Doug Wilson (Pro-Life) & T Russell Hunter (Abolitionist) LIVE

Doug Wilson ‪@CanonPress‬
T Russell Hunter ‪@AbolitionistsRising‬
--------------------
Bibledingers
---------------------
Website: www.bibledinge...
Patreon: / bibledingers
Instagram: / bibledingers
Twitter: / bibledingers
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...

[@Moores1920]

I'm a very logical and practical man, and I came into this debate fully agreeing with Doug and thinking abolitionists were foolish. I'm definitely leaning towards abolitionists at this point. Men like T Russell Hunter will save this country and I'm inspired to be more like him 🙏💪

[@gigiis526]

Obviously you arent as "logical" as you would like to think but you do like to toot your own horn dont you? 😉. "Doug Wilson, a proponent of theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, Christian Nationalism, and the Federal Vision movement, among other things".

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

He thinks extremely woodenly and attributes positions to Doug that Doug does not have.

[@hoosiersparty7408]

​​@@NeanderthalWoman-ou8evI'm 50 minutes in and it's painful to continually listen to T. Russell not understand that not signing a bill is an action taken by a governor and that he is morally responsible for that action when there is a worse bill already in place. He also keeps saying how incrementalism is not effective while also saying it's not about saving the most babies. If it's not about saving the most, babies effectiveness shouldn't be part of the discussion at all.

[@possumhunter1179]

No law written by man is perfectly just. All laws written by men are unjust, with some being more just than others. Only Christ writes just laws. So, every potential law written by man is a choice between two unjust options, with one being more just than another. Allowing the imperfect to be the enemy of the good in this case is tantamount to doing nothing at all. We can't be so arrogant as to think we can write just laws. Just legislation is something only Christ does.

[@k9commander142]

​@@hoosiersparty7408 [L]et me most seriously urge on the conscientious deliberations of those who…by their fatal proposal of gradual, instead of immediate abolition, dashed the cup of happiness from the lips of the wretched African, at the very moment when at last he appeared likely to taste it, and who thus proved in fact the most efficient supporters of the Slave Trade. - William Wilberforce This statement makes it clear that the greatest enemy to ending slavery was not those opposed to ending it but the incrementalism movement. Wilberforce could have easily ended slavery in Britain year after year after year if incrementalists would have actually voted based on the morals they claimed to have. I tend to believe we are repeating ourselves again. When you look into it you will be amazed how similar our pro-lifers are with the late 1700s-early 1800s British incrementalists. If we continue to have faith just as Wilberforce did God will truly end this atrocity in our nation!

[@jleor5068]

Lets pray for anyone that isn't an abolitionist. Thanks for your time brothers in Christ!

[@carolberubee]

Well done, Russell. I appreciate your Biblical consistency and willingness to speak the truth for the glory of God.

[@RebuilderofZion]

In your opinion, remember.

[@CoCo8102.]

Yes, he is Biblically consistent. Praise the Lord!

[@stvnhr]

This may have been the most important discussion of any of our lifetimes.

[@Die2Self87]

Lol, I enjoy the debate, but I'm afraid I have to disagree. This is not the most critical discussion of our lifetime.

[@toddstevens9667]

It’s pretty meaningless with 70%+ of Americans wanting Abortion legal. It’s all just pipe dreams. The question is whether we will have any restrictions on abortions in the US or none at all.

[@hermanwooster8944]

@@toddstevens9667 It was a pipedream that slavery would be made illegal nationwide in the 1830s.

[@justingreen2344]

​@@toddstevens9667You're thinking makes plenty of sense, but don't presume to know more than you do. The future is not certain and the minority does sometimes win. Just look at the abolition of chattel slavery in the U.S. The majority were in favor of or ambivalent toward slavery, but the vocal minority made all the necessary difference in the end.

[@toddstevens9667]

@@justingreen2344That’s certainly true. And there’s no telling what God will do in the future. But I do want to remind you that it took a war and 620,000 dead Americans to change our attitudes about it.

[@matthewmcguigan4293]

Just got my abolitionist rising tshirts for myself and my son this week. America must abolish abortion. Vote to end child sacrifice!

[@angieh4534]

I bought a few sweatshirts from them last year, and you wouldn't believe the dirty looks we get. But it also starts conversations with supporters.

[@erica981]

Praise God!

[@JonJaeden]

So, we're going to abolish abortion with t-shirts and merch ...

[@matthewmcguigan4293]

@@JonJaeden Russell's ministry deserves my support, and at the same time I can walk around and share truth with the shirt I'm wearing. I'm also educating myself and my kids to be prepared to make sound logical arguments for ending child sacrifice in America because I would like to help people see the truth. In the end, I believe the best thing I can do is to pray, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't do other things to support the abolitionist movement.

[@JonJaeden]

@@matthewmcguigan4293 I don't think the abortion industry is going to lose any sleep ...

[@RambleChristianPodcast]

I appreciate Russell and all the others at abolitionist. watching how boldly and calmly they state things that are NO LONGER ALLOWED to be uttered in public, has done so much to help reset the guiding post in my mind back to where it was from before the "woke mind virus" took over.

[@Manofwar7]

Great discussion. Should the same abolishonist principles be applied to sodomites and lesbians?

[@RambleChristianPodcast]

@@Manofwar7 No, I think we should let the world be the world, and try and compel them to come to God and be saved. We love them, and we should be thankful God has forgiven us our trespasses, so we shouldn't think we are better then anyone. Killing innocent baby's, is probably one of the worst crimes imaginable, not at all comparable, really.

[@_shaylamarr]

@@Manofwar7that’s actually a really great point. Do we also push for legislature that makes gay/lesbians criminals? That would at least be consistent.

[@RambleChristianPodcast]

@@_shaylamarr it's not at all comparable. But it's obvious why you'd like it do be. Hard to defend killing an innocent baby. So you'd rather transfer the convo to consenting adults. It's pretty lame and very obvious.

[@Manofwar7]

@@RambleChristianPodcast I beg to differ. I think it's entirely comparable. After all, we are talking about "God's law". To be sure abortion is wicked, however, in our major cities they are having parades celebrating sodomy and lesbians. Our youth (the innocent) are being inculcated and recruiting to normalize this. How does one not exercise the same zeal in seeking to crimalize it?

[@ccasanova34]

So well moderated. I enjoyed that it was a conversation and not a formal debate. Well done.

[@Bibledingers]

So glad you enjoyed it!

[@ccasanova34]

@@Bibledingers really did. Would love a Round 2.

[@Bibledingers]

@@ccasanova34 working on it!

[@linagarciaa]

Thankful to the Lord that this conversation has taken place specifically on a CHRISTIAN KZbin account. Last year I found Russel’s ministry on KZbin and little did I know about what the pro life “movement” (politically/positionally) actually was. God opened my eyes and very thankful to being exposed to the truth about the pro life position. Abolition is the biblical position. Thank you God for your grace in opening my eyes, I pray for all believers that you also enlighten them and open the eyes of their heart to receive your truth.

[@isaiahwindmeyer5957]

How does this not have more attention? Like and share guys! What a great discussion, thank you for hosting and thank you Doug and Russel for coming together to discuss a tough topic.

[@Bibledingers]

Thanks so much for watching!

[@pioneeringwilliams5054]

Abolitionists here 😊 all 13 of us!

[@yanasto]

Fancy seeing you here! I always love reading your comments on Abolitionists Rising. I always say to my husband “look, the lady with 11 kids beat me to the comment!” 😂

[@ChristinaBiasca]

We need to establish that life begins at conception as part of law, abortion by default will now be illegal in each state by the current murder laws.

[@sarahderuiter4023]

Thank you for doing this! Two of my favorite voices on a subject that has been a struggle for me to grasp for years.

[@moustacheman7130]

I think what Doug is trying to say is "If as governor or president, I had a bill on my desk that restricted abortion but not completely, I would not veto it because it wasnt good enough. If I did that I would be part of the problem.'

[@joseonwalking8666]

That is exactly what he is saying.

[@moustacheman7130]

@@joseonwalking8666 What are people disagreeing with then?

[@PaDutchRunner]

So maybe it’s a principle vs practical implementation issue.

[@joseonwalking8666]

@@moustacheman7130 They are complaining that we aren't a Christian nation. They keep applying Biblical verses that were directed at God's chosen people rather than wake up and realize we are in a pagan nation.

[@NathanPile-sn4hr]

@@moustacheman7130 Abolitionists aren't happy with Christians putting their name against any law that is unjust, no matter how much better it is than the current reality. I think that's their argument. Every Christian agrees that the heartbeat law is unjust, but so long as everyone knows that, there's no damage done (in fact it helps a lot) if I sign it. Abolitionists will argue that, no matter how "useful" the law might be, it is unjust before God so we must have nothing to do with it. But God's own law permitted divorce "because of the hardness of your heart." Doug also brought up the example of Polygamy, to which Russel's only reply was "polygamy isn't the same as murder." Okayyy.... but you haven't addressed the principle *at all*. Doug's position seems to me so obviously right, that it took me a while to even understand what the abolitionist case *was*. I say this charitably, but it smells a lot like sophomoric naivety.

[@jasonartherton724]

“Let’s have Unity on The Scriptures”!!! Thank you Russell!!! Unity in Truth!!! Praise God!!

[@CrazedTacoEater852]

Doug, if all the incrementalists became abolitionists, this would be abolished in a heart beat.

[@paytonclark9121]

AMEEEENNNN!

