Why Sin Doesn’t Work; and Pro-Life Victories to Build On

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown demonstrates how the slippery slope of sin in society cannot be avoided and only God’s ways bring life and then talks with businessman and pro-life activist David Benham about some major pro-life victories in Charlotte and across the nation. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.


Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Many of you have been saying,” Well when society gets to a certain point then I’ll take a stand!” Friends, we have crossed that point, that line for years already! It’s time to stand up and be counted.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: When the light shines in the darkness, the darkness cannot overcome it. Let the culture of life shine in the midst of death; and hearts will be changed!



Call 1-800-278-9978 to receive Dr. Brown’s classic book, Revolution: A Call to Holy War, plus The 10 Commitments of a Jesus Revolutionary 5 x 7 Card for Your Donation of ANY size! Postage Paid!


Order Online to receive Dr. Brown’s classic book, Revolution: A Call to Holy War, plus The 10 Commitments of a Jesus Revolutionary 5 x 7 Card for Your Donation of $10 or More! Postage Paid!

Other Resources:

Repentance Begins with the People of God

Jewish Updates and a Difficult Moral Question

Kingdom Principles in Finances, the News, and World Events

  1. Greg Allen wrote:


    I tend to focus on the current show and not re-hash old shows. But, I’ll respond.

    Exodus 21 — this is a totally unclear passage.

    As I read it, the harm is to the woman, not the fetus in this passage. The penalty for killing the fetus is a fine, not death which actually argues against the pro-life position. But, other people interpret it differently.

    In my mind, it certainly is not definitive enough to deny a women the right to be a mother or not.

    Luke 1,
    This is a beautiful story but it doesn’t help us know when life begin.

    You can be sure that the fetus was well-along in the pregnancy if it “jumped.” It wasn’t just cluster of cells. This would square with Roe v. Wade.


    As for my definition of life — I admit that I am not clear on it — because the bible is not clear on it.

    As a Christian, one definition of “human life” might be “a person with a soul”. But the bible isn’t clear at all when the soul enters into a “person.”

    I’ve heard biblical historians say that the ancients believed the soul entered the body with the first breath but this would be totally unacceptable, considering modern prenatal medicine.

    My, pesonal, gut feeling is that life starts pretty early in the pregnancy. But, I am _not_ willing to torture the bible to “prove” my own “gut feeling.”

    And, of course, I’m not willing to deny a woman the right to decide it herself, between her partner, her doctor and God.”

    Greg Allen also wrote:


    >>As a matter of fact he was filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15)

    I hadn’t really thought about this before — but doesn’t this verse related to our previous discussion about Calvinism?

    If I understand correctly, Dr. Brown believes that only people-groups are “elected” but this would be an example of an individual having the Holy Spirit long before he could make his own decisions.”

  2. Greg Allen,

    You wrote:
    “My, pesonal, gut feeling is that life starts pretty early in the pregnancy. But, I am _not_ willing to torture the bible to “prove” my own “gut feeling.””

    You are not dealing with the what the Bible does say but are going by gut feelings and false mercy. As I demonstrated above, the word for the unborn, no matter how early in the pregnancy, is the same term in both the Hebrew and Greek for a born baby. The very languages that were used to reveal truth to us uncompromisingly declare the unborn to be human life…babies. The way you “read” the Exodus passage is not in keeping with the context. It is speaking of harm coming to the child. This is obvious by virtue of the life for life statement. There is no need for the statement if it is concerning the woman. The law is specific elsewhere for harm done to a adult person.

    Exodus 21
    22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows…
    23 “But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life…

    I am doing no torturing of the passage. Just read what is written. It seems that your logic is what is tortured.

    You wrote:
    “And, of course, I’m not willing to deny a woman the right to decide it herself, between her partner, her doctor and God.”

    Where does the woman get this supposed “right”? How can you call it a right? Where does the Bible give this “right”? The burden of proof is on you to show that the Bible, and thus YHWH, provides this “right” to a woman, her partner and her doctor.

    Where is that Bible verse?

    I have this funny feeling that you have a vested interest in this topic. That you have women in your life that you cannot bare to think of as having committed murder. Maybe you are even responsible in some way for an abortion or two. Well there is true forgiveness for confessing and forsaking our sins, but we will not find mercy if we cover it by justifying or denying it.

