Aborted Fetal Cell Use in Medical Products is Human Trafficking

Abortion in medicine and slavery are the same. It is a simple, straight forward, matter. They occur when humans are kidnapped from their home, and impressed into service, without consent.

But those who “benefit” from abortion have worked very hard to muddy the waters with complicated discussions to justify this human rights abuse. This crime. This sin.

They may even seek to “mandate” that you participate in it with them.

Here we directly confront a vast amount of the mud that has been placed between believers and the truth that aborted fetal cell use in medical products is the moral equivalent of the worst examples of human trafficking.

Cotton Pickers, William Aiken Walker

All Covid-19 vaccines currently in use employ the products of the abortion industry in the development, production or testing of their products. HEK-293 was used to map the spike protein to create the vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna then use the cell line again to test the vaccines. Johnson & Johnson uses the Per.C6 cell line to grow the antigen, a process that results in the child’s DNA and blood proteins remaining in the final injected product. Astra Zenica follows the same process, thus it contains the remains of the child sacrificed to develop the HEK-293 cell line.

Late in 2020, a professing Christian, blogger, lay minister and British Psychiatrist, Adrian Warnock, contacted me and asked me to engage him in discussion on the Covid vaccine. The conversation lasted for several months, but unfortunately he ignored most of the arguments that I presented to him.

This was his final piece:

His thesis is that Christians are morally obligated to take the Covid-19 vaccine, despite aborted fetal cell use in development, production, or testing, pronouncing that, “Justice demands that we offer these life saving COVID-19 vaccines to everyone in the World. Love for our neighbours urges us all to take it.”

Warnock has blood cancer, and believes that the moral burden falls on believers to be vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine to protect him, regardless of whether or not they are the product of an abortion.

He does not advocate for vaccine mandates, but some high profile professing Christians, such as NIH Director Francis Collins, do.

I sent Warnock a lengthy response (55 pages) to the article, as he requested. He again chose to ignore the response almost entirely, stating that he had moved on to other topics.

This article is drawn largely from my response to Warnock’s piece, and addresses Warnock’s errors in his article, along with the errors of the commenters that he cites. It is not my entire response. My full response can be found here in pdf form.

What follows is a frank and graphic discussion.

Warnock begins:

Many Christians will believe that abortion is wrong. One of the most widely used passages to support the view that human life exists before birth and should therefore be preserved as precious is from Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well. . .
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:13-16)

But if you disagree with abortion this does not automatically mean that it is wrong to use vaccines that have a remote link to cells taken from what may have been an aborted baby. The cells are not part of the baby’s “remains” as some have emotively described them.

I emotively call them remains, because they are human remains.

I will now emotively be frank about what they are. The Priorix vaccine contains Michael Richard Christian’s remains.

If you kill a boy, and remove his lungs, the lungs is his remains. If you cut the lungs into small pieces, those pieces are his remains. If you put those pieces in a blender, they are still his remains. If you then put the liquid in a jar and pour an enzyme solution into the jar to dissolve some of the remains, and only the cells are left, those cells are his remains. If you infect those cells with Rubella, those cells are still his remains. If you put that solution in a blender again to shred the cells, those cells are still his remains. If you alter the make up and the behavior of the cells, they are still his remains. Mikey’s DNA is Mikey’s remains.

There is nothing you can do to his remains to stop making them his remains.

If you could, you would not need his organs in the first place.

This is roughly the process that both Mikey and Winnie went through to develop the MRC 5 and WI-38 human cell lines respectively.

I asked Warnock, “If you believe I am in error, and that they are no longer Winnie or Mikey’s remains, please point out at what point in the process they cease to be the childrens’ remains.

Please cite both science and Scripture in your answer.”

The link is not “remote.” It is present. It is so present, that Michael Richard Christian’s DNA and blood proteins are in the MMR. The cells ARE the baby’s remains. The DNA and blood proteins ARE the baby’s remains.

This IS human trafficking.

Warnock then takes bizarre a left turn, justifying the use of those remains, because the child can not be reanimated or result in reproducing another human.

“The cells are altered genetically to behave in a different way, and there is no way that these decades old cells could ever produce an embryo.”

And Warnock is correct… in much the same way that when an arm is amputated it can’t grow a new human. Yet this is a completely irrelevant discussion, and it’s inclusion in his article is deception with empty words.

These cells are stolen and mutilated. Using lofty language like “altered” does not change the fact that these were children’s body parts, and again… if DNA and their blood proteins are in the final product, and Paul Offit of CHOP and the US Department of Health and Human Services confirms that they are, then you cannot claim that they are not part of the baby’s remains. They literally have Mikey’s genetic signature in them.

God is not fooled by word games. This is lying.

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,

But those who deal faithfully are His delight.

Proverbs 12:22

I then reiterated my challenge to Warnock:

If you truly believe this, then tell me at what point in the process the cells STOP being a child’s remains. When Winnie’s lungs were removed, were those a part of her remains? When they were placed in an enzyme solution to dissolve the connective tissue between the cells, were those cells still not hers? When the cells were frozen, were they not hers? When they were unfrozen and replicated, were they not her remains, simply doubled? When cells are infected or “genetically altered” are they still not hers? When do they suddenly cease being human remains? What can you even do to human remains, to make them stop being human remains?

Nothing. What you take from a human, has been taken from a human. The cells, and blood proteins, and DNA came from a child, and do not cease being the child’s, no matter what you do to it.

Your fancy explanation defies basic logic.

Warnock continued.

“We cannot undo the past. And there are many other ways we benefit from dubious decisions made by others in the past. We walk on roads that perhaps hundreds of years ago may have been built by slaves or wealth from the slave trade. Certainly the rich status of Western countries today is directly related to their exploitation of other nationalities via enslavement, empire, invading and displacing indigenous peoples. Am I therefore sinning by simply walking down the street and enjoying the many benefits of living in the UK?”

