible, finally).”

To say that people become atheists because they can read is ludicrous. We live in a rural setting on Madagascar and I know many people who can read… When I ask them to proofread some of my translation work they hesitate. Why? Because they read, but they have a hard time understanding. Just starting to read the Bible without having a clue about the historical and cultural setting in which something has been written, is akin towards misunderstanding. We can find an example of this in Acts 8. An Ethiopian official bought a scroll with the writing of Isaiah 53. On his way back he is reading it aloud and Philip hears this. Apparently the Ethiopian had no trouble reading different languages. However, when Philips asked him whether he understood what Isaiah was saying, the Ethiopian had to admit he didn’t. So, Philip explained him about the Messiah and short after the Ethiopian knew enough and wanted to be baptised.iv

Also, I found that one who reads the Bible and uses atheistic sources to have explained to him or her what they just have read, tend to lose their faith more easily. Do I say that the Bible can not be understood without a proper teacher? No, not at all. But there are parts in the Bible that demand a little more background information. People tend to become sceptical when they read about the Old Testament laws or about the Israelites who needed to conquer Canaan. And without a proper guide toward these writings one may end up totally confused about God. I will put a link to an article about the so-called genocide episodes in the description below.v

Video 4 – They are strangers to their utter inability to help themselves

The unbeliever is under the impression they can help themselves. This video exploded! More than 4000 views and about 59 comments. Who am I to say that somebody is unable? And true enough, many of us are perfectly fine when it comes to help ourselves. We know how to repair our car, how to stand for our rights, how to make a good deal when buying a new washing machine. And so on and so forth. We’ve become so good at helping ourselves that we end up thinking we can help ourselves when it comes to salvation as well. And this last point is exactly where it goes wrong. When it comes to our salvation we are utterly unable. We need Jesus!

Now for the comments. Obviously I’m not going to read them all but I will highlight some parts in which people actually proof the fact that they are indeed unknowingly about the fact that they are utterly unable to help themselves.

“I have never relied on a sky-daddy to help me, and I’m only willing to seek help when I actually need it, specifically from people who exist and are willing. Atheists are much more likely to have financial stability, better health, and longer lives. That translates to taking better care of (our) children.”

This is precisely what Boston said. They believe they can do all things themselves and in the process they don’t need help. This person said he is only willing to seek help when he really needs it. Totally oblivious of the fact that he is in desperate need of salvation he continues by stating that atheists are mostly better off in live. This is quit a remark to make without giving any citation to a survey or investigation. But no worries, I did a quick search. Besides the numerous articles written by atheists, who all claim that they are much more successful than religious folk, I found a post in which someone actually did some proper research. The blogpost doesn’t seem to be online any more, but hooray for the WayBackMachine on Archive.org.

According to Sean Thomas, the writer of the post, religion is good for your mental health in a variety of ways. He states that believers tend to have better immune systems and lower blood pressure, and in some circumstances recover from hospital better. Not only that, but theists are happier and have more children.

You might want to discuss why this is the case, but that is besides the point. Fact remains that religion improves quality of life. In other words: being an atheist does not make sense even practically speaking. I mean, even if atheists are right and there is no God, they still tend to have worse wellbeing and less happy lives. Think about it, and atheist has nothing to gain except the possibility of being lost for ever, and the reality of poorer quality of life.

Even when atheists are right in their idea that there is no god, the theists will stay happier, healthier, more generous and more resistant against bad behaviour. Finally, the Christian would look at life with the hope that is within him. The hope in something lasting and meaningful, eternity in heaven.vi

Because this video is the number one concerning the view count, I will respond on an extra comment.

“I am almost 70 now, couldn’t have gotten there without helping myself (very few helped me) unless you mean that my inability to believe in your biblical yarns makes it so in your book. I was born into christianity but when I grew up and started doing my own thinking I soon became an X-christian for what to me are obvious reasons. Do you know how big the known universe is… well the people who wrote all those yarns thousands of years ago with the help of the all-knowing had no idea or concept of it else they would have at least mentioned it. Instead, what we got was a flat Earth and a celestial dome sprinkled with bright lights.”

Well, age is of no concern of course. I know people who are well in their eighties and just accepted Christ. They walked around, all these years, thinking they could do without Him. Then I also know people who have been Christians from a very young age. They never left Him despite all the reading they have done or because they came to a point where they realised how big the universe is.