[@JesseGruber]

No pun intended 😅

[@rds9872]

Why do you say that? Incrementalists want abolition. If it was possible for us to get it immediately we would do it. If we became abolitionists there would have been less progress made on the abortion issue over the last 50 years because all of the progress came in small steps

[@kilokyle]

@@rds9872 but it is possible, if Christians would trust God's way over man's way on how to bring this to an end.

[@hb8357]

There is incrementalism in all things. God has incrementally revealed himself through time through His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Keep praying and working towards the abolition of abortion. I believe we’re all on the same side. The great work of the Pro-Life movement and Abolitionists bringing glory to Christ!

[@elmerfudd2402]

Excellent exchange. Thanks for hosting it. New subscriber

[@irrelevantandbeyond]

This is the debate I've been waiting for!!

[@georgeluke6382]

It just seems that a deeper dig into these would be helpful: 1. Normative v situational ethics 2. Covenant administrations and Isaiah 30’s application 3. The models of Joseph, Esther, Daniel, and the apostles in terms of how Christians reform or address injustices relative to the Law of God 4. Bahnsen v Poythress theonomic and theocratic approaches

[@JOARMY2013]

I am having a really hard time understanding how Russell continually points to partiality without recognizing the entire system is bankrupt. Doug would prefer to sign an abolition bill, but in the meantime he is willing to sign legislation that moves the ball forward. Any incremental reduction in the wickedness of abortion is accompanied with a restatement of its shortfalls and ultimate need to abolish human abortion.

[@PlagueNurseOpal]

Same but I support Russ’s position, even though I don’t fully understand it. I just know that when Oklahoma had the opportunity to choose abolition when there were no pro aborts to oppose it, the pro life crowd killed the abolition/ criminalization bill, when, if those pro choice/regulation/ prolifers were all abolitionists, abolition would have won. I know in prolife dominated states, abolition bills are completely ignored and not even read because the prolife crowd is so big…. I think he hates the deception of the prolife/ choice/ regulation movement teaching that’s the way it should go and never punish women. It directly opposes abolition. I know He wants to do God’s will without compromise. I think compromise without justice, never teaches anything but that. And it also poses as a disguise for people who are more sinister and want to get awards for keeping regulation going. So prolifers will never become abolitionists even at the very end so they must change now. Probably not the best explanation but that’s how I’m thinking through it.

[@gkc333]

I agree. I actually think they both agree on the biblical principles but disagree on HOW to go about it in a corrupt system. I love Doug and consider him a bold Christian leader, but I agree with Russell's position.

[@ShowmanJonathan]

Russell's entire position and strategy is about piety-signalling to himself alone. He turns a blind eye to evil by paying taxes and not already being in jail on FACE act charges.

[@jeffcooper9363]

God is not looking at 'moving the ball forward' as you say, but rather obedience to Him.

[@Ramius117]

I just see wooden literalism behind Russell's philosophy, which is alway accompanied with hypocrisy, which Doug rightly points out in his opening statement when he refers to the incrementalism inherent in the abolitionist movement itself.

[@paytonclark9121]

“I’m sorry I am DEADLY serious about this” Amen. Glory to God!

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

Manipulative. Implication: "YOU are NOT as serious as I am." Taking the moral high ground is no substitute for making sense.

[@paytonclark9121]

@@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev I apologize but your comment doesn’t make sense. Maybe you have an issue internally? That is why you took it that way? Just a thought

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

@@paytonclark9121 Well, it seemed to me that Russell's whole argument is that anyone who doesn't adhere to his strategy for abolishing abortion, is just not as serious about the issue as he is. That's naive at best, manipulative at worst. It's exactly like the kind of argument Leftists use when they come out with a non sequitur like, "If you really cared about the poor, you'd be a Marxist!" They think they are the only people that want to do good. Russell strikes me the same way.

[@Kyle-f4j]

How can any Christian not be an abolitionist after watching this debate?

[@HarryHafsak]

Someone who follows the God of the Bible as revealed in Jesus Christ can only be an abolitionist.

[@nattybumppo4151]

One would have to disregard the Bible

[@billycoleman6308]

It's easy, you just deny facts and truth.

[@JBly4]

@@Kyle-f4jPretty easy to do when the label isn't found in scripture. No Christian wants abortion to exist. These are just discussions on tactics of how to accomplish that. Both have their flaws even if you personally consider one to be preferential to the other.

[@krisjones4051]

Because abolitionism is not in the Bible

[@acbagel]

Used to work full-time in the pro-life movement. I was part of the problem. I stumped for heartbeat bills, used all the secular arguments and phrases... Then i felt convicted after seeing how clearly abolitionists were using the Gospel and the Bible as their guide. I started thinking like the Christian I was. I repented. I became an abolitionist. Amen.

[@stephm5877]

This shows that having a title, writing books, and teaching doctrine doesn't mean we should idolize a person or follow them. With a platform comes responsibility. It's because of this type of compromising Christianity that we are under judgment. God is calling His people to repent. God will do the impossible if His people would actually trust Him and have faith. God bless you both for the conversation. Brother Russell, you did great presenting the abolitionist view, which I refer to as the biblical view.

[@krisjones4051]

You call it “biblical” yet you’re content to keep fighting a political battle that you will lose and have many more abortions occur in the process than would otherwise occur through incrementalism.

[@Darcyholte]

Doug would tell you to worship and follow Jesus.

[@gkc333]

I think Doug is amazing, and his work speaks for itself. However, he is wrong on this issue. We have probably all been there at one time. Let's pray that the Holy Spirit changes his heart. He can both be great and wrong, as so many of us can do as well.

[@krisjones4051]

@@gkc333 You’re wrong on this issue and part of the reason why the Pro-Life grift exists. Abolitionists don’t solve the issue and just virtue signal

[@stephm5877]

This shows you can't call someone out because you love him more than God. We need stronger men.

[@amandafoster223]

Wonderful job, Russ. Thank you for standing up and sharing the importance of abolitionism and how it truly honors God.

[@kenlyharmon9118]

In Florida with the heartbeat bill is still killing like crazy. Even before Roe a doctor could say a woman would be suicidal if she doesn’t kill her child. And she legally could with the life of the mother exception. - babies are people!

[@reepicheepsfriend]

We've had plenty of time and effort trying incrementalism. It hasn't worked. You know why it hasn't worked? Because of people like me. I grew up being told all the classic pro-life talking points. I was homeschooled. We used a science textbook that had tons of photos of human embryos. I knew about the humanity of the unborn and was naturally outraged at abortion. Then, I started reading all the pro-life websites and they were focused on things like heartbeats and fingers and toes. I picked up all the pro-life talking points about not wanting to punish mothers. I noticed that most Christians around me weren't even talking about abortion, so surely it couldn't be that urgent. Without realizing it, I absorbed a compromising worldview. I started to think that babies looking more human as they developed somehow made them more human, and as a result, I felt less bothered about abortions done very early in the pregnancy. I even started to wonder if it would be wrong to ban early abortions. This was all a DIRECT result of reading pro-life websites and documents. I never once dreamed of entertaining the "pro-choice" attitude. It took hearing the abolitionists' perspective that caused me to WAKE UP, repent, and realize how far into compromise I'd slidden. I'm a fairly strict and conservative person. How many others are like me?

[@JonJaeden]

So, other than changing your mind, what difference has it made toward either saving babies lives or ending abortion? It sounds like you've just exchanged pro-life thoughts for abolitionist thoughts. Kinda gnostic ...

[@EverEverOn]

The overturning of Roe v Wade was a product of incrementalism. Thousands of lives will be saved because of it. An abolitionist would forego the saving of lives in the meantime while waiting for a national abortion ban 20, 40, maybe 50 years from now, if ever. An incrementalist will arrive at the point of complete legal abolition in a similar number of years, but with hundreds of thousands more saved lives in between.

[@WORTHYLAMB]

@JonJaeden how does change happen? Through uncompromising, passionate leaders who inspire others. One person’s transformation is so much bigger than just them

[@JonJaeden]

​@@WORTHYLAMB So, where is the evidence of change. All I've seen here is people inspired to adopt a contra-identity, have right thoughts and declare their righteousness and others disobedience ... and the t-shirt. I almost forgot buy the t-shirt. As to one person's transformation being so much bigger than them ... that sounds like something I could hear from Oprah. So, instead of posturing, Quixote-like, actually do the thing. Pick a battlefield you have the remotest chance of winning on. Run an abolitionist ballot measure and go directly to voters. Bypass the corrupt, compromising, incrementalist politicians and Big Pro-life. Craft legislation that is 100 percent biblical. Even cowardly Christians too timid to publicly support the measure could vote for it in the privacy of the voting booth. Realistic action is what will inspire.

[@reepicheepsfriend]

​@@JonJaeden I'm not here to boast about what I'm doing, but I am definitely looking at becoming active in an abolitionist group. That's actually another thing that's different - when I was "pro life," the situation didn't seem urgent and I wasn't active other than voting. Now I understand that voting isn't nearly enough.

[@carld2796]

I agree with Russel’s position. It is clearly rooted in the Scriptures. The biggest difficulty I see is that we do not live in a theocracy (frankly, Israel seldom did in practical terms, until of course, God removed them from the land), we live in a democracy, a secular democracy that doesn’t acknowledge God’s rightful sovereignty and doesn’t follow His ways. Unfortunately, I don’t see us changing the direction of this country any time soon. It will require a true act of God in judgment to bring down the evil that has been enshrined in our laws. We must hold to the position theologically and in the public square as we pray for abolition of these horrendous laws, but saving babies along the way is an absolute necessity as well. We need to do both, not one or the other.