And this is a great question. How culpable are we for the crimes our countries commit? As an American, I deal with this question in my daily life. Should I belong to a political party, given that they are all corrupt? Should I buy any pharmaceuticals given that the sector is so corrupt? Should I use public services that I know came from corrupt sources? These are real questions.

Warnock’s answer seems to be: yes, we should fully participate.

Is this not left up to the logic and conscience of each individual Believer?”

God has told us to “be separate from them.” How separate? Do the Amish have it right?

Warnock noted that Christy Hemphill, of the Biologos Forum expands on his point:

“The ethical arguments calling for avoiding the fetal cell vaccines are similar in some ways to arguments for reparations for slavery, though you would never hear the people who are so concerned about the fetal cell lines saying that White people should be denied anything that benefits them in the present because sins were committed in the past and their wealth is birthed from injustice.

Basically something immoral happened in the past and we have an opportunity in the present to benefit from a long causal chain that could be traced back to that immoral event. Does that make benefiting wrong? We benefit from land that was violently stolen from indigenous people. We benefit from companies and industries and social systems that were built on the backs of slave labor and colonial imperialism and oppression. Heck, we benefit from manufacturing practices that currently enslave children and pollute the world to the point of killing poor people who have to live in the degraded environments.”

We have the Henrietta Lacks exploitation case to examine here. A black woman whose cells were stolen, without permission, untold amounts of money made by the thieves, and her family was neither notified nor compensated.

And we can certainly agree that the use of these cells was wrong, can’t we? And she was not even murdered to get them. I would argue that if we want to please God, to whom we say “not my will, but Thy will” we eschew every “benefit” from known suspect sources.

Are we not cautioned to be in this world, and not of it? To set our affections on things above, not on things upon the earth?

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming. 7 In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. 11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”

Colossians 3:1-11

If we are dead to ourselves, why are we so concerned with “benefiting?”

Warnock and Hemphill seem to be having a secular ethics discussion, not one based on the Gospel, that we are ALL dead in our trespasses and sin, that we have been freed from the consequences of our sin by Christ’s works, and that in our gratitude we live a life of constant obedience and repentance.

The offer no discussion on finding wisdom, discerning obedience as closely as we can, and repenting constantly as we learn more of Christ and the world.

This discussion is focused on how we can get away with justifying whatever “benefit” we want for ourselves. That is anathema to the Gospel.

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

1 john 2:15-17

Warnock then posits that, “It can be very hard to untangle the extent to which we benefit personally and individually from the undoubtedly sinful acts of those who have gone before us. We should be mindful of such things, and there is a moral duty on us to act in ways that demonstrate repentance for such historical corporate sins such as racism.”

But it is not hard to untangle the murder of an innocent baby, the trafficking of their organs, and such being used for a specific medical product. It is laid out plainly in research that can be pulled up on any computer in any home in two minutes. An argument that attempts to muddle the documented details of the murder of a Swedish girl in 1962, (often by the admission of those who contracted her murder and carried out her dismemberment, owned the patents on her body parts, and documented the products that they were used to develop) and pretends that it is as hard to discern as the products of the slave trade in 1700, is deception.

God has warned us not to be deceived.

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. 5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.

Colossians 2:1-5

And yes… we should want to know if things that we are doing stem from corruption. We should especially want to know if anything we are doing drives further corruption that leads to suffering.

If you are walking down a road that was built by slaves, and it is driving the more slavery, should we not stop waking down that road and start picketing that road?

If a disciple of Christ knows is being offered blood diamonds, or products that use aluminum or nickel or chocolate harvested by children in the third world, does this not prick the conscience of Christians who may then refuse to buy them?

This is why we have a market for “free trade” products. There are people of conscience that want to make sure that they are not even participating in compensated but unfair business practices.

Does one who does not believe that he is restrained by God from financially supporting exploitative markets have the right to mandate that Believers of Conscience engage with the slave trade?

How is buying products of the slave markets, “loving your neighbor?”

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”

Galatians 6:9

Warnock goes on to claim that, “it is impossible for us to somehow avoid the benefits that have come to us by the unjust actions that occurred in the past, and in many cases such injustices do persist today.” But it isn’t in this case. It is completely possible for us to avoid the “benefits” of aborted fetal cell use. Find out what products used them, and reject those products.

“A similar position surely exists in the case of HEK293. We can grieve the fact that events happened in the past that we morally disapprove of, yet graciously and gratefully take part in the benefits which are huge and which we do not deserve.”

But after talking to Warnock for months, I could find no place where he actually did grieve them. In fact, nowhere in any of the articles that I have ever read from aborted fetal cell vaccine promoting professing Believers shows any discernible grief at all that these children were murdered and had their organs harvested, some by live vivisection.

In this respect, his article, and every one like it that I have read, are just like secular discussions, except that they will have one sentence of feigned “grief,” followed by a position entirely bereft of grief for these children’s torture and murder.

As in Warnock’s article, they are talked about as “cell lines” and completely dehumanized.

After two years of discussing cell lines like WI-38 and MRC-5, I began to feel disgusted by it. I realized that I was just playing along with the lies that the world has told about these children. These people. These children whom God loved.

So we named them.

Winifred Isaksson from Sweden

Michael Richard Christian from England

Danielle Wong from China

Helen Emma Kristiansen from The Netherlands

Refraan Angelus from the United States

I asked Warnock, “Where is your grief for these children? When God looks at your heart, does he see your grief for these children? Or your excitement over their utilitarianism? What I see is that to you, they are just products to be used for your benefit.”

I invited him to read back over his own words and make a determination about himself.

“Is this a man grieving a child, or a man pushing a product line regardless of the fact that it was made from children?

If you could snap your fingers, and these five children would come back to life, and all the products and research made from their bodies would disappear, would you do it?

If you had the power to end aborted fetal cell line research, or abortion itself, would you do it?”

He offered me no response.

Warnock even offered the perspective of an unbeliever, in his argument as to why believers are religiously obligated to take the vaccine.