One cannot be born INTO Christianity. Imagen a chicken pen. What would have happened if your mother gave birth to you in that pen? Would that make you a chicken? You can only be a chicken when you are born out of one… Likewise, you can only be a real Christian when you are born again. Not out of your mother but out of God. You can read about this in John 3:1-18. Jesus said to Nicodemus “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” So, there should be a moment in your life where you make the decision. You cannot simply say that you are a Christian because your parents are, or because you go to church.

Finally, how on earth can you say that there is no God when you marvel at the universe. To say that the writers of the Bible had to mention it is actually betraying a lack of knowledge of the Bible on the part of the commentator. The Bible is cramped with references to the fastness of the universe. The flat earth idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It was Washington Irvings who wrote a book about Columbus in 1828. He said that the church fathers warned Columbus that he could fall of the earth when he would sail too far. It was absurd what Irving wrote in his book.vii Both Columbus and his competitors knew that you could sail west to India. Not a flat earth but the sturdiness of the ships where questioned. They simply did not know for sure whether their ships could handle such a large distance. The myth of a flat earth was most popular between 1870 en 1920, because mostly the anti-religious folk (such as Darwin and Leyll) used it to discredit the Biblical narrative.

What’s more, Eratosthenes, a mathematician and astronomer from Alexandria, who live in the third century before Christ, already calculated the circumference of the earth.viii Many early church fathers just believed that the earth was a round ballix and in the Middle Ages almost every scientist said that the earth had to be round.

So, by all means, stay sceptical if you like. I don’t mind if you call yourself an atheist or whether you think of yourself as being very bright! But if you really want to be serious you should stay away from the typical slander. These arguments have been disproven time and again, and using them doesn’t really help your case…

Video 5 – they do not feel their need of Christ

So why do unbelievers don’t feel their need for Christ? Boston said that’s because many of them are so full of themselves that they think they’ve got it all. What more, than that what they already have, can Christ offer them? And because they have a very high esteem of themselves they have a hard time to understand that their abilities do not qualify to save their lives. If the unbeliever begins to realise that they need salvation because they sin and have sinned in the past and that they will sin again tomorrow, he or she might start to grasp the huge problem they are in. No amount of good works can save them from eternity without God. That last bit is also part of the Gospel, you know! The Gospel does not only talk about heaven and eventually the new earth. No, it also explains precisely what it is going to be like to live for eternity in the place without God’s presence. Traditionally we call that place ‘hell’. Jesus used the name of the biggest rubbish dump near Jerusalem, the Gehenna. We, as Christians, should not be ashamed to share the whole Gospel. True, some will ridicule you, but others might actually listen and start to realise that they are in need of a Saviour!

So how about the comments on this video? Well, that’s easy! It is like my Canadian brother @KC9UDX said:

“The comments are peaceful on this one. Blessed be the Prince of Peace, the LORD most high, for ever and ever[…]”

You might want to read the comments made by @AceTheologicalCompanyComments. He or she explained nicely what the cross is standing for. He or she… Is doing so by quoting several Bible texts and in his own words:

“I suggest you put on your sunglasses when you read these verses — they are that bright”

Video 6 – They see not their own unworthiness of a Saviour’s help

At first, I had some difficulties to understand Boston’s idea on this one. But after some thinking it dawned on me. It is all about the way many think. Many, and not only unbelievers, think in terms of rights. I have the right to be happy, to have food, to have a job, to go to heaven…. Uhh, hold on! Says Boston! Nobody is worthy enough to even come close to God. Let alone to go to heaven.

Imagen this, last year you have beaten someone and robbed him from his money. You left the guy half dead behind. It took this person, your victim, 6 months to find you. Did he come to punish you? No, he wanted to bring you a gift and with the gift comes forgiveness. Would you feel like being worthy receiving that gift and the person’s forgiveness? I think you would feel very small and wouldn’t have much to offer except a thankful heart.

As long as the unbeliever cannot understand his low position towards the Creator of the universe, he is in a bad situation.

In the comment section my friend from Canada was sharing again. This time he said:

“It is Sunday morning; I am awake before everyone else, watching your video as the sun rises. This is becoming a satisfying routine […]”

O boy! I don’t even dare to say that I would do the same… Sunday morning! Normally I am always the first to get up. I set the table, make tea and coffee. Then I wake up the kids and when everybody is having his breakfast, and I, my coffee, my brain begins to work. No, I am still not a morning person. For many that’s a surprise because my first career was that of a bread baker. But I am happy to hear that others are more active in the morning.