[@JonJaeden]

At Sinai, Israel entered into covenant with God and accepted the terms of the Law. That is the apriori of the verses the abolitionists are lecturing everyone else on. Unless you bring America to repentence and covenanting to obey God, there's no pathway to "abolition."

[@CristOportunidad]

​@@JonJaeden abolitionists call for nationwide repentance and share the Gospel while they advocate for passing the bill. Its not one or the other, call for repentance, show no partiality and trust in God that he will work through our faithfulness

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

In other words, you actually hold Doug's position.

[@carld2796]

@@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev I think that's what I said. I should have clarified that I agree with Russel's position on "abolition," but Doug's on getting there. You wouldn't mind one less child sacrifice along the way would you? I'm sure you wouldn't. We can do both and maintain righteousness. To leave something "better" on the table because it's not yet "best" is folly, especially in this case. Keep moving the needle. Thanks, made me think a bit more.

[@AnaxofRhodes]

How many Russell fanboys are feds and know it? How many are feds and don't?

[@samanthahoku4346]

Mr. Wilson should read books out loud, im enjoying his voice. Same with Mr. Russel. This debate is really informative and im glad im taking the time to listen. Im an Abolitionist but its good to know Mr. Wilsons position.

[@danielsellers4958]

He reads many of his books out loud on Canon plus!

[@_shaylamarr]

Same lol Mr Wilson’s voice feels comforting

[@wpuymac]

Russell: I didn’t know about your losses of two children. My compassion.

[@scotbrandon]

Great job Russell!

[@noelburns4674]

This entire discussion is based on tactics vs morality.

[@TheSergio1021]

Agreed. Its important to remember that Doug Wilson is a post-millenialist. He believes Jesus has already returned and therefore the church will eventually win and have complete dominion over the earth in the future. Through that lens, it makes sense why he's fine with taking his time and focusing on strategy. Meanwhile Russel sees this as an immediate concern that is an injustice that needs to be righted. Its a moral fault in our country that needs to be fixed and every day that passes until then is a day of injustice.

[@nattybumppo4151]

⁠@@TheSergio1021partial preterism I believe but yeah, yet another pitfall of preterism.

[@say1716]

but even from tactical perspective, incramentalism hasn't effectively reduced abortion

[@TheSergio1021]

​@@nattybumppo4151indeed. Despite enjoying Doug's work, I never did agree with his eschatology, and I find that this issue is being influenced by that eschatology for the worse.

[@nattybumppo4151]

@@say1716 Correct.

[@danielsellers4958]

I have been a fan of Doug and his ministry for many years, but I was disappointed with his pragmatic defense of his position here. There's no scriptural basis for it, nor did I see him even attempt one in this conversation. Every example was pragmatic, hypothetical, or anecdotal. But I'm thankful for his willingness to engage, and I pray he and his following see the woeful error in his position and come around.

[@daveonezero6258]

Other nations sacrificing their children are not of "our" people. They are not Christian. They aren't held to the same standard. Russels argument would work if the people doing the sacrifice were Christians. Otherwise we do not apply the same rules. There is a lot of sin in the world. The solution is making more Christians.

[@paulwinters6024]

If the State is established by God to wield the sword of justice, how do you enact God’s perfect justice as best you can without having the power of the State in your control?

[@lauramckinney9896]

@@paulwinters6024 We stand firm against sins like murder, as abolitionists do, and leave the results to God. He never said we are responsible for the outcome. He said we are not to compromise on sin.

[@billycoleman6308]

I don't think Mr Wilson was properly prepared for this.

[@paulwinters6024]

@@lauramckinney9896 Christianity is an embodied belief. Our theology is incarnate. With all do respect, your approach lacks a true recognition of where our country is. So many of our own people despise God openly, worship demons, are Christians in name only, or are Christians that are cowards. Fighting against abortion on all fronts is so important, and gaining every victory we can so more babies can be born and have the opportunity to do God’s will is VITAL. Doug’s position understands what time it is. I live in California. Abortion will likely never reach a state legislature floor vote in the next 10-15 years other than mass conversion to Christianity (may the Holy Sprite work in the hearts of man and through his servants to make that so). What is the tact for me where abolition is off the table? Through my church I help support a pregnancy care clinic so that scared mothers receive material aid and loving support in their journey to motherhood. That’s the main option I have. Our Christian community should leverage that as much as we can and be a light in the darkness of sunny Southern California. The path to abolition is a war. We are attempting to destroy their most treasured, inverted, and demonic sacrament. The war will likely be won in battles, chunks at a time.

[@austinnewman5760]

Im glad we have both Russell and Wilson in this fight. I pray we persuade people of the abollitionist call, And in the meantime save as many babies as possible. I pray abolitionist put foraward 2 bills for every 1 prolife bill. So that we know what districts need the persuasion. I pray that people are motivated to share word of God in those districts that are not convinced of Gods hope that life brings and Gods justice to those in disobediance

[@patrickharner]

Man! I love the wisdom in this comment. Well said!

[@XxJdubdxX]

I think that Wilson’s opening and closing statements were clear. The smash-mouth-pro-lifer believes that abortion is murder, and they believe that our nation’s laws ought to be a reflection of this biblical truth. Where the abolitionist and the pro-lifer seem to differ is on the tactics that they believe God allows to achieve this same goal of christianizing our laws. I think I would have to be intellectually dishonest to say that I would not sign the type of bill Wilson suggested in his last illustration simply because it was not “abolitionist” enough. I make this point because it seems to be the crux of Russel’s argument. Thankful for this debate! It definitely helped me to better understand what I believe.

[@ShowmanJonathan]

The amount of piety-signalling from the "abolitionists" in the comments is pretty funny to me. They would fit in psychologically with the mainline woke religion of modernity. Russel himself said it's not about saving the unborn. I think reformed theology offers a unique temptation to do this. The only thing a reformed Christian has to do in their life is to signal to you and to themselves that they are in fact one of the lucky elect. Nothing else in all history needs to have a moral connotation if everyone's free will and action was an illusion in the first place. If you think your will can cooperate with God's through grace, then your actions their outcomes matter deeply.

[@brando3342]

Thank you for this, I actually don't have to watch the video now, because I agree with your point on this, and that's all that really matters to me.

[@SolaveiGlobalTeam]

The 2 takeaways I want to research more and what I got out of this is...has the actual abortion statistics gone down year over year (the pro-life movement could say has gained ground if so) OR are we fooling ourselves that all these incremental moves are trying to push a wet noodle? Secondly, I do agree that honoring and obeying and loving God should be our highest allegiance and Russel has that correct in my eyes. My temptation is to also agree that some ground taken today is better than non...however I really liked what I perceived as Russels key point as it relates to the Christian culture and that is, we ARE disciplining the next generation by what we stand for and in our actions they watch. By agreeing to continue to compromise and "agree" with evil while thinking we are being more "strategic" then him OR even God, we miss the full long term blessings and freedom that God wants to bring here to His Kingdom on earth. God has a long term plan to increase His rule and reign on earth. We must not preach this is all going to hell in a handbasket and think Gods just wants to beam us out of here. No, He has great plans ...and He wins!

[@gigiis526]

Line up 5 babies at the feet of Christ.. Which babies deserve to live and which ones dont according to you and DW? ? Pro life pragmatic thinking is sin. You are essentially pro choice but attempt to ease your conscience . Allowing evil is not the way to abolish evil.

[@brando3342]

@@gigiis526 Nobody is even suggesting any baby has any less right to life. You REALLY have to try hard to interpret it that way. It's kind of sad that you go out of your way to paint someone's view in the worst light possible.

[@BeksWorld]

I agree with both! lol I understand what they are both saying & I support Russell's efforts for abolition & regularly donate to the cause & have bought his material to hand out. I have to say the more I listen to him, the more I agree with him. But I also very much respect Doug. I am so glad to see this discussion!! It helps me understand it more.

[@IJPhiloponus]

Yes! Very good that this discussion was had and can be thought through by the tens of thousands of folks who will watch it.

[@hannahlouise6]

Appreciate Pastor Wilson & Russell having this debate. Russell has the biblically consistent approach. For DW to think that acknowledging iniquity is bad while signing that iniquity into law somehow pardons the iniquity is incoherent. He knows better. “Do as I say, not as I do.” He gets so much right, but gets his abortion stance tragically wrong.

[@rds9872]

He’s not making iniquity law, it’s already law. He’s just not able to change all of the law at one time.

[@hannahlouise6]

He said himself he would sign the heartbeat bill into law if governor

[@rds9872]

@@hannahlouise6 The immoral aspects of that bill are already law, the heartbeat bill simply restricts the existing law. By not signing it he’d be choosing not to restrict it which seems wrong to me.

[@joshuahawley2073]

​​@@rds9872 not signing it is not choosing the current law, as you were not the one who signed that law. Making a compromise with the world on morality in the law is wrong as you are then facilitating and continuing to legalize sin. You are then responsible for the law on the books as you are the one who signed it. We are not responsible for the laws that are currently on the books. We are responsible for the ones we push going forward. How do you think Jesus would vote? Would He be an incrementalist?

[@calebhein2788]

​@@rds9872tell me exactly where you find, in scripture, that it is ok to compromise with the world on anything in regards to child sacrifice?