    Pr 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

    Real mercy does not allow a woman to murder her unwanted child. It tries to keep her from making such a horrible decision that will affect her adversely for life. Real mercy offers her hope for YHWH’s grace to do what is right. Real mercy calls sin evil and wrong. It offers forgiveness for confessing and forsaking sin. It does not give false assurance and false rights.


  3. Continued from above:

    Greg Allen,

    You wrote:
    “Luke 1,
    This is a beautiful story but it doesn’t help us know when life begin.

    You can be sure that the fetus was well-along in the pregnancy if it “jumped.” It wasn’t just cluster of cells. This would square with Roe v. Wade.”

    I do not think that you are paying attention to what I wrote or what the scripture indicates.

    John the baptist jumped at about 6 months…but he jumped for a PERSON that was only about a week old. There is no need to jump for just a cluster of cells. Messiah was a PERSON to be acknowledged as Master even immediately after conception. Mary was not promised a cluster of cells that would eventually be the “Lord.” Yahshua was already her and Elizabeth’s and our Master at just a very few days past conception. He was possibly not even implanted in Mary’s womb at this point. Mary is already a mother, not a person with a “right” to artificially terminate a scandalous pregnancy.

    Luke 1
    43 “But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

    You wrote:

    As for my definition of life — I admit that I am not clear on it — because the bible is not clear on it.

    As a Christian, one definition of “human life” might be “a person with a soul”. But the bible isn’t clear at all when the soul enters into a “person.””

    Sometimes we are unclear, or think that the Scripture is unclear, because we are looking through culturally darkened lenses or we might even have our eyes closed. The unborn are called children with the same exact wording as the newly born. Mary is the mother of a person not a cluster of non-human cells. The pre-born baby in Exodus is treated the same under the law as the already born baby.

    The Bible is as clear as it needs to be to convince those who want to know the truth.

    2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    If we pay close attention to what the Bible does say and the definitions of the words that it uses in Hebrew and Greek, we won’t find ourselves in the position of not knowing when life begins or what it is. If we are swayed by faulty human reasoning and emotions, we will not likely ever know the truth about this important issue.

    Romans 1
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    (We hold the truth of the Bible in our hands…if we do not know what it teaches or think that it is ambiguous and thus we condone the unrighteous murder of innocent unborn babies, we are guilty as charged as deserving of YHWH’s wrath.)

    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them…
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…
    (One of the biggest fools is the one that has bought the lies of naturalistic evolutionist thought and thinks that we are wise enough to give a woman the “right” to kill her offspring.)

    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie…
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature…
    (The truth of the person-hood of the unborn is obvious in the scripture. Any other idea is born from uncleanness and vile affections and is against nature and makes YHWH out to be a liar. It is produced out of the lust in our hearts.)

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness… murder…deceit…
    30 …proud, boasters, inventors of evil things…
    (All the above apply aptly to the idea that it is fine or that it is the mother’s right, to abort/murder a baby.)

    31 Without understanding…
    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
    (Without understanding!!!!! You say you do not know when human life begins. Without understanding!!!!! We know that those that commit such things are worthy of death in every other area but not about this topic. It is time to get up to speed on this topic also.)

    Romans 2
    1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judges (justifes their sin or dertermines it not to be sin): for wherein thou judges (justifies) another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judges (justifies) doest the same things.
    2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
    3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judges (justifies) them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
    (So we have a society that justifies the sin of fornication and murder to cover that sin. Those that justify sin are complicit in it and thus guilty themselves.)

    It is covetous for the money that comes from committing those murders and covetous to have the pleasure of sex without entering covenant. The Bible is clear once again that we deserve the same punishment/wrath as the sinners if we aid them by adding our approval…giving them supposed rights that the Bible does not give them…that never interred into YHWH’s heart.

    Do you really think that if our modern version of abortion was available in our Messiah’s day He would have said that it is fine to terminate the pregnancy? Do you really think that if Messiah was a supreme court justice that He would have sided on the majority ruling in Roe vs. Wade?


  4. Bo,

    A perfect example of what I’m talking about.

    Regarding Exodus 21
    >>I am doing no torturing of the passage. Just read what is written. It seems that your logic is what is tortured.

    But, of course, you chose a translation that affirmed your gut feelings on the issue. I’m sure you are aware that other translations say “miscarriage” rather than “born prematurely” as the offense here.

    And miscarriage is the more likely correct use of this term. It’s a stretch to think there is a fine for the early birth of a healthy baby! “Miscarriage” makes much more sense in this context.