“A non-religious Patheos blogger explained this perspective well when they imagined how pro-lifers might instead of not talking about this, instead actually acknowledge the fact that the lives of aborted babies have benefited society. They suggested pro-lifers use it as a trigger to campaign not for more abortion but to abolish abortion and even suggested a slogan:

Two murdered children have saved millions of lives across the globe. Isn’t it time we stood up for them, too? #abolishabortion”.

It is difficult for me to understand why he has chosen to use the unbiblical argument of non-believer Lilly Anne to teach Christians. Her’s is a grotesque statement. Standing up for murdered children by justifying their murder?

Could God be any more clear?

YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.”

Exod 20:13

This is tortured logic that ignores Scripture to justify involving oneself if the grossest kind of violation of The Sixth Commandment.

And it ignores the fact that God has given us no Biblical justification for greater good arguments. It ignores the fact that Paul ended all greater good arguments by declaring in Romans 6:1:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

Romans 6:1

Ours is simply to obey. If we love him.

18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you. 19 After a little while, the world no longer is going to see Me, but you are going to see Me; because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I in you. 21 The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, “Lord, what has happened that You are going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will follow My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our dwelling with him. 24 The one who does not love Me does not follow My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.

John 14:18-24

Warnock also proffers Albert Mohler transparently hard hearted and contradictory position with regards to COVID-19 vaccines:

“We must condemn in the strongest of terms the use of any tissues from aborted human babies. That is a nonnegotiable issue for Christians as we consider medical advances and treatments.

This should be the end of Mohler’s article if he believes what he just wrote.

Period. Done. End of story. “Nonnegotiable.”

But Mohler ignores what he just wrote and does a 180.

There are, however, complexities involved as Christians contemplate these incredibly serious moral questions.

Specifically, with the issue of the COVID-19 vaccine, Christians need to understand that no step in producing these vaccines had any direct involvement in an abortion of a single child.

Here, I question whether or not Mohler knows the mechanics of how these shots were made, or if he is just repeating something he was told.

There is also the issue of proximity. The further you go in history, the harder it is to keep a clear line of culpability in morally significant events . . .

As already shown in here, this is deception. We know, in detail, from the medical literature, exactly what is the line of moral culpability. I can follow the line of moral culpability for the murder of Winifred Issakson and trafficking of her body parts from gynocologist/abortionist Eva Ernholm, to medical contractor Sven Gard, to vaccine developer Leonard Hayflick, to the Wistar Institute, to Stanford University, to the US Department of Health and Human Services, to Merck, to their injection into my body and the bodies of my children.

One simply need follow the reams of paperwork, and watch the videos of interviews of the notably proud Hayflick himself, readily available to anyone with an internet connection.

And God is clear that we are not to get involved with those who do evil deeds.

Proverbs 1:8-19

8 “Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction
and do not forsake your mother’s teaching.
9 They are a garland to grace your head
and a chain to adorn your neck.

10 My son, if sinful men entice you,
do not give in to them.
11 If they say, “Come along with us;
let’s lie in wait for innocent blood,
let’s ambush some harmless soul;
12 let’s swallow them alive, like the grave,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
13 we will get all sorts of valuable things
and fill our houses with plunder;
14 cast lots with us;
we will all share the loot”—
15 my son, do not go along with them,
do not set foot on their paths;
16 for their feet rush into evil,
they are swift to shed blood.
17 How useless to spread a net
where every bird can see it!
18 These men lie in wait for their own blood;
they ambush only themselves!
19 Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain;
it takes away the life of those who get it.”

Mohler continues.

“The vaccine’s structure relied upon the cell line of HEK-293, which originated with an aborted fetus . . . This is a tragedy of history. A horrifying wrong was done—but that does not mean that good cannot come from that harm, even as it is a good tainted by the realities of a sinful world.”

Whether or not good can come from that harm is God’s domain, not ours. We are not to disobey him. Our domain is obedience and repentance.

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”

Romans 6:16

I really should write a full critique on Mohler’s piece.

Warnock then classifies Mohler’s unbiblical argument with a well defined and completely unbiblical argument, “This idea is expressed, for Christians, as the doctrine of double effect . . . ”

Double effect is defined as follows:

“The theory that a moral agent is not to be held morally accountable for unintended and perhaps unavoidable ill side effects of an action or series of actions that is otherwise morally legitimate. Some ethicists add that the principle of double effect can only be invoked in situations in which the good intended in the action or series of acts is so significant that it outweighs the unintended evil side effect.”

Grenz, S. J., & Smith, J. T. (2003). In Pocket Dictionary of Ethics
(p. 29). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Except that Double Effect is not a Christian idea.

“Some ethicists” believe something which is irrelevant to a Christian ethics? Why is this completely subjective standard being used? Double Effect is not even remotely a Biblical ethic.

Believer’s primary question should be, What does God say? Again, why promote the ethical positions of unbelievers who make no attempt to please God?

A Holy God says, “Obey Me.”

Fallen Man says, “Sin with good intentions.”

God also said that our intentions are evil.

Fallen Man says, “I am not responsible for my sin if I have good reasons.”

Witness Robert Walsh’s “double effect” in 1819, when he argued that slavery was a positive good that unburdened blacks from the anxieties of the free. Clearly Walsh was practicing “good intended in the action or series of acts is so significant that it outweighs the unintended evil side effect” as far as he believed.

“The physical condition of the American Negro is on the whole, not comparatively alone, but positively good, and he is exempt from those racking anxieties—the exacerbates of despair, to which the English manufacturer and peasant are subject to in the pursuit of their pittance.”

Tise, Larry Edward (1974). “The “Positive Good” Thesis and Proslavery Arguments in Britain and America, 1701—1861″.
Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America (Thesis) (1987 ed.). Athens, Georgia: University Press of Georgia. p. 97. ISBN 9780820309279. LCCN 86014671. OCLC 5897726.