[@hannahlouise6]

Doug brought up many times the righteous kings in the OT who are commended but didn’t tear down the high places. It’s not a strong point. If anything it just shows that fallible men can still be in Christ and do good and still get things glaringly wrong in some areas. 1) we should seek to succeed in where they succeeded and also seek to succeed where they failed. We don’t want to imitate their failures. 2) our aim is to obey God perfectly, to the best of our ability. Our aim isn’t to disobey Him like others have in the past. Those men are not the standard. God is the standard. 3) scripture doesn’t praise these men for failing to tear down the high places, but instead calls it out as a failure.

[@JoelNCurry]

Amen

[@hermanwooster8944]

I always took it that it didn't even enter the kings' minds to tear down these high places, because it says they did what was right in God's eyes.

[@kaelyncooper1713]

Absolutely. Amen.

[@Benjamin-rp4hq]

Yea I don't think Doug gave good examples to defend his point. There are other scriptures he could have pointed to like... Jesus telling a man to pick up his mat and walk on the Sabbath, a violation that was punishable by death. God actually command a man be killed in the old testament because he picked up sticks on the Sabbath . Jesus seems to put human life in front of rule of law at times. David eats the holy bread to save the life of his men. Again showing preference to human life above complete obedience to law. Paul in acts 15 agreed to put no further burden on gentile converts other than obtain from sexual immorality, sacrifices to idols, and consuming blood. This shows Paul's desire to see gentiles saved was priority before perfect law keeping. Solomon ordered to have a baby cut in half. Which is crazy evil, except that it's painted as great wisdom. The reason being his intent to rescue the baby. He used a method that actually is against God's law in hopes it would turn out for good. Daniel and Joseph working for pagan kings, or David fighting for the Philistines, surely saw evil "legislated" and carried out at times. They didn't participate in the practices but also didn't demand abolishment of all evil before they would serve and bless and save the nation they found themselves in. I think of how Daniel saved many in Nebuchadnezzar's court from slaughter by interpreting a dream. He didn't demand all pagan magicians repent before he was willing to help stop the killing. Joseph saved the lives of countless Egyptians (as well as Israel) from starvation by interpreting a pagan pharaohs dream, no demand for repentance or justice or that he must serve the true God. They tried to serve and bless as they were given capacity to do. I think legislators of our country at times find themselves in similar situations. That's not an excuse for compromise, but the hard reality of navigating a fallen world where nothing is perfect. Even if Russell got his abolishment of abortion it does nothing to criminally charge all the sexual immorality that is the leading reason for those abortions. That could be said to be incrementalism. Even he is picking his battles,

[@opinionbytriz]

Yes, plus we're talking about babies getting killed. How can we justify slowly fighting to save all these babies?! Babies are literally being murdered from conception to the point of birth. Even after birth in many cases.

[@iconiclust]

Good that you’re having this conversation! 👍

[@Bibledingers]

Thanks for watching!

[@WiseInspector]

2 Kings is full of examples of Kings that thought they could keep the high places of idolatry around or set to take them down but never did. The Kings that were seen as righteous immediately tore down the high places.

[@abbybrunet]

I highly respect and have learned and grown so much from both of these godly men. Thank you both for serving the Lord and the body, faithfully and with integrity.

[@apriljbuchanan3683]

This was a much-needed discussion and one that needs to continue being discussed. Russell came out laying a strong Biblical foundation and never stepped foot off it. Doug allowed us all to see clearly that he has no Biblical foundation for his position. Russell done very well at keeping the focus where it needed to be and firmly but graciously pushing hard on the weakness in Doug’s beliefs and exposing them for what they really are. This was a great discussion!

[@TustinCravy.]

Russel is great and God bless him! Here’s my take, Russel definitely wins this debate and let me tell you why. Russel is arguing from Jesus’s stance, with absolute truth he has the lords sword, AMEN!!!🙏

[@JoelNCurry]

Amen!!@

[@coltonmoore4572]

Here’s my take: Russell won the debate, but not because he has Jesus’s stance. Because he was better in this debate. The issue is that he assumes the Bible teaches deontological ethics (I.e. specific actions are wrong NO MATTER WHAT. It’s the action that matters, not the result or the motivation.) The Bible doesn’t teach this. It teaches virtue ethics. It’s not black and white. We are striving to be virtuous. See Matthew 12:11. The letter of the law would say that the Pharisees could not save the sheep. But the spirit of the law is that they should do the virtuous action and save the sheep, even though it is breaking the letter of the law. If anyone says “my goal isn’t to save babies, it’s to remain intellectually consistent” then they have lost the thread. They aren’t being virtuous, they’re being pharisaical.

[@JoelNCurry]

@@coltonmoore4572 The letter of the Law is not to write iniquitous decrees. Jesus wrote that as He is The Word. You will save the most amount of babies by doing justice, but that is not the ultimate goal. Ultimately we want to obey God first. That is not adding like the pharisees to the law.

[@coltonmoore4572]

@@JoelNCurry did you read Matthew 12? The sin of the Pharisees was not merely adding to the Law. It was how they dealt with the law. I’m saying following the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law is bad. I agree that we are to obey God first. And God’s greatest commandments are to love God and love our neighbors. He desires that we are virtuous, not that we follow the law like a checklist. This is how it can be said “whatever you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” If it is merely a checklist we need to fulfill, this doesn’t make sense. But with virtue ethics, every action we do is either pursuing virtue or not. So in order to love God and to follow His desire for us, we must pursue virtue in all cases. This does not look like following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law.

[@IJPhiloponus]

@@coltonmoore4572I believe God is an active personal agent and he does what he says he will do. That goes far beyond mere deontological ethics.

[@safisweetkeyz]

I’m a Dougie fanboy. He’s been a great blessing to me. Really appreciate Russ’s arguments here, though. Going to be thinking and praying on this for a while. Thank for hosting this debate. Well done to all involved. God bless you all.

[@CarpentersMinistry1]

Man I really hope to see Doug come around to abolitionists and see his inconsistent views on this subject. I say this as a huge supporter of Doug.

[@perhapshubert505]

Did Pilate washing his hands absolve him of Christ's flogging and crucifixion done out of fear of people? Pilate's 'statement' (hand-washing) was "I think this is unjust" as he then proceeded to crucify Jesus.

[@user-bt6hh9yu1n]

You crucified Jesus

[@coreygossman6243]

Pilate was an instrument at that moment. He is venerated as a saint by some Christian sects, though not all churches of the first millennium would agree with this

[@MCNinjaDJ]

​@@user-bt6hh9yu1n we all crucified Jesus in some sense. Doesn't change that Pilot was not absolved for the murder of Christ by washing his hands and giving Jesus over to be crucified.

[@user-bt6hh9yu1n]

@@MCNinjaDJ then you can’t be absolved of your sin

[@ronnied1172]

I appreciate this discussion. I can 100% understand where Pastor Doug is coming from. I cant really says he's wrong.

[@michaelpynes4321]

The difference between the arguments is Doug’s mentality gets things done and the other guy just wants things to be done immediately. Not a bad desire but at least own up to the fact that you have not abolished abortion but rather have made steps in the right direction, I.e, incremental progress. I’ll take progress. Everything is done incrementally. The church has incrementally spread to the ends of the Earth. Sanctification happens incrementally. Everything happens incrementally. Get to work so the next generation can pick up where we left off.

[@IJPhiloponus]

You should watch the debate you are commenting on. After you finish it, then write a comment.

[@nattybumppo4151]

Russell is not holding back and calling out the hypocrisy of Doug Wilson! This is what we need! Don’t let these “heros” of mainstream Christianity off the hook!

[@jacobparker2128]

I will start with the fact that Doug is clearly a man trying his best (as a man) to follow God! Same for Russell. That said, it is very clear to me that our savior, Jesus Christ, was the master of clarifying intention. He was not the one to stone the adulterous wife following the law, but rather to define God's grace and say "go and sin no more"!

[@Darcyholte]

lol- Doug is mainstream.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

@@jacobparker2128 If what you said is true, Doug would accept God's position and defend it. Instead, Doug is choosing Trump's position. Christ famously said that whoever cannot put _Him_ first in their lives is NOT fit to be His disciple. Christ drew a concrete, uncompromising line in the sand on this!

[@shellydavis6784]

@@nattybumppo4151 clearly, Doug, is not mainstream. Mainstream is women and homosexual pastors these days and clear denial of the Bible. This was a good discussion between two beautiful people that really do care about God's word. Just like Dispensationalism and Eschatology, many disagree but we all get to Heaven.

[@nattybumppo4151]

@@shellydavis6784 Mainstream Christian’s vote for murderers like Trump to be president and applaud evil laws that God hates.

[@MCNinjaDJ]

The 2 sides of this debate T. Russel Hunter: "This is what God commands of us, we have a duty to do it." Doug Wilson: "God said this king did this thing bad but was still a good king, therefore we can still be good even if we don't obey completely."

[@kylewhitt587]

"Shall we keep on sinning that grace may abound?" Doug essentially said "yes" to that.

[@krisjones4051]

@@kylewhitt587So you’re clearly happy with never advancing legislation at the federal level because abolitionism is not going to sway the hearts and minds of leftists. Your solution just guarantees more abortions at the pragmatic level.

[@Tayman47]

@@kylewhitt587 he even admitted he would sign a bill of partiality if it was the most he could get from the most people. sad

[@CornerstoneMinistry316]

Lukewarmness

[@ryanprosper88]

I guess William Wilburforce was wrong for getting the slave trade banned FIRST before slavery was banned. What a horrible idea

[@justinchartrey1562]

important argument. but if you want to talk about unity and how we get moving the ball forward, just ask yourself: who is the more charitable toward the other? one certainly was. the other wasnt. and by charity i dont mean compromise, i mean 1 Peter 4:8, and not assigning motives to a brother thst he repeatedly refutes.