    But, reading the commentaries, it seems like the Hebrew word itself can legitimately be translated either way.

    So — this is an unclear passage, like all the rest.

    Ironically, it’s the same passage often cited by people who argue that the fetus is not fully human.


    … the rest of your post is beating me up with scripture over something you haven’t proven.

    Here is my question to you: If abortion is such and abomination to God — why isn’t there an explicit commandment against it?

    Not an inference. Not something you have to do a word study to prove. Not a “presumption of life” to use Dr. Brown’s argument.

    But a clear prohibition, like: “The penalty for killing a fetus is death.” or similar?

    Hundreds (thousands?) of other things are explicitly prohibited. Why not abortion, if it’s murder as you claim? As far as I know, women have been aborting babies for millennia.

  5. Wow…I just clicked into a serious debate. Greg Allen vs the LINE OF FI-YAH

    Got give Greg credit fro at least attemtpign to reply to everyones pts, and defend his stance.

  6. Greg Allen,

    The word in the Hebrew is not miscarriage as you wrongly suggest.

    Exodus 21
    22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child(2030), so that her fruit depart(3206) from her,and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
    23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
    24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
    25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    2030 הרה hareh

    from 2029; n f; {See TWOT on 515 @@ ‘515a’}

    AV- … with child 13, conceive 3; 16

    1) pregnant

    3206 ילד yeled

    from 3205; n m; {See TWOT on 867 @@ ‘867b’}

    AV-child 72, young man 7, young ones 3, sons 3, boy 2, fruit 1, variant 1; 89

    1) child, son, boy, offspring, youth
    1a) child, son, boy
    1b) child, children
    1c) descendants
    1d) youth
    1e) apostate Israelites (fig.)

    A CHILD is conceived, and in this case born prematurely. If the BABY comes early but is fine otherwise, no judgement is levied against the offending man. If the BABY is harmed or is born dead, the offending man is liable.

    You also seem conveniently to not address, at least twice now, the fact that the cluster of cells in Mary’s womb is called “my Lord.” That cluster of cells is a person and is only about a week old at the time of Mary being considered HIS mother. Please address this for us.


  7. It may be that there is less of a penalty because there because the baby had not become as much of a “fixture” in peoples hearts so it hurts less than losing a child that you’ve actually held?

  8. Sorry for bad grammar in prior post

    It may also be that there is less of a penalty because the baby had not been seen with the eyes and held with the hands and in that way become a “fixture” in peoples’ hearts so it hurts less than losing a child that has actually been seen with the eyes and held with the hands.

    This is just speculation: the penalty is less because the intensity of the pain is less.

  9. Ty,

    Greg has not exactly responded very well to the questions asked of him nor has he done much at attempting to explain how the scriptures give a woman some kind of “right” to abort/murder an unborn child. There are so many things that he does not answer or address that it is actually evading direct answers that he should be commended for…kind of like a politician does…you know.


  10. Greg Allen,

    You wrote:
    “Hundreds (thousands?) of other things are explicitly prohibited. Why not abortion, if it’s murder as you claim? As far as I know, women have been aborting babies for millennia.”

    There is no need for us or the scripture to directly put a law into place about something that is completely obvious to the people being addressed in our culture or theirs.

    There was no need to hear a case like Roe vs. Wade until there was such a change in our culture’s morals that there was a possibility of redefining human life. Since the Bible definitely uses the same Hebrew and Greek words for the unborn and the born CHILD, there is no need to add another law with something specific about purposely murdering an unborn CHILD. The Exodus passage deals with the accidental or collateral harm that might come to a CHILD in the womb that the extent of which would only be known after the CHILD is born.

    And, when Genesis through Deuteronomy was written, there evidently was not much infanticide going on, either before or after birth, except by the Egyptians and Canaanites. Incidentally, Israel was told explicitly not to copy either of those cultures since that is one of the reasons that YHWH had judged them worthy of plagues and being expelled from the promised land.

    And do not forget to answer about Mary being a mother and Elizabeth calling a few cells “my Lord.”


  11. Bo,

    As for the Hebrew — I can’t argue that directly.

    But, a number of bible translators who a lot more than me (and you, probably) do translate it “miscarriage.” A footnote in the NIV gives “miscarriage” as an alternate translation.

    So, you can’t honestly flat-out declare it wrong.

    In your _opinion_ is the most you can say.