Video 7 – They have no anxiety for the supply of their soul-wants

Look around you. How many people do you know who spend all of their time on spending more money. They are very diligent. They look at all the stuff they have, or they look at the wonderful traditions they have build into their lives. Likewise, they are by no means worried about that what they really need, salvation! There is always time to work on that right? It is like those five foolish virgins in the Bible. They did not take care or their future and when the big moment finally came they weren’t ready! So, to all my followers and people who are watching this video. Please do not ignore that voice inside of you which is telling you that you need to be saved! It is the most important decision you need to make in your entire life! That feeling of anxiety isn’t there to annoy you but to warn you! Don’t neglect the moment.

A good way to conclude this section is by quoting @AceTheologicalCompanyComments’s comment:

“Keep in mind… That one day… Every knee will bow… and every tongue will confess. To the glory of God”
[Philippians 2]

Video 8 – They are not content with Christ but on terms of their own making

The last video is a bit of a shocker. At least, that is what I think. It hasn’t been online that long yet, so it doesn’t many views and comments yet. Still, I believe this reason is very real, and I’ve seen it all the time. Most unbelievers will flat out deny this reason. What reason am I talking about? The fact that many will look at the price it will cost to be saved, and, if the asking price is too high, they will go without. In other words: Many unbelievers do realise they need the Gospel, but they have a fixed price of what they are willing to pay for it. When it demands a little more than that what they want to give, they will willingly go without it. Is following Christ telling them not to look at other women any more? To bad, they can do without Christ. Does it mean that they need to chance their lifestyle? Giving up their beloved secret habits that our not honouring God? No way! If getting saved means giving up certain behaviours and following Christ on the narrow path, then they can do without. Without any shame they even brag about it, telling other that they are fine on their own.

This is the sad truth and belief me, I’ve been there! It takes courage to give up that what you think you have and start following Jesus. Maybe, just maybe, that’s the whole point. Isn’t God looking for people who are really courages. People who dare to trust in Him. People who know that they can only be the person God wants them to be, when they accept Christ’s salvation and start living life without fear, full of the Holy Spirit.

I am already looking forward to the comments… Might be a lot of fun to read them.

Speaking of comments. I just received one on this video:

“Reason #1: I’m an adult, and I am not going to live my life believing in fairytales.”

He is an adult! Yes, that might be a problem indeed. Many adults already have a fixed idea about life. They are willing to learn new things as long as these things don’t disturb their tranquillity. So, studying the things that concern eternity is per definition disturbing for many adults. Imagen changing your life! So, they rather just tell you that they are really smart and just can’t believe in a fairy-tale like you do. End of discussion. No disturbance of their nice and cosy lifestyle. Then they walk away, proud about the super smart comment they just have made, and thinking that they leave you behind as the dumb one.

But really! If that’s the only reason one wants to use to avoid having to follow Christ, then they have proven Boston’s points all together. This is exactly what the apostle Paul already said in Romans 1:18-20. I will read it from the Amplified version for clarity:

18For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. 20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defence.”

This is the end of this series called ‘Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel.’

I fully enjoyed it myself because many of Boston’s point were eye-openers for me as well. The videos received a lot of attention and many commented on them.

I am still thinking about what I going to discuss in the next videos. I always wanted to make a little series about Romans 13. You know, the part of the Bible that seems to teach us that we need to obey the government. That’s the part that has been used by the most oppressing regimes to tell their subjects to behave.

I am also thinking about a series about the strongest apologetic arguments. There are some pretty sturdy arguments to be used but at a first glance they can be a bit overwhelming in their complexity. It might be a nice job to explain them and to break them down in a way they are easy to understand.

Anyway, I still have some time to think about it. Let me know what you think in the comment section. That might help.

God bless you and be strong in the Lord!


i How about other religions: https://odysee.com/@apologeet:3/silly-christian-how-about-other:3

ii Why Mission Matters: https://www.apologeet.nl/en/faq/010_why-mission/

iii Freedom of speech: https://odysee.com/@apologeet:3/silly-christian-christianity-is-against:8
Also read this article about free will: https://www.apologeet.nl/en/faq/013_free_will

iv Images from: https://freebibleimages.org/

v Genocide in the Bible: https://www.apologeet.nl/en/faq/what-about-the-canaanite-genocide/

vi Are atheists mentally ill? https://orthochristian.com/63476.html
Original blog: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/
Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm
New Study of College Students Finds Connection Between Spirituality, Religiousness, and Mental Health: https://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/news/release_health.pdf

vii Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, 1997.

viii Eratosthenes: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes and https://famous-mathematicians.org/eratosthenes/

ix Church father believed in a round Earth: https://krisispraxis.com/archives/2019/01/did-medieval-church-teach-that-the-earth-was-flat/