[@mccaski2]

Calling a brother and error out is not being uncharitable.

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

💯

[@JesseStevenPollom]

Fantastic discussion! Wow I’m blown away no one here seems to understand the simple concept of lesser of 2 evils. If you have 2 bills, and one allows all abortions and the other limits some abortions, any thinking Christian would sign the one than restrains evil more. How is this hard?

[@AbolitionistsRising]

It's not a matter of not understanding the concept. We understand the concept. When Israel sought shelter in the shadow of Egypt (a lesser evil than being massacred by Assyrians) God judged them. They made a plan, but not of his spirit, adding sin to sin. That's exactly what happens with pro-life bills, that, in human wisdom and practicing cunning, pervert justice as a method for achieving the goal of saving some. The problem is, God abhors it, and babies continue to be slaughtered in every "ban" state at the same or a greater rate.

[@JesseStevenPollom]

@@AbolitionistsRising thanks for that! I agree with everything you said. I think I’m not making clear the heart of my question: You’re assuming pro-lifers are choosing pro life bills over abolitionist bills. I know this happens - but if you only have 2 legislative options - more abortions vs less abortions - would you choose less abortions, or simply refrain from participating?

[@ShowmanJonathan]

​@@AbolitionistsRising"and babies continue to be slaughtered" why appeal to the consequence of the law when Rus disclaimed multiple times it was not about saving the unborn? In accordance with his argument, the only movement towards justice that is *permissible* is the great and final leap towards man's law perfectly reflecting God's law. This "if and only if" position precludes sincere activism. Why vote for abortion-opposing leaders at all? God is sovereign over these pagan sacrifices maybe when He elects enough people to be saved in a generation, it will end.

[@NathanPile-sn4hr]

@@AbolitionistsRising When Israel sought shelter in Egypt, they had a third option: stay in Israel and God will save you. Our options are: (1) Extremely unjust laws, or (2) Slightly less extremely unjust laws. Option "(3) Just laws" isn't available yet. So you *have* to choose either (1) or (2) for now. You are right to push hard for option (3) to be available. Incrementalists should take a page out of your book there. But in the mean time, we are forced to choose between (1) and (2).

[@AbolitionistsRising]

@@NathanPile-sn4hr They would have said option 3, staying in Israel, was not an option, because the Assyrians were going to kill them, picking option two, live to fight another day and come back later. But as the story goes, God punished them by the sword for their choice of option 3. Option 3 right now does exist. The pro-life movement kills it. And as soon as enough people become abolitionists and the pro-life movement loses credibility, we will pass a law abolishing abortion, no longer hiding in the shadow of Egypt but trusting in God.

[@ChaseDowell]

Doug Wilson's eyes are closed. He doesn't even hear the rebuke.

[@kmerathaetra]

There should be no compromise for anybody. That is what a moral right means. Murdering babies is always murder.

[@JonJaeden]

How many abortions did you abolish today?

[@ShowmanJonathan]

Why haven't you been prosecuted under the FACE act yet? If you really wanted to obey God you would do what it takes to immediately and unequivocally end this travesty. He would protect you and bring victory to His glory because you obeyed him.

[@JonJaeden]

@@ShowmanJonathan While the abolitionists trash talk others who say "abortion is murder" without acting like it, they ignore the obvious, blessed-by-God example of Phinehas. "They aroused the Lord’s anger by their wicked deeds, and a plague broke out among them. But Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was checked. This was credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come." -- Psalm 106:29-31 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal." -- Numbers 25:11

[@RaedtZacharias]

@@JonJaeden This is a silly argument. If you tried to apply that logic to any other murder, it becomes obvious how absurd it is. You don’t need to personally prevent a murder from occurring in order to be morally justified in condemning all murder.

[@JonJaeden]

@@RaedtZacharias Let's apply abolitionist logic ... As a matter of policy, self-righteous abolitionists refuse legislation to prevent ANY murders unless they get a perfect law against murder. What condemnation of murder they offer takes a backseat to their opposition of those supporting legislation that would prevent some murders. Further, their claimed rejection of "partiality" is shown to be a lie by their abandonment of those aborted today in favor of those who would be saved in some uncertain future. Absurd, indeed. Silly, no ... evil.

[@rhm5158]

Russell won this debate hands down. No arguments here. I can understand Doug’s position to save as many babies as possible but Russell’s logic and use of scripture doesn’t seem to have a flaw that I can see.

[@hammerbarca6]

@@rhm5158 the one thing I’m a little confused on is reconciling Russel’s statements at the beginning about the aim being Justice with the call to “rescue those being taken away to the slaughter”. It seems like a both thing (I’m an abolitionist and the “Rescue Those” resources use this verse as well as others to call us to be doing something about the babies. For the purposes of this discussion, I understand why he would want to emphasize the legal aspect of it, but one of the aims is also to rescue those babies who are being led to the slaughter

[@hammerbarca6]

Obviously they go hand in hand, but he was making rhetorical distinguishment between the goal being “saving babies” and “establishing Justice”

[@BornAgain223]

​@@hammerbarca6Yeah as you said, they go hand in hand, and I think he had good reason to distinguish the two ideas, because one logically and practically leads to the other, but not the other way around.

[@ParkerRRea]

Super interesting discussion. One question that popped into my mind for Rus is this: if you were a governor of a state and an abolition bill came to your desk, would you refuse to sign it because the language of the bill limits the law to your state and implies that abortion / murder is just wrong here but is fine the next state over? It seems like to be consistent he would have to say yes, since the same principle upon which one would sign it is the one which Doug’s argument rests on, namely that sometimes you have to create laws whose scope is limited because it’s all the latitude you are given at that time in order to establish as much justice as you can. Maybe later when you get to the presidency and you have a federal bill before you to federally ban abortion you can sign that to accomplish full legal justice, but as governor your capacity to ensure justice in the country is limited at that time.

[@AbolitionistsRising]

Jurisdictions of authority does not make a law partial. Exempting some children from legal protections and acquiting the guilty does. While am Oklahoma governor can't control what happens in California, he has the duty to protect children under his jurisdiction and authority. As a deacon of wrath he must do this. That is also true of the California governor. It is also true of the president. That governor is not responsible for the sins of others. He is responsible for his own.

[@ParkerRRea]

Gotcha, so it sounds like for you the distinguishing factor between refusing to sign a state law that partially eliminates abortion and refusing to sign a state law that fully eliminates abortion in just that state is that jurisdictional limitations cannot be compared in principal to incremental limitations a governor may be presented with in a bill because signing that incremental bill would communicate an affirmation of the injustice that the bill includes? Whereas the governor signing the full abolition bill is not affirming or implying any injustice by applying a law to the only state he has legal jurisdiction in?

[@HappySlaveOfChrist]

@@ParkerRRearight. Oklahoma’s governor does not have legal authority to abolish abortion in Kansas. He actually cannot write law abolishing abortion in KS. But he is responsible to God for the jurisdiction of Oklahoma that God has put him over.

[@ShowmanJonathan]

Rus said many times it's not about the outcome. He doesn't care about saving the unborn. He cares about signalling an uncompromised position to the diminishing number of people that will even listen in a representative republic. The irony of engaging in persuasive arts if your doctrine is that people can't choose good even if they're persuaded is not lost on me. Abolitionist efforts are performative from a-z and Rus went to great lengths to explain that here.

[@ParkerRRea]

@@ShowmanJonathan Hmm, I don't think I agree with Rus, but I also don't think I'd go so far as to pronounce his motives as being purely performative and lacking any regard for the unborn. It's possible that's the case, but I just don't think we can know. He may be genuinely convinced that obedience to God means only supporting purely abolitionist legislation and incrementalist legislation is disobedience to God that should be repented of. Not my position, but I don't think it's outside the realm of likelihood that he actually has that position sincerely.

[@theianbush]

The entire debate was summed up in the last question. "Are we permitted to show partiality for a noble end" Doug Wilson: "Yes." That was absolutely chilling to hear.

[@GODISMYJUDGE]

Praise GOD for Russells unwavering love for God and his neighbor.

[@tradelikezach]

There is immeasurable power in standing behind Gods instructions firmly and not backing down. Strategy and deal making seems to be in the real of the devil.

[@muhdudebrigins7725]

I love all that Doug Wilson and his ministry does, but he just lost handily on this subject. He literally said partiality is okay 😢

[@Erik_Danley]

Yeah true. I dunno something seemed off, like some pressing appointment was clearly looming for him while on this video call. And, it seemed to me that he was rushed. Also some of the nasty attacks against him may have affected him. Not giving him a pass, just observations I had

[@krisjones4051]

@@Erik_DanleyNope. Abolitionism just doesn’t work and anyone who fails to see that is just being faux-dogmatic and delusional frankly.

[@anyfriendofkevinbaconisafr177]

One wins handily. Losing is not done handily.

[@muhdudebrigins7725]

@@anyfriendofkevinbaconisafr177 nope, Doug lost with great skill. It takes real talent to make arguments that anti biblical.

[@JonJaeden]

The abolitionists are showing partiality for those babies who will be saved in some uncertain, but perfect, future when abortion is totally abolished over those who would be saved by some imperfect effort today. And they don't have to get their uniforms dirty in the mean time.