President John C. Calhoun believed he had the moral high ground by advancing slavery. He stated his good intentions thusly:

“But I take higher ground. I hold that, in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by colour, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding states between the two is, instead of an evil, a good — a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject, where the honour and interests of those I represent are involved.”

John C. Calhoun, [1], “XIV SPEECH ON THE RECEPTION OF ABOLITION PETITIONS, FEBRUARY, 1837; Speeches of John C. Calhoun:Delivered in the Congress of the United States from 1811 to the present time”; Harper & Brothers, New York, 1843, p225

Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually… It came to us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions.

John C. Calhoun, A Positive Good – Teaching American History,”Slavery a Positive Good” (February 6, 1837)

God is clear that we are born into bad intentions and sin. It is the foundation of the Gospel. It was the reason we needed Christ to die for us in the first place.

God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.”

Genesis 6:12

Fallen Man says, “I have a theory that I am not morally accountable for unintended and perhaps unavoidable ill of actions that is otherwise morally legitimate. And I deem slavery and abortion for my purposes morally legitimate.”

A Holy God says:

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Revelation 21:8

Are we to please God, or please man? Are we to encourage Believers to conform to Christ, or conform to the World?

Where are Warnock and Mohler’s Scripture to support this ethic? I again refer you to Romans 6:1 that this ethic falls under “may it never be!

Obedience to God is Biblical and should be the only standard in this discussion.

“Double effect” is an unbiblical, worldly, evil “theory.” It should have no impact on biblical decision making.

He then leaves the line of reasoning behind again and makes an unbiblical “greater good” argument that ignores God’s commands to have no fellowship with darkness.

“It is not inconsistent to still take life saving vaccines that used these cell lines in order to rescue society from all the effects of the pandemic (the good effect) and believe the the initial abortion was wrong (the bad effect). We can’t undo the actions of the person who aborted that child, nor the scientists who made use of the tissues.”

It is absolutely inconsistent to believe an initial abortion was wrong, and then to knowingly purchase and even INJECT the products of that abortion.

Would anyone in the modern age argue that it is anything but absolutely inconsistent to believe slavery was wrong, and then to purchase and even INJECT the products of that slavery?

And where in Scripture are believers directed to “undo the actions of the person that aborted a child?”

In Scripture, I am directed to obey, and repent quickly and completely, when I sin.

5 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 6 “Speak to the sons of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully against the Lord, and that person is guilty, 7 then he shall confess his sin which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong and add to it a fifth of it, and give it to him whom he has wronged.

Numbers 5:5-7

This entire web site you are now reading reading is part of my repentance for partnering with darkness in aborted fetal cell vaccines. I bought them and put them into my children, and my son paid the price. I am repentant of that sin.

But where in Scripture am I directed to “rescue society from all the effects of the pandemic?” Neither of these are even possible, must less my burden to try to do.

Scripture has directed me:

Do not murder.

Exod 20:13

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”

15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Ephesians 5:6-17
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”

Warnock echos the empty sentiment of many in this discussion when he writes:

“We can argue that the act of abortion was wrong, we can call for alternative cell lines to be created so that we do not need to remain dependent on lines that were made so long ago from a questionable moral source.

The vaccines have now been made, and we have no alternative course of action if we want to get COVID-19 under control than to take them. This does not need to imply we agree with that long-ago act.”

This is just a flat out lie.

Setting aside the fact that Warnock published these bold and false assertions less than a month after the first Covid-19 vaccines were released, and thus could not see as we do that the vaccine has NOT brought Covid-19 under control, he simply ignored other pathways we could have taken, creating a false narrative. I wrote to him, confronting him on this deception.

I have repeatedly sent you the Eastern Virginia Medical School’s COVID prevention and treatment protocol out of concern for YOUR health. There are several pharmaceuticals that turn COVID into an easily vanquished illness when used quickly. But you pretend that the ONLY choice that Believers have is to partner with darkness in aborted fetal cell vaccines?

Proverbs 14:25

A truthful witness saves lives,

But he who utters lies is treacherous.”

Warnock ignores his own professed reformed theology, suddenly seeming to forget the concept of Original Sin.

“This obviously touches on the whole notion of corporate guilt. Do I become guilty by association or by my own action? Is there a moral difference between the researchers using the product of an abortion and those involved in the abortion itself, the decision for which was taken separately? Do I really share any guilt by taking the vaccine at such a removed distance?”

I share his reformed position, and that position dictates that we are guilty because we were born in sin. We share in all of Adam’s guilt.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Jeremiah 17:9

My lengthy and direct response to Warnock on this was:

You are guilty because your heart, like mine, is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, we can’t even know how sinful it is. But if you have been freed from the consequences of your sin, been granted the gift of repentance, and made a co-heir with Christ, then in your gratitude for your newness of life you would RUN from sin and partnering with murderers in their sin!

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

2 Cor 6:14

But you practice sin by partaking in darkness via uptake of the products derived from these murders, and made by corrupt corporations.

And this is not simply a financial partnership. You are not just buying their product, you are putting it INTO YOUR BODY. God’s temple that you have given to him. You are partnering with them for your life, and for a life time. Is owning a thing with someone, or sharing money, a greater partnership than partnering with a corporation in your body? In God’s temple?

Mind you, these are heathen markets full of unrepentant, worldly men. The corporations we are talking about doing business with are not playing in good faith, they are the unrepentant bad guys. They are convicted criminals. Money and power is their aim. They constantly lie about the safety and efficacy of their products. It is a part of their business model. They are the men we are told to avoid through the Psalms and Proverbs. They are the enemies of God. https://youtu.be/7ehUWAsSvFw

You are partnering with people who are antithetical to Biblical values. Their decisions are almost entirely on what will make them money even when their customers are harmed or killed. They are blatant liars. (I just sent you a 22 page record of their lies, which followed the NIB piece which documented more lies and fraud.)

Why do you trust them with your life? Why do you encourage other people to trust them? Pfizer is literally a criminal operation. It has illegally promoted more than a dozen drugs and paid the largest criminal fine in history, which is “just the cost of doing business” for them.