    In _my opinion_ “miscarriage makes more common sense because it seems unlikely that a husband could name a penalty for the early birth of a health baby


    Your answer to my question about why abortion isn’t explicit banned has some merit but has one glaring hole — other “completely obvious” things _are_ explicitly banned. Like murder. Or stealing.

    So, why not abortion?


    As for Jesus in the womb —

    The bible also says,

    >>”Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    The bible seems to indicate that “life” begins _before_ conception, not at conception.

    It’s not clear the Hebrews even understood what conception is, medically speaking.

    So, to use those verses to ban a medical procedure is a mistake when they were never intended that way.


    Obviously, abortion is a very important and possibly personal issue to you.

    Clearly nothing is going to change your mind. You know what you believe so you find it in scripture.

    So, what is the point of this debate?

  12. Oh, and shalom to you.

    I mean that with all sincerity. Peace.

    I have no personal grudge against you or your moral conviction on this issue — the same sentiment I extend to women making these hard decisions.

  13. Dr. Brown,

    Since you are a Hebrew scholar, would you translate Exodus 21:22 as a miscarriage?


  14. Bo,

    The Hebrew is fairly simple — literally, if her children (speaking generically and not meaning twins or triplets) come out — but the question is exactly what it means. I lean against the miscarriage translation, but it’s hard to be totally dogmatic.

  15. @Bo,

    וְכִי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים
    And when men will violently wrestle

    וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה
    And they will (accidentally) assault a pregnant woman

    וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ
    and they, her babies, will emerge

    וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן
    And there will be no harm

    This word ‘harm’ is the same word used in Genesis 42:4 and later in verse 38 where Ya’aqov feared sended Benyamin, because he didn’t want him to end up like he thought Yoseph had ended up – think of the multicoloured coat and the blood on it, that’s what ‘harm’ meant to Ya’aqov.

    עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים
    He (the guilty party) shall assuredly be fined according to what the husband of the woman will determine and will pay according to the judges.

    וְאִם־אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה
    But if there is harm

    וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ
    And he shall pay – life for life.

  16. Dr. Brown,

    Is there any possibility that the Hebrew is asserting that the fruit of the woman’s womb is not human or not a baby? Or does the Hebrew word mean child?


  17. Dr. Brown,

    My question is more, about the human status of the unborn more so than whether the child is born dead or alive.


  18. It seems that abortion is not a new phenomena. I read in the Book of Enoch a passage about the fallen angels teaching women “the smitings (stroke) in the womb that the embryo may pass away.”

    One translation on line is where the excerpt is from:

    Chapter 69

    1 And after this judgement they shall terrify and make them to tremble because they have shown this to those who dwell on the earth.
    2 And behold the names of those angels [and these are their names: the first of them is Samjaza, the second Artaqifa, and the third Armen, the fourth Kokabel, the fifth Turael, the sixth Rumjal, the seventh Danjal, the eighth Neqael, the ninth Baraqel, the tenth Azazel, the eleventh Armaros, the twelfth Batarjal, the thirteenth Busasejal, the fourteenth Hananel, the fifteenth Turel, and the sixteenth Simapesiel, the seventeenth Jetrel, the eighteenth Tumael, the nineteenth Turel,
    3 the twentieth Rumael, the twenty-first Azazel. And these are the chiefs of their angels and their names, and their chief ones over hundreds and over fifties and over tens.
    4 The name of the first Jeqon: that is, the one who led astray [all] the sons of God, and brought them
    5 down to the earth, and led them astray through the daughters of men. And the second was named Asbeel: he imparted to the holy sons of God evil counsel, and led them astray so that they defiled
    6 their bodies with the daughters of men. And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed [the weapons of death to the sons of men] the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons
    7 of death to the children of men. And from his hand they have proceeded against those who dwell
    8 on the earth from that day and for evermore. And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the
    9 children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to
    10 eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation
    11 to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power
    12 it is consuming me.

    And the fifth was named Kasdeja: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away, and [the smitings of the soul] the bites of the serpent, and the smitings
    13 which befall through the noontide heat, the son of the serpent named Tabaet.

    I’m encouraged with the pro-life victories! It’s wonderful to hear some good news!

  19. @Bo,

    The Hebrew conjugation is יְלָדֶיהָ her children, coming from the root ילד Y-L-D, which is where we get our English ‘lad’ from.

Comments are closed.