[@studentcomposer]

This is a losing debate for any pro lifer. At the end of the day Russel is right, it’s about pleasing God or pleasing man. The excuse is always… “what about this person or that person or this scenario.” It’s never about what God commands.

[@ryanprosper88]

How is it a losing debate when the pro life model is literally borrowed from Wilburforce? Lmao

[@jeremybamgbade]

@ryanprosper88 was Willburforce infallible? Is that your argument?

[@brando3342]

@@jeremybamgbade No, the argument is clearly that Wilburforce's battle was won in the end... so it's not a losing battle. You honestly have to try really hard not to understand that line of reasoning.

[@AbolitionistsRising]

@@brando3342 Pro-lifers borrow from Henry Dundas, a villain of history, not Wilberforce. We have a lecture on this topic for those interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHbMoomNfr6Zoas&ab_channel=AbolitionistsRising

[@JonJaeden]

Unfortunately for unborn babies," at the end of the day" for abolitionists must await some uncertain, perfect future.

[@hammerbarca6]

Doug got raked over the coals in this discussion

[@changetobecomebetter]

23:13 you both had awesome openers and huge respect for you the integrity. Never give an inch.

[@ksude]

I've appreciated Canon Press content for many years, but this further solidifies in my mind that Moscow is not suited (at the moment) to biblically lead on the abortion issue. I'm praying they work this out and become consistent ethically and biblically like Russell demonstrates in this debate. For someone not grounded in Scripture who listens to this, Doug's position sounds like a license for deconstructionism of clear biblical principles and commands. It was a bit alarming to hear.

[@AnaxofRhodes]

What is the legislation on abortion in Idaho? Does anyone here know? I'm checking myself momentarily.

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

26:50 Russell: "YOU aren't allowed to define incrementalism as being a consequence of being finite; *I* get to define it as you wanting to write unjust laws."

[@IJPhiloponus]

The problem with incrementalism isn’t that things happen incrementally. The problem is the willingness to do evil or to fight evil in ways that God tells you not to fight them for the sake of gaining an increment. It’s literally explained in the debate.

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

@@IJPhiloponus Accepting something that is still bad, but a lot less bad, temporarily, is not the same as "doing evil." Russell keeps insisting it is, with no basis. He is making it sound as though DW has the power to write any law he wants, and is deliberately choosing to write incrementalist laws. When the whole point is that we do NOT have the power to stop all abortion instantaneously. Of course, all of us would do that if we could.

[@ThereforeGo]

I love Doug and his ministry, but I do not understand how he cannot see how glaringly obvious it is that he is deep into compromise and he’s leading people that way, and God will hold him accountable

[@greggkunkel6622]

Is there anyone here who watched the whole thing through and still maintains the Pro-Life Movement is operating from any sort of biblically sound, moral, or even coherent platform? Russell did his part for the day, now we need to do ours!

[@coltonmoore4572]

I did! Don’t think Doug presented the side well tbh though. Russell assumes that the Bible teaches deontological ethics (specific actions are always wrong). That’s what the Pharisees thought as well. Jesus corrected the Pharisees. He established virtue ethics. It’s not about following the letter of the Law, but the spirit of the Law. So as soon as you say “I don’t care about saving babies, I care about staying intellectually consistent,” you have made a mistake. See Matthew 12:11. The Sabbath Law can be broken to save a life. Becoming virtuous is the goal of sanctification, not checking a list and saying “I was always intellectually consistent and followed the letter of God’s law.”

[@krisv001]

@@coltonmoore4572 I was thinking exactly the same thing while watching this debate ... .

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

Doug is not "the pro-life movement." Conflating them is bad logic

[@hoosiersparty7408]

Have only made it 50 minutes so far. Russell must have saved his good points for later. So far all I've heard is that he doesn't understand that a governor will be held morally accountable for vetoing a bill that would have saved lives. We can't pretend like the existing laws that allow unrestricted child sacrifice don't exist when discussing a heart beat bill.

[@motorTranz]

"Their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their highways." Isaiah 59: 7

[@hb8357]

I hope you’re not projecting this verse to mean either Doug or Russel are pursuing to shed innocent blood in their ideaologies? Both are brothers in Christ and seeking to be faithful in pursuing the goal in abolition of abortion.

[@angeloarquiza2023]

God's way is through evangelization, not by any laws. Im from the Philippines, and in our country, abortion was never made legal at any point in time, yet abortion rate is so high (400k children killed a year) Even if abolition laws were passed or is in effect, abortion would not be abolished until that nation is fully won by Christ. A consistent christian interacts at culture with all context in mind, with the goal of tipping the needle in favor of Christ's Kingdom in the time and space he is in, without forgetting the ultimate goal which is winning every nation for Christ!

[@matthewmccullough1106]

I'm not sure many (if any) significant wars have been won without winning battles. 100% with Doug.

[@samriley6450]

That's why abolitionists win so many battles. Unseating pro-lifers who kill our bills, getting abolitionists elected, proposing legislation. In 20 years Wilberforce fought for a single victory, proposing the same bill that was killed year after year, and was replaced with gradualist bills he decried. The reality is, no pro-life legislation has stopped abortions. Idaho has pills flowing into it. And it will continue until justice is established.

[@jtremaine23]

Hmmm, interesting...didn't think about the battles/wars connection at the time I was watching this.

[@matthewmccullough1106]

@@jtremaine23 - I'm about an hour in, so I have more listening to do, but, to me, it sounds like T Russel would rather do nothing if the outcome isn't 100% perfect. OTOH, Doug is willing to do something in order to work towards 100% perfect.

[@joeadrian2860]

I do like Russell's thinking on this....I like his tone. He is a gentleman and I'm going to listen to this more carefully again.

[@opinionbytriz]

I don't get how all Christians are not Abolitionists of abortion..... we should fight to shut it down & save all babies

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

It’s not that we’re not against abortion; it’s that we can’t get total abolition passed. This is a republic, not a monarchy.

[@NeanderthalWoman-ou8ev]

I don't get how abolitionists think that is not also our goal.

[@ChickadeePlays]

Biblically speaking, Russell has this in the bag. Any Christian, who doesn’t open their eyes to this is being deceived. The pastor is sadly being deceived. I pray for his congregation and his flop, and all that look to him for guidance. We must be consistent with God‘s word. Especially when it is brought before us by others for correction, we must correct ourselves.

[@amisikiarie]

The abolitionist argument here is idealistic and is the same as insisting that voting for a candidate entails personal approval for their positions. A wicked law can be less wicked than the existing law, and preferring a lesser evil is not the same thing as advocating for it as though it weren't evil.

[@showman1438]

Tbh the debate should have ended immediately after Russell’s intro.

[@canadianiceman]

What Russel doesn't want to recognize is that politics, in a fallen world, is the art of the possible. While I agree with the Abolitionist goals, they are impossible unless revival occurs, a reality which I work and pray for. It feels good to take the hardline of abolitionism against any and all legislation that doesn't go all the way, it is refusing to do the good we can with the time we have.

[@IJPhiloponus]

What brings about revival? Calling for compromise or calling for repentance?

[@srishtijohn5880]

If we had a Christian nation, Christian law, Christian rulers, Russell’s position would be held by all, but we don’t.

[@zandrello]

​@@IJPhiloponus the sovereign Spirit of God through the Gospel

[@theianbush]

This is the line of argumentation that prevented the abolition of slavery for decades. You're assuming that disobeying God will render better results than obeying him.

[@PeterSawyer2626]

To Doug's comment about "Bad Abolitionsists". I have mainly had bad interactions with abolitionists. I didnt know what that word was, what the movement was. And my introduction to the whole thing was angry people arguing with other Christians with logical fallacies and accusing them of being worse than Pro Choicers. And a glance at the comments on this video isn't really helping that first impression. So I know what he is talking about. To my abolitionist brothers out there, you have a PR problem.

[@KevinWolf-gm6dz]

I am an abolitionist to the core. I’ve been to rallies at the capital building. I’ve engaged in abortion Mill ministry. I’ve met with and discussed this at length with many of the leaders in the movement. You are correct about the PR issue. Russ was wise in his tactics to not allow Doug Wilson to wiggle that way yesterday. But it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Far too many people put on an abolitionist T-shirt and thinking absolve them of the responsibility to be good Christians or polite people.

[@KevinWolf-gm6dz]

And while it is true that some people are just going to hate the truth, that does not mean that it is untrue that some folks miss represent the truth. The qualifications for an elder include that people be not quarrelsome, that they’re always willing to teach, that they’re willing to correct,… He the cage stage never seems to go away for the folks that Doug Wilson correctly identifies as problematic.

[@CSL214Y]

Agreed

[@christophertaylor9100]

Yeah they are not really putting their best face forward here at all. Wilson is brilliant here, but Russel doesn't seem to quite be getting what he is saying. I appreciate his zealotry but he needs to not be so blind to everything except one position.

[@doctorg.k.spoderminsr.2588]

The issue is that a great deal of "abolitionists" are actually just interested in emoting and feeling self-righteous, rather than achieving actual change in the world.