Their overarching lie is, “You need us: you will die without us.” They use it to justify all their sins, and we give them permission to abuse their power because we have been cowed into the lie that we literally cannot live without them. Does God choose the day you leave this mortal realm or not?

They are just a mafia with good marketing. Pfizer is criminal elsewhere, but suddenly with trillions in global sales on the table, they are going to become honest? Why do you give them the benefit of the doubt? They didn’t have a Biblical conscience when they decided to use aborted fetal cell lines. Why are they treated as trustworthy?

The aborted fetal cell issue is just the tip of the iceberg. Pfizer is demonstrable darkness. AstraZeneca, same. Johnson & Johnson, same and same. Moderna has no history at all, but as there is no jail time for anyone criminally convicted, and fines are baked into their cost of doing business, why should they not lie in their research?

Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
4When his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.

Psalm 146:3-4
“What fellowship does light have with darkness?”

Pastor at McClean Bible Church, Joe Carter’s oft repeated false equivalence discussion is interjected into the conversation by Warnock.

Joe Carter makes a similar argument about separating the consequences of a sinful action from the action itself, using the question of whether organ transplant from a murder victim would be acceptable:

“To determine the morality of using the tissue, it is helpful to compare it to another situation: the use of organs from a person who has been murdered. If a doctor were to offer to transplant a kidney or heart from the murder victim into a Christian, we would likely not object. The primary concern would be whether the victim consented to organ donation prior to their death. But no one would say the Christian who received the organ was morally responsible in any way for the murder. Nor should we be overly concerned with the “slippery slope” of people being murdered in order to expand the number of organ donations. (If we saw evidence of that happening, however, we should change our objection.)”

Carter’s organ donation comparison does not work for the same reason that slavery is wrong. There is no consent.

Organ donation is done with the consent of the donor, or of his legitimate next of kin.

The child does not give consent to be murdered and dismembered. Parents or doctors who murder the child lose their right to exercise the rights of the child in his or her best interest (parental rights) when they murder the child or sell them into human trafficking.

There is no one to give consent for a child to be prematurely delivered, subject to live vivisection, and used in any way.

There is no parallel to organ donation here. No one DONATED. Winnie didn’t “donate” her lungs, they were stolen from her. Even if Joe Carter believes that such is permissible with the consent of parents, Winnie’s mother didn’t consent. The child’s lungs were used without the family’s knowledge or consent. Her mother only learned decades later, after most of the planet had been injected with her child’s genetic material.

Below is my response directly to Carter when he initially published the piece in 2019. He he did not respond to me, nor to any of the other three thousand people who tried to correct him in his editorial.

“Neither the child nor the mother gave consent for the WI-38 tissue to be used for medical purposes of any kind. A Christian who consents to receiving illegally harvested organs is in sin, whether or not we decide it makes one an accessory to murder. Yes, we should be overly concerned with the “slippery slope” of people being murdered to expand the number of organs and fetal cell lines to be used for profit. Such IS happening, as Planned Parenthood’s secondary market for aborted fetal remains to research institutions has been exposed.”

In fact Carter’s editorial was so bad that it inspired a 6 part response by Jordan Wilson, the first installment of which is entitled, “The Gospel Coalition & Vaccines: A Response to Joe Carter.

Both myself and Mr. Wilson attempted to engage Carter on his errant positions, but he did not respond. We contacted McLean Bible Church, of which I am a former member, to file a Matthew 18 complaint against Mr. Carter, but institution would not hear the complaint.

Warnock continues his “greater good” line of thinking with Rahab’s story which is often abused to justify a variety of sins.

“The Bible is full of examples of where sin was turned around to lead to good outcomes. Rahab lied to protect the Israeli spies (see Joshua 2), yet was commended for being a woman of faith in Hebrews 11 and is included in the genealogy of Jesus. This has led to an interesting ethical dilemma of whether it is OK to lie for good motives.”

I return you again to Romans 6:1.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Romans 6:1

Warnock moves on to invokes Nazis.

A commonly referenced hypothetical example is of someone hiding Jews from Nazis in occupied Europe. If they knocked on the door and asked “do you have any Jews here?” is the sin of giving up your refugees to probable death greater than the sin of lying? Would lying even be a sin at all in such a situation?

First off, there are no Nazis at the door.

Second, lying is still a sin. God hates it.

There are six things which the Lord hates,

Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,

And hands that shed innocent blood,

A heart that devises wicked plans,

Feet that run rapidly to evil,

A false witness who utters lies,

And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Proverbs 6:16-19

No matter how good the intentions one has at the time, lying is a sin. No matter how greater the good one believes may take place by sinning, lying is a sin. No matter what terrible situation one may construct, lying is still a sin.

And not taking the vaccine is not even remotely analogous to murdering Jews, so the inclusion in this article is unjustified.

And again, there are no Nazis at the door.

Pouring more mud in, Warnock asks:

“When facing two bad choices should we weigh them both up and choose the least bad option?”

No. We should obey the commandments of Christ, no matter what we believe the outcome might be.

More mud:

“When thinking of this moral decision we must remember that the only alternative to taking the vaccine is Society continuing to suffer the economic effects of attempts to stem the tide of severe sickness and death caused by COVID-19.”

Again, a lie.

He presents a false dichotomy. We don’t have two bad choices. We have dozens of choices. Hundreds of choices.

We have the choice to read the research for ourselves and make choices that best suit our individual biology and conscience.

One choice would be to follow the Eastern Virginia Medical School COVID prevention and treatment protocols.

We also have the choice to go about our daily lives like we always have. Eat right, wash our hands, get plenty of sunshine, exercise regularly, and stay home when we are sick. These are wise things no matter what age we are living in.

More unbiblical mud:

“We should not comfort ourselves by thinking other people will take the vaccine for us and we will benefit from their actions.

That is just side-stepping our responsibility, and if we benefit from what we say is another’s moral error, how is that any different from us actually taking the vaccine to so benefit?”

Again, he puts a “responsibility” on believers that they do not have. So I asked him:

“What is that responsibility exactly? I am responsible to obey God’s commandments. What commandment here are you calling me to obey?

Or is this the made up responsibility of “rescuing society from all the effects of the pandemic” you mentioned earlier?

I have already discussed with you, repeatedly and redundantly, that the COVID vaccines DO NOT prevent infection or transmission. So me getting the vaccine benefits no one but me, if there is a benefit. So how is getting the vaccine a responsibility to… whom? Society? You?

Can you state this more plainly so that I can be clear to whom and for what I am responsible?”

Here Warnock begins in earnest to justify sin because God used it for good:

“Sometimes the Bible is very clear that a sin was a sin but nonetheless God turns it around for his purposes. Bathsheba was also included in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 despite the fact that David committed adultery with her before murdering her husband. Despite his sin God called King David a man after his own heart.”

Bathsheba’s inclusion in the genealogy is a fact-based account of Christ’s line. It was not commentary on her holiness. Her son Solomon was also included, and he died an unrepentant worshiper of Baal.

David was called by God a man after his own heart, and he was repentant of his sin against Bathsheba and her husband.

Neither Warnock, nor Carter, nor any of the commenters cited here for promoting the use of this vaccine are repentant of any of their falsehoods, of or the partnering with sin that they are practicing and encouraging.

They are preaching the opposite of Romans 6, that sin should abound so that grace might more abound.

Does God need us to sin so that he can turn things around for good?

Does God need me to own slaves so that he an improve their lives by relieving them of the anxiety of free men?

Scripture says that for him who knows what the right thing to do is, and doesn’t do it, for him it is sin.

So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

James 4:17

So if I know that the right thing to do is to not participate in deeds of darkness by buying aborted fetal cell products, I should buy them anyway because even though I am sinning against God, he can turn it around for “good?”

Can he do “good” if I simply obey God not to associate with human trafficking markets, and eschew the vaccine? Or have I condemned an impotent god to allow corruption into the world because he has no power over a virus if his children obey him?

Does God need my sin to be able to do “good?”

Warnock is so far from biblical thought and human logic that the discussion moves into absurdity.

Joseph understood how great good could come out of an evil act. His brothers left him for dead then sold him as a slave. And yet at the end of his life he said to them: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (Gen 50:20, NIV)

Here we see the sovereignty of God and not just a double affect but a double intention. The sinful intention remains sinful and the brothers are guilty of it. But somehow in the mystery of the way God in his providence restrains certain sins but allows others to happen, God was in some way working behind the scenes with a different intention altogether.

He has handed Walsh and Calhoun their biblical justification for slave ownership due to their sinful intentions that they have declared good, because God can use the sale and purchase of humans for good.

Except that this is still a false equivalent. Joseph endured persecution and remained faithful to God. God blessed his faithfulness in persecution, not the brothers selling him into slavry. But Warnock has made God’s blessing to him about the sin his brother’s committed against him. Should siblings abuse the weakest among them so that God may use it for good? Should I allow my older son to punch my younger, disabled son because God can do good with it?

MAY IT NEVER BE!!!!

What is the full list of things that are a good idea for believers to disobey God on so that He can do good? Since Bathsheba betrayed her husband, should Christian women do the same since God can do good with that? David murdered his sexual rival, and from his line The Christ was born. Can The Faithful do the same so God can do good with it? If they do, are they still “The Faithful?”

What if God chooses NOT to do good with a professing believer’s willfully sinful deeds? What are the consequences then?

Just how far does this greater good exemption go?

The Word of God is now turned on it’s head.

There are no watters any more, this is just mud.

Without the actions of Josephs brothers there would have been no saving of lives, the good deed which God was all along ordaining.

God HAD to have the sin of the brothers to get Jacob in service to the King? His father who loved him so deeply could not have simply had Jacob, with his aptitude for mathematics and planning, apply for an internship in the King’s court?

God cannot do good unless we sin?

Is the ONLY way a person of color can be relieved of the anxiety and choices in their natural existence to be owned by a wealthy white man?

And then Warnocks hits a new low in equating the abortion with the “positive good,” as Walsh and Calhoun described African slavery as a “positive good.”

In a similar way without the abortion of the baby which led to the formation of HEK293 cells we would not have COVID-19 vaccines which will save the lives of many.

He has extolled the virtues of the death of Helen Emma Kristiansen.

My unanswered questions to him:

So you do believe that without the serious sin of murder, God cannot save lives? Or he will not choose to save lives?

And the vaccine will DEFINITELY save many? There is not a chance that incompletely tested vaccines and never before used mRNA gene therapy could backfire, cause antibody-dependant enhancement, and take more lives next cold and flu season than it did over the past year? We are not going to see autoimmune conditions soar?

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.

James 4:13-15

Time has begun to show us the damage that the vaccines are doing to untold thousands.

God turns events that are morally wrong around to save the lives of others. We are not guilty of that abortion because our lives are saved by vaccines in just the same way that the Egyptians, who were saved by the wise planning of Joseph, were not responsible for the sin committed by his brothers, even though they directly benefited from the results of that sin.

When there is no didactic teaching, and ministers want to justify sin, they go to the stories of the Old Testament and twist Scripture to meet their ends.

I once had a distant relative, who played the role of a devout Believer, tell me that I should allow myself to be subject to verbal abuse by another family member, because when Hagar ran away from home because of Sarah’s mistreatment, God told her to return to Abraham’s house. I pointed out that such was probably the case because she was in the process of kidnapping Abraham’s unborn child, and asked him for some scripture on why I should continue in an abusive relationship from a professing Christian who was defiantly unrepentant of his sin. He had nothing to offer me.

I asked Warnock if he had any biblical instruction were God teaches us to sin sometimes if we believe a greater good will be the outcome. I received none. Thus assume that he used stories where God did a good work, because he had no other instruction that we are to second guess God if we decide we know better than him.