[@DwonkaGG]

As someone against abortion to the fullest, I considered myself an Abolitionist but I stand corrected. The problem in my opinion with Russel’s representation in this stance against Doug’s position is he’s implying that a modification to the existing evil law to save lives is still evil. The law is already evil. So that’s not the argument. The argument is how many people can accomplish this evil successfully. Doug’s position is as little as possible given the opportunity. Russel’s position is all or nothing. The CEO of a store has a problem with theft in his store because Stealing is bad. But every day 1000 people are coming in the store and steal every day. Insert alternative option 1: CEO comes to Doug. Doug we have a stealing problem and theft is wrong but I have 1000 people stealing every single day. Doug responds: well I can’t at this time hire a firing squad and pay for ammo to execute those who steal but what I can do is get a security guard at the front to deter 500 people from stealing saving you thousands and eventually giving you the additional funds to afford the firing squad. Insert alternative option 2: CEO comes to russel: we have a stealing problem and theft is wrong but I have 1000 people stealing every single day. Russell responds: We need a firing squad and ammo outside so anyone who steals get shot and killed. CEO: I can’t afford that at this time. Russell: I can’t in good faith recommend an alternative to stand for anything less than what is commanded by God which is Stealing is bad and I will not tolerate anyone getting away with stealing. Lastly, I want to add that the battle between good and evil is with every decision that a mother makes z and if means 500 mothers make or can’t make rather the unjust killing of their child happen. That is 500 less instances of individual evil. Aka I sign the bill every time,(if not more aggressive alternative can be made).

[@lincolnlarsen3070]

It's a good try, but the analogy fails because in super-majority Republican states where abolition bills are being filed, they absolutely DO have the power to abolish abortion. They have all the funds for the firing squad and ammo needed, because they are chock full of pro-life Republicans who say they believe that life begins at conception. But because pro-life advocates and pastors like Doug offer an easier, more palatable option (incremental progress), they choose to allow some abortion to continue. And so the idea that it's reasonable to kill some babies is further entrenched in our culture.

[@Auz87]

A dreaming idealist verses a seasoned man who knows how to get things done. They are both fighting for holiness, but ones got a lot larger track record.

[@MemBirdman]

1:04:11 - Doug is indicating that he knows he’s compromising and he’s OK with it because he could still be considered a “good king” if he doesn’t shoot directly toward what God indicates. I don’t know if there’s a more lukewarm churchy statement he could’ve made.

[@danielsellers4958]

Yeah, that statement more than any other (except maybe saying that it's okay to show partiality) left a really bad taste in my mouth.

[@MemBirdman]

@@danielsellers4958 It’s just….ugh…here’s how I heard it: “If abolitionists tell me that I can be more absolute, I counter with Asa being judged as a good king.” That is a statement KNOWING you’re compromising and being OK with it. The same God who calls Asa a good king also said that he’s going to send out those who cast out demons in his name because they never knew him. I’m NOT saying Doug is in the latter category, but I wouldn’t take any comfort in the Asa example knowing the latter statement.

[@TheSergio1021]

Doug's over-focus on the future is detrimental to the present.

[@JonJaeden]

@@danielsellers4958 But the abolitionists are showing partiality for those babies who will be saved in some uncertain, but perfect, future when abortion is totally abolished over those who would be saved by some imperfect effort today. And they don't have to get their uniforms dirty in the mean time.

[@JonJaeden]

@@TheSergio1021 What about abolitionism is "present"?

[@priscillaadkins8220]

Thank you, Russell, for boldly standing on the Word of God! Honestly, to me, this video looked like a debate between a worldly, humanistic view and a Godly, Biblical view. One relying on man's power and wisdom, and the other relying on God's sovereign power and wisdom. DW seems to be trusting in man's wisdom and ability. Russell is trusting in God's Word and God's power. Maybe 50+ years of man's wisdom (Pro-Life) is why we are experiencing the judgment of God on our nation right now. Something to think about.

[@jacobparker2128]

Russell I hope that you have listened closely. I am absolutely a fan and love the work you are doing. That said, I strongly urge you to participate in ANY opportunity to save babies lives while on the path of abolition!

[@Black_Vanessa]

Great debate!!! I think Russel killed it, but I would also love to see Ps Doug debating Ps Jeff Durbin on this 🙌🏻

[@ruskininja6168]

If you gave me the opportunity, I would do what I'm not doing now.

[@Allotedline]

Considering the way scripture has unfolded great social change, my estimation is that smashmouth incrementalism is a more advantageous position to hold. "Abolish abortion at any cost" trumps "this is the onoy way to ablish abortion." We see these types of social changes in the kings of Israel, like Doug said, but further we see it in Esther and in Nehemiah. Russell quotes a lot of scripture, but conveniently leaves out that the iniquitous laws being put in place were being out by believers, not by a pluralistic society. We should push for abolition by any means necessary

[@NathanPile-sn4hr]

Russell's argument boils down to: "God cannot distinguish between an 'extremely unjust law' and a 'slightly less extremely unjust law.'" But of course he can.

[@krisv001]

Agreed!

[@CristOportunidad]

the point is that its still unjust, and God does not want us making iniquitous laws and decrees like the heartbeat bill which permits murder

[@NathanPile-sn4hr]

@@CristOportunidad I'm curious: could you paraphrase what you think my argument is? Put it in your own words? Just want to confirm that you understand my point.

[@CristOportunidad]

@@NathanPile-sn4hr Sure! what I understood from your argument is that God can tell the difference between wicked laws and less wicked laws, implying that incremental laws are good in God's eyes since we are putting effort into the removal of wickedness. What I then meant to answer was that incrementalism implies the allowance of wicked deeds, even if its less. We as Christians should call for repentance and not sign on unequal weights and measures.

[@NathanPile-sn4hr]

​@@CristOportunidad Thanks, although that's not quite what I believe. God doesn't think incremental laws are "good." But they are **better**. Allow me to paraphrase your argument, and let me know if I have it right: 1. God hates unjust laws. 2. Incremental laws are unjust. 3. God hates incremental laws. 4. Therefore, we should never sign incremental laws. Is that accurate? If so, we agree on statements 1-3 (because we're Christians). But I would change the argument like this: 1. God hates unjust laws. 2. Incremental laws are unjust. 3. God hates incremental laws. 4. But God hates the current laws *more*. 5. Therefore, God hates incremental laws less than the current laws. 6. Therefore, incremental laws **might** be worth signing if that's the best we can do at the moment. I might also add another point: 7. On the other hand, if an abolitionist law is available, I will sign it immediately. I believe signing a law is not like agreeing to a statement of faith. We can sign the law because it is *better* without conceding that it is *good.*

[@Enigma49]

love them both, Russell definitely won this debate!

[@dragonhold4]

(10:15) Paul couldn't end slavery in the powerful Roman Empire but he utilized the incremental approach. Abraham Lincoln tried to as well (but wasn't allowed).

[@dragonhold4]

(43:36) _There are kings who were incrementalists in faulty ways and kings who were not. Both of them were received by scripture as well done good and faithful servant_ -Doug Wilson > assume this is referring to king Jehoshaphat, king Uzziah, his son king Jotham, king Asa

[@ReformedMind]

If I had both bills on my desk, and I accidentally signed the pro life bill, ide be sinning. Debate over. ABOLISH abortion now!!!

[@nathanrobbins2440]

Russel got pretty obnoxious, even coming from someone who mostly agrees with his position. He needed to calm down and talk a bit less, he cut Doug off more than is acceptable in a dialogue

[@siyazalabe5488]

I noticed that.

[@ChickadeePlays]

He actually is clearly improving in this aspect of what he debates and talks with people. He is still only a man and not perfect. But as he said, he is deadly serious about this because it is a matter of life and death and justice and the following God‘s word.

[@BornAgain223]

​@ChickadeePlays understandable but even considering how passionate about this he is, he could have used more self-control, letting Doug speak more. Considering his position is already way stronger than Doug's he shouldn't be worried about letting Doug have the floor. That being said, it was a really powerful debate because of what's at stake.

[@DrGoyo626]

Some times the most intense disagreements come not from the opposite side of the aisle but from those who agree on 99% of the issues.

[@derrickcarson]

Russell's opening statement should convict anyone who wasn't already convicted.

[@rosaleechanski3867]

Praying Doug comes around. Russell made things clear.

[@lornajpn358]

Both sides make good points, God bless them both.

[@Dewfasa]

Incrementalism was just destroyed in the first 13 minutes of this video via the word of God. There’s really nothing you can say after that. Gods word is clear.

[@hb8357]

Would you say it was incrementally destroyed in 13 minutes?

[@Dewfasa]

@@hb8357 24:45-25:16 I’ll let Russell respond to that comment.

[@hb8357]

@@Dewfasalol was a joke with some truth. I really believe most of both of these guys are right. I really didn’t like Doug’s position of partiality, maybe there was a point to it I need to dissect but I don’t like the intention of partiality in the matter. I love Russell’s videos but felt he was very disrespectful and condemning.

[@pauljohnhansen3710]

We are to evaluate the cost before we build, thus we can assess the vote before we vote so that you can move forward vs no moving forward.

[@juji123kick]

I would have liked to hear from the debaters if\how the positive requirements of the 6th commandment apply to the issue of tactics. Does the command to preserve (some) life make it a sin not to be an incrementalist when the abolitionist option is not available?

[@jtremaine23]

That's a good question. I wanted to hear them ask each other more questions like that.

[@SimplyReformed]

Mr. Hunter clearly won this debate, however, it made me even more convinced that the organized/institutional church must be apolitical, as the New Testament commands.

[@mattlamson4171]

Russell you are a truly amazing man! I’m rooting for you, our country, and above all the Kingdom of Heaven!

[@roycevanblaricome634]

I'm watching this again because of what I saw in several of the comments and a couple of replies to my previous comments. It is even more clear to me now that there is a very clear distinction between the two sides. At the end of the day it all boils down to the age old problem of Law vs. Grace, Legalism vs. Liberty, Justice vs. Mercy, Saved by Grace vs. Saved by Works, Love vs, Obedience, you name it. Hunter is obviously coming down hard on the Law side. He said it himself when He said Justice in the key thing. Doug is coming down on the Love/Mercy side. IOW, the focus of Hunter's argument is God's Justice. Building blocks to that are God's Holiness, Righteousness, Perfection, Goodness, etc. The focus of Doug's argument is the Greater Good, God's Love, saving as many Imago Dei's as possible. etc. I can understand both and there is a large part of me that leans toward Hunter's POV. At one time in my life I'd have probably been 100% in his camp. But there is one verse in Scripture that keeps ringing in my mind as I'm about halfway thru this now and that's James 2:19. A careful look at this would, I hope, cause Hunter pause. Several verses come to mind as I ponder James 2:19. Matt. 7:2 for example. When Hunter stands before God on Judgment Day what Standard does Hunter want applied to him? The same he's advocating for in this video? Matt. 9 is another passage that comes to mind. Specifically v.13. And MOST especially Matt. 12:7. How many guiltless, innocent babies has Hunter condemned to death by his steadfast dogged determination to stick to the Law? Hunter, again, said it himself. He'd call Doug an Abolitionist if he did Justice and ONLY Justice. Hunter can call me whatever he wants but THAT is a Standard that I do NOT wanna be held to when I stand before God. And if he gave it serious thought I don't think he would either. What a terrifying thought!! From a purely debate standpoint Doug scored a big point when he mentioned that there are kings in the OT who were called "good kings" but they did not remove the high places. He should've pushed Hunter more on that point. It would've been interesting to hear how Hunter would've responded to that. How could God call those kings "good" when they allowed evil to remain in place? As I recall they removed some idols and stopped some worship to false gods but not all. Is that not directly analogous to the subject at hand? Doug did fumble the ball at the 1hr mark when Hunter made the claim that he and other Abolitionists are standing on the Word of God and Incrementalists aren't. Doug should've taken that ball and run with it with 2-3 specific references from Scripture where Incrementalism is shown to be Biblical. Alluding to Asa was a start but not enough and should've been followed thru on.

[@mccaski2]

what did Jesus tell people? "Go and sin no more" Was he a legalist?

[@roycevanblaricome634]

@@mccaski2 - Setting aside whether the Pericope Adulterae is actually Scripture or not, do you even have a clue what Jesus was saying there and why He said it? Hint: The answer to that question answers yours!

[@soapboxtheology]

I think the incrementalist position is akin to Moses allowing for divorce. Jesus himself says that it was not supposed to be that way but because of hardness of hearts, it was allowed. Jesus seems to affirm the change by allowing for it because of immorality and later Paul, with abandonment. Part of the difficulty about the tutoring from the Law is the position of the hardness of hearts that culture is presently in. Incrementalism does instruct a culture in rebellion in the right direction, but the standard of abolition is the correct goal.

[@iangoodman4633]

I'd love to hear you guys talk about Esther and Mordecia writing a law that said Jews can defend themselves while not writing a law that said Jews shall not be attacked? This is a genuine question in good faith.

[@samriley6450]

Some thoughts. Persian law at the time made the Kings edicts irreversible. The book of Esther repeats this several times. Given the irreversible nature of the decree, Esther and Mordecai issue a counter decree that is consistent with Persian law but also nullifies the original and allows for retribution against their enemies. It's important to note that Esther is a description, not a prescription. There are certainly instances where God is explitely directing and telling prophets what to say, such as with Moses and Pharaoh. In the case of Esther, God isn't even mentioned. But even so, I don't believe it presents a problem for abolitionism. It is ultimately a story of God's providence in protecting His people even through sinful people.

[@iangoodman4633]

@@samriley6450 Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think I would disagree on a couple of points you raised. 1) the second decree didn't nullify the first, but gave the Jews a fighting chance which worked out massively in their favour by God's grace. But injustice was still allowed to happen by law. I totally get the problem of irreversible decrees. Which is why the compromise happened. But it still illustrates compromise for the sake of saving lives. 2) Descriptive verses are not unprescriptive. But they do need to be interpreted carefully. Jesus points to David's example of eating the bread to argue for works of necessity on the Sabbath, and Paul and others points to OT examples regularly for the purposes of instruction. So what indication does the text give to say Esther did something wrong? It seems to suggest the opposite.

[@samriley6450]

​@iangoodman4633 To the first, I agree. My wording was bad there. I meant nullify in the sense that it in large part reversed the impact of the law, and went further in delivering retribution for the Jewish people. Also correct, descriptions can certainly be prescriptive. Especially when principles are brought out of them directly by Jesus or the apostles or prophets. I am not saying there is no other principles here, but they should be seen in the light of scripture, some of those scriptures mentioned in this debate by Russell. We don't get a final say in Esther whether the law she passed was righteous in itself, so we should be careful in taking out a principle from it. That being said, I would add some supporting points here. We see in the description of Esther certain acts that shouldn't be emulated. For instance, hiding the fact that she was Jewish, making it nearly impossible for her to follow the laws of Israel. If she hadn't, the decree to kill the Jews probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. We see a similar analogy in Abram pretending his wife is his sister, almost causing the king to take her, his deception there should not be emulated. Certainly compromises in self-preservation have a history in the Bible where God tells his stories of providence even through sin that should not be emulated. I do think we get an example in Esther of defying the law and acting as a lesser magistrate. Her going to the king despite the fact that it was illegal and risking her own life, I believe, is certainly seen as a righteous thing, and corroborated through other scripture likes Acts 5:29 ("We must obey God rather than men"). But whether the exact law they passed in itself was right in the eyes of God, I don't believe God prescribes through Esther. But even if that was all granted that this is prescriptive, it would need to be analogous in relevant ways. In the case of a heartbeat bill, it acquits the guilty and prevents justice, allowing women to murder their babies through pills or any other means in Texas or Idaho. Rather than a form of lex talionis being carried out, the guilty go free. So you could make a general equity argument from Esther, at best, but a pro-life bill fundamentally doesn't uphold the general equity of the law. In the case of Esther, it would be like all the Jews are already tied up in the dungeon, and she passes a law that disallows formal executioners to kill them, in full knowledge of the fact that their other enemies will kill them, and she celebrates it as a victory, even as all the Jewish people are being killed and the wicked go free, celebrating their wicked acts. That would be the true analogy here. All that said, I believe we have clear commands from scripture to not pass iniquitous decress. God hates laws that make the fatherless prey. We can say that we did it with good intentions, and that our aim was to "save as many as possible," but the heart of the matter is justice. Is justice being done if a woman or man can get away with the brutal murder of their child? Absolutely not! So the question of signing a law that perverts justice, in the case of the heartbeat bills, in many cases enshrining injustice where it didn't previously exist in the law prior to it, (right now, the only thing keeping abortion legal in these states are pro-life laws) I believe we can say unequivocally that we should not. We should veto them and demand a just law. In the case of the governor, I believe they can go further and uphold the 14th amendment outright as their duty. They can, and should, issue an executive order. But whether you agree with that or not, the actual fact of the matter is that pro-lifers are the ones that kill abolition bills, not the other way around, and as soon as abolitionists have the political power to kill a pro-life bill, they wouldn't need to. They could just pass an abolition bill and establish justice. We have been in or heard of more than a few instances now where legislators have cited Doug Wilson as the reason for only doing an incremental bill instead of an abolition bill. Indeed, Pastor Wilson himself said that he would see what he could pass in the legislature, instead of just authoring an abolition bill and imploring others to join. In his case, he would very much act like all the politicians we currently have to fight against, although he would vote yes on an abolition bill himself (there are those like him who continue to be a hindrance to abolition because they allow their colleague these excuses). As long as pro-life laws exist as an excuse, legislators will take the path of least resistance. I think it's also important to note, we should not analogize from laws like divorce, polygamy, or some other thing like Hamans law when we're already have clear teachings in scripture on what we are to do with child sacrifice.

[@iangoodman4633]

@@samriley6450 thanks so much for your very thoughtful response. I believe we agree on a great deal. Certainly if the bible clearly condemns the making of laws like Esther's then we cannot praise her for it. But I don't really see that condemnation clearly in scripture. It seems to me that the texts Russell mentioned would not stand against her. From my perspective it's hard to see how her law was evil. Though I take your point that she wasn't a great example in other respects. But it's hard to see it as a law that the prophets would condemn. It was a law that saved children from becoming fatherless. It was a law that limited the injustice and partially of another law. It was a law that limited the impact of another iniquitous decree. The only potential fault one could find with it is that it didn't completely prevent injustice, it only limited injustice, and that because there seemed to be no other choice. But I'm not sure that makes it an evil law in itself. As far as how analogous this is to the current situation, I'm happy to leave that aside, and agree the heartbeat bill maybe a bad law. But the principle of "saving who we can now" seems a very reasonable interpretation from Esther. Also I agree it would be crazy to celebrate the banning of executioners while murder was still able to happen without penalty. But that doesn't mean banning executioners would be wrong, just a bit pathetic. And certainly it would be wrong if there was the option to do more.

[@samriley6450]

​@iangoodman4633 regarding your comment about it not being an inherently evil law, I could grant that entirely, but then what's left of the argument? Doesn't that completely remove this argument as an option for pro-life incremental bills that actually are evil?