God has simply said that we are to obey him.

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”

Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

John 14:21-24

He then twists Romans 8:28. He quotes:

Romans 8:28 states that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (NIV). The story of Joseph shows us that all things includes all sins.

The operable words are “for those who love him, and are called according to his purpose.”

We see in John 14 that those who love him, obey him. Being called according to his purpose means those who obey him.

And he has told us not to participate in works of darkness. So in getting a vaccine derived from darkness, in partnering with those who murder the innocent, do we not prove to him that we do NOT love him because we do NOT keep his word?

He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.”

John 14:24

Romans 8:28 does not apply to individuals who are disobedient to Christ and unrepentant of that disobedience.

Joseph’s brothers were only saved because hardship drove them to repentance, then went humbly, and hat in hand, to their brother. He forgave them, and they were saved.

The moral of the story is that repentance and submission lead to salvation. Not that we can sell people into slavery and God will use it for good.

Warnock continues farther down the moral slide”

“Now let’s go right to the heart of the Christian message. The gospel tells us that the death and resurrection of Jesus has obtained for us not a temporary saving of our earthly lives from a virus, but an eternal salvation of our souls from sin. Yet that very salvation simply could not have happened without the sin of those who betrayed Jesus and murdered him on the Cross. Jesus was sinned against, and yet also “gave himself for our sins to deliver us” (Galatians 1:4).”

Those who sinned against Christ were doomed for eternity unless they repented. Is he calling for Believers to knowingly sin, and then repent of the sin? if so, where is his call to repentance? Is God fooled by this?

This is straight up false teaching. He is telling Believers to sin.

Then he leaves the reservation entirely.

“Because of his cruel death Jesus has vaccinated us against the power and penalty of the disease of sin. We are not contaminated with the sin of those who sent Jesus to his death simply by receiving His offer of salvation.

Without the greatest sin of all time, we could never have been saved.

I hope you have been convinced that great good can come from great sin.”

I am not convinced because God says otherwise:

FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH”

Rom 6:23

And terrible and eternal destruction DOES come from great sin. Because one can twist a few Scriptures to show where God was glorified despite sin, but here Warnock tries to convince Believers to knowingly and unrepentaly sin? Where is the biblical promise that God WILL use their sin for good? God “CAN” do anything, but he said sin was the path to death.

He “can” bring good from sin, but he “can” also condemn men to hell due to sin.

Where is Warnock’s guarantee that God WILL do good with their willful sin? Because God flat out says that the wages of sin is death. If his readers take his advice, and knowingly sin for the “greater good” is Warnock going to take on the consequences of their sin?

Again, God has plainly said, “The wages of sin is death,” and even if God does grant the “good” worldly outcome Warnock, Carter and Mohler are looking for, such does not prevent spiritual death from sin.

Can these men guarantee that the wages of this sin that they are promoting will not bring about spiritual death? That separation from God will not arise from that sin (or that the willful sin is not evidence of spiritual death)? That sin committed for “the greater good” will simply profit a man to gain something in the world, and lose his soul?

This is what Christ paid for us with his life for us. That he put himself beneath us so that we could escape. How cheep is our grace if we, who have all “benefited” from abortion as Warnock claims, continue to participate in these evil practices and support this market of death which has earned us the incommutable death penalty? The penalty the that the love of Christ paid for us in his suffering.

24 “Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

Matthew 16:14-27

That on that Day, God will not say to those who were more concerned with “worldly good” than obedience to Christ, depart from me, I never knew you?

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Matthew 7:15-23

Christ did not come to offer political or medical solution to save the world from it’s worldly problems. He came to save men’s souls.

“None of this means that we should be unconcerned about the moral peril of abortion. We should welcome those Christians such as Theresa Deisher who are trying to create vaccines from an alternative source.

But we live in an imperfect world, and the possible implication that we are approving of in some way a long-time ago moral act is surely vastly outweighed by the huge moral good in terms of lives saved and economic ruin reversed that accompany taking the vaccine.”

No, it surely is not, and he has not made that Biblical case here. He has argued from man’s logic, and this line of thinking is anathema to God, whom we obey, because he loved us and saved us.

Does God not set our first and our last day? Does God not own the cattle on a thousand hills? Is he not Jehovah Jireh, our provider?

Is the vaccine a false god? An idol imbued with powers that promoters have stolen from God himself?

The vaccine, according to the makers and all the regulatory authorities, does not prevent infection, or impact transmission in any way, yet many promote it as able to do both, and able to “protect society.” Can God do that without a vaccine? Without us sinning against him?

God himself cannot “save lives” or prevent “economic ruin,” but the vaccine will? Again, a vaccine whose claim from the start was that it could ONLY impact the health of the person receiving the vaccine, simply lessening the severity of the illness WHEN someone gets infected, not even preventing the infection and having no impact on transmission?

Is this not the definition of an idol? Worshiping the created thing over the Creator of all things? Giving an object the credit for having powers to achieve things that it cannot?

“In this “double effect” equation if we decide not to vaccinate we cannot undo the previous abortion and will not be preventing any new abortions, so will not be accomplishing anything. But if we instead choose to take COVID-19 vaccines we would be contributing to a much greater good.”

Using this false argument, choosing not to purchase a produce made by slaves accomplishes nothing, and may achieve a good greater that justifies the enslavement of God’s beloved creations.

There is no good greater than love and obedience to Jesus Christ.

“In 2015 the Southern Baptists ethical commission addressed the use of vaccines that had been developed using cell lines that originated in embryos:

Clearly, the process by which these vaccines are made is not ethically ideal.

Therefore, we should continue to advocate for use of alternatives when available and for the development of future vaccines to be carried out by other means. . .

If the abortion was conducted in order to harvest tissues that were to be used for the vaccine, then it would clearly be immoral. But . . . the abortion was carried out for other reasons and the tissue was acquired post-mortem for the purpose medical research . . .

We believe the use of the vaccines is justifiable based on the fact that we cannot change the way the cell cultures were obtained, there are no available alternatives, and the effectiveness of the vaccines as a means of preserving life and preventing suffering is clear.

We certainly respect the opinion of Christians who would disagree with our reasoning on this issue. However, we would add that a parent who refused to have their child vaccinated in order to avoid the connection—however remote—to the cooperation with abortion, is morally responsible for the outcome of that choice. If their child were to get sick and/or die because of the rejection of the vaccine, they would be morally responsible.”

Here the SBC has moved the responsibility of the Believer from their action, to the outcome of their action due to circumstances they cannot control. If the believer has not sinned, what is their “moral responsibility?”

If a parent makes a different choice, and the child “were to get sick and/or die ” because of the acceptance of the vaccine, would they also be morally responsible?

The SBC is not God, and is not speaking for God here. In fact the SBC is nowhere to be found on this issue. I have tried to contact the SBC on sin in their denomination on this issue, and there is actually no way to contact them. They are embroiled in harassment scandals that they will not properly address. They use the same ignorant views and bad logic that most of those writing anti-biblical arguments for this use. They mock Believers who do not agree with them. They twist Scripture to their ends. They issue “drive-by” articles and opinions, and when people are adversely impacted by their position, they are AWOL.

They have healed the wound of my people lightly,
saying, ‘Peace, peace,’
when there is no peace.

Jer 6:14

Warnock then shifts from defense to offense. Asking if those buying aborted fetal cell products are not the morally right ones, and those who are abstaining from products of human trafficking are offending God. He crosses the threshold that we are given a dire warning never to cross. Calling evil good, and good evil.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,

who put darkness for light and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

Isaiah 5:20

He preaches:

“Jesus confirms that there are weightier and lighter matters in God’s law when he accuses the Pharisees of being more concerned about less important matters than the more important. Could we argue that vaccine refusers risk making the same mistake?”

No, primarily because no one is using any kind of argument about greater and lesser sins in their vaccine declinations.

Further, doing business with human traffickers is not just permissible for Christians, it is not a virtue.

In the discussion on sin, we are arguing that partnering with the world, associating with murders, getting involved with corruption, and other sins, are sins. And we do not want to sin.

Where does he see a greater and lesser sin here? What is the greater and lesser sins that he is suggesting that we are balancing?

He would not answer those questions for me.

Additionally he cannot argue that vaccine refusers are making the same mistake that the scribes and Pharisees were making in Matthew 23, because first of all, they are not spiritual leaders charged with shepherding the flock, and devouring them instead. They are individuals making individual medical choices for themselves and their families.

He then cites the rebuke of the corrupt religious leaders, as if it applied to the members of the church, and not to himself, who is a minister.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. (Matthew 23:23)

The most important matter to be concerned about, as is brutally emphasized in Matthew 23, is love for God, and new life in Christ, that results in joyful obedience to the Holy Spirit, and the justice, mercy and faithfulness that spring from the full worship of the Holy God, AND NOT, as outlined in the chapter, worldly matters of the flesh, like mint and dill and cumin, and money and power, which the false shepherds were consumed with.

Christ did not come to save the body, he came to save the soul.

These ministers were more concerned with the things of the world, than the souls of those to whom they were supposed to be ministering.

Warnock’s article is about saving the body at the expense of the soul, and ignoring God’s stark warning that the wages of sin is death.

Another of my question’s to him that remains unanswered.

“Are you not tying up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and laying them on people’s shoulders? You have put the burden to end the epidemic on my shoulders, although God himself gives me no such charge.”

After pages of more greater good arguments, Warnock becomes unteathered from his own analogies, and his own humanity, and uses his arguments to justify rape.

“Surely Christians are called to attempt to turn every situation they find themselves in around to good.

Such as the mother who was raped but decides to somehow raise the conceived child as an demonstration of great love. Does she not, with God’s help turn the sin committed against her into great good, and even the joy of seeing her child mature?”

And here we have to stop, examine this with a level head, and ask some serious questions.

Because in the scenario Warnock has been using, where the vaccine recipient is the sinner, but should sin for the greater good, he justifies the rape of an innocent woman, because it ends in the greater good of a new life.

It is difficult to even address this because it is so abhorrent, and I had to stop and rewrite this section several times so that I do not sin in my response.

In his “double effect” justification of sin, the rapist, as long as he believes he has “good intentions” is not morally culpable for the evil, remembering that we have no objective standard here for what is and is not “otherwise morally legitimate” as this is squishy, heathen, subjectivity “theory.”

So who Warnock to say the rape is sin at all? He has already thrown out scripture, including the ten commandments, and the need to obey God at all, so where is he going for a moral compass to condemn rape?

As long as they believe, the rapist can rape for the greater good, the slaver can enslave for the grater good, the abortionist can kill for the greater good, and doctors can dismember infants for the greater good. And what is a greater good than the creation of a new life? Subjectively speaking, of course.

There is no evil that cannot be justified with a “greater good” argument. We see the justifications of those in positions of power over others can use those “greater good” assertions to justify, slavery, rape, and the murder and organ trafficking of the innocent unborn.

All dirt, no water.

Those who seek to “benefit” from human suffering have no end to the “greater good” arguments that they can conjure, and there can no more be a “mandate” to involve oneself in the abortion industry than there can be to involve ones self in the human trafficking industry.

It’s the same industry.

Negro Workers in Cotton Field with Dog, William Aiken Walker

Christ has not called us to practice Utilitarianism. God nowhere calls us to a greater good.

He calls us to obey him.

Deuteronomy 27:10

You shall therefore obey the Lord your God, and do His commandments and His statutes which I command you today.”

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

2 John 1:6

And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.”

Jeremiah 42:6

Whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, we will listen to the voice of the Lord our God to whom we are sending you, so that it may go well with us when we listen to the voice of the Lord our God.”

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Ecclesiastes 12:13

The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *