How Scripture Alone Blinds the Faithful

With scripture alone as their guide, the major Protestant denominations have somehow fostered more unity around the bioethics of secular humanism than they have about baptism, communion, and whether you can lose your salvation.

While I’m continuing to research the topic, it is becoming clear that a major factor — certainly not the only one — in our nation’s moral blunders was the Protestant principle “Scripture Alone.” This principle seems to have played a significant role in deadening the consciences of millions of Christian Americans, including many Catholics, around contraception, abortion, sterilization, eugenics, IVF, and transhumanism in general.

My argument is primarily that the Protestant teaching of “Scripture Alone” is a major risk factor that influences Christian institutions to declare evil good and good evil.

One very prominent example is how the SBC was founded on slavery, which is a well-known and documented fact. In addition, their 1971 resolution affirmed abortion as morally permissible and exhorted their members to take political action to support it.

Richard Fuller was one of the first Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, which formed over the moral and political issue of slavery. Richard Fuller defended slavery in a book responding to an abolitionist titled, Domestic Slavery Considered as a Biblical Institution (talk about a banger of a title).

I have already remarked on the utter irregularity of requiring me to take up this issue, when you ought from the Bible to make out your charge that slavery is a crime…But I pass this, and…undertake to prove the negative, and show that the Bible does, most explicitly, both by precept and example, bear me out in my assertion…that slavery is not necessarily, and always, and amdist all circumstances a sin. This is the position to be established, and the entire reasoning…is this, WHAT GOD SANCTIONED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND PERMITTED IN THE NEW, CANNOT BE SIN.¹

Fuller continues the line of argument by using 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This is the famous passage that says, “All scripture is God-breathed, and sufficient for every good work.”

Fast-forward to 1971, and the SBC is affirming another human rights violation, abortion.

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.²

(emphasis mine).

This is in 1971. Five years later, the SBC would reverse this position, but as the largest denomination in the country, the damage had already been dealt. Their influence had affirmed abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” and for the next five years, pastors were permitted and encouraged to affirm it.

Abortion was not safe; it was murder. It should not have been legal; it should have been illegal. And it did not remain rare; it exploded into a massive industry of death that would move on to develop abortive contraceptives, abortive pills, and fertility treatments that led to the discarding of children in order to purchase another one through IVF.

1970s Evangelical Leaders

Around the same year, a book was published, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, by Norman L. Geisler. He was a key leader of intellectual evangelicalism, one of the presidents of Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), and a founding member and first president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS). He wrote prolifically on apologetics, philosophy, and theology. Many of us apologists are indebted to him for his clear thinking on apologetics and his devotion to evangelism.

It’s worth noting that Geisler, several years later, requested that this book be pulled from circulation. I have only decided to quote him here because when I have made this argument to Protestants before and tried not to name names, they think that I am blowing it out of proportion, or they think that I am misquoting. I can empathize with them because it’s hard to believe that someone who was a prominent leader and defender of conservative evangelical Christianity would ever utter the arguments you’re about to read.

1971-Geisler on Abortion

First, Geisler denies that abortion is murder.

An Unborn Baby Is Not Fully Human — According to the law of Moses, the killing of an unborn baby was not considered a capital offense…(Ex. 21:22)… Abortion is not murder, but it is a very serious activity…One must have a good reason for extinguishing what God has kindled.³

What is important here is that because Geisler is an advocate of the primacy of scripture, he believes that using scripture bolsters his arguments. Another point, as we will see later, is that Geisler was aware of the Roman Catholic positions, as were most Protestants writing on these issues. This means that they were not reasoning in a vacuum. The most influential Christian “denomination” had already told people their arguments against abortion, but Protestants ignored them.

1971-Geisler on Eugenics

Second, Geisler asks the question about using abortion for eugenics. Is it permissible to abort a child with Down Syndrome? Geisler responds in the affirmative.

From the standpoint of the hierarchical ethics the basic principle is this: eugenic abortion is called for only when the clear indications are that the life will be sub-human and not simply because it may be a deformed human. Perhaps [Down Syndrome] is a justifiable ground for abortion…⁴

Here we see Geisler echoing what we have come to know as the “classical leftist” argument for aborting a disabled child. They frequently argue that it is justified for a mother to terminate her child if that child’s quality of life is so low that it justifies his murder.

1971-Geisler on IVF & Surrogacy

Third, and finally, on IVF and surrogacy, Geisler has a view that many still hold today. In fact, my first encounter with IVF and Surrogacy was with a Christian co-worker many years ago. They were doing IVF, and the wife’s sister was doing surrogacy for money.

The second time I encountered IVF was during my seminary education. A friend of mine called to get some ethical advice because his wife’s sister was having a hard time getting pregnant. She asked my friend and his wife to consider participating in the IVF process by way of contribution of their gametes. I argued that he shouldn’t do that because of the embryos discarded, but admittedly, if someone pressed me on other forms of IVF, I’m not sure I would have had an answer. Which is probably why someone like Geisler, who is much smarter than I, wrote the following.

Scripture definitely condemns adultery on the ground that it is a union of two persons who are not properly married (1 Cor. 6:16). This leaves open the possibility that impregnation without the adulterous union could be morally right.⁵

(emphasis in original)

For those not in the know, pre-Pro-Life Geisler is making the point that “multiple-partner” IVF is morally permitted, meaning that a man could contribute his sperm for the fertilization of the eggs of another man’s wife, so that the couple in question could have a child. In other words, your friend Joe just gave your wife a baby via IVF, and the child is not yours; it’s Joe’s.

If you are aware of the brilliance of Norman Geisler, you are probably as shocked as I was to read these statements. In fact, whether we are Catholic or Protestant, it is a reminder that we must be students of the Christian faith throughout our lives, presenting our arguments with humility, not to be confused with skepticism or timidity. But this is only possible if the doctrine does not change.

Protestantism teaches that doctrine and morals can and probably should change from time to time, but Catholicism teaches that the doctrine and morals of the faith cannot change. If doctrine and morals can change, then Martin Luther, Karl Marx, and the person who believes they are cat must all be given the presumption of “discovery” by virtue of the fact that they are novel, and the creed, dogma, or morality that they challenge must be viewed with skepticism by virtue of their legacy.

One might argue that Protestant skepticism of Church authority and history is precisely what led Norman Geisler to question the status quo that had been established by the Church, but not explicitly in scripture. In short, if you have to start with Scripture, you will not have time to consider things outside of Scripture. And why would you? They will only lead you astray. This leads someone to be blinded by the brilliance of scripture to their moral detriment.

They Knew

One common objection at this point is that people were duped because abortion was a novel technology, and they did not have the understanding of fetal development like we do today. This is false, and yet people still continue to deny this fact or say, “Well, I haven’t read anyone say that.” So here is another quote from Geisler in the book I’ve been quoting up to this point. In it, Geisler gives us a picture of what people knew about fetal development and the laws that were currently on the books when abortion came in and overthrew the status quo; abortion did not come into a country that was uncertain about life. Abortion revolutionized a Christian country that knew when life began and all the nuances of its development.

It is now known that the unborn receives its entire RNA and DNA genetic potential at conception. By the end of four weeks a budding cardiovascular system begins to function. At eight weeks the electrical activity of the brain is readable and most essential organ formations are present. And by 10 weeks the fetus is capable of spontaneous motion. In many states the law requires a birth certificate for a twenty-week-old fetus. From this it appears evident that every point of progress realizes an increased value until finally the full human value is attained.⁶

If this quote was not enough, one can read Daniel K. Williams’ work, Defenders of the Unborn, to find out just how radical the idea of abortion was in America and how Protestants succumbed to the novelty of controlling fertility.

Pro-Life Geisler

In 1989, Geisler recanted his arguments in the first edition of his ethics book: Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options. The second edition is still in print and was published in 2010.⁷ For those who have read it, let me know in the comments how many of these positions he changed. I suspect he would have rejected some and only slightly modified others.

The Question

How is it that Protestants not only permitted but also adopted and encouraged evil behavior among their members? Whether that be chattel slavery for the SBC in the 1800s, abortion and contraception which saw widespread support from the 1930s through the 1970s, or the most recent moral collapse among evangelical and historical Protestants, artificial reproductive technologies (ART), these conservative denominations have caved on one or all of these major moral issues each of which all involve the termination of an innocent child’s life, or the enslavement of their neighbor.

When you have a pattern like this, you have to stop and ask, “Is there something about Protestantism that leads them to adopt liberal ideas first, and then reform later?”

In 1986, there was a paper published by the Lutheran Seminary of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, by Roy J. Enquist, professor of Theology and Ethics. He was not an abortion absolutist like the Catholics, but was a “moderate” on the issue. But even in his analysis, every major denomination had a “qualified position” on abortion, with two exceptions: the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Enquist evaluated approximately 17 major denominations and found that all the Protestant denominations had a qualifier that permitted abortion of an innocent child. The conservative denominations at this point were much closer to the Catholics, permitting abortion only when the mother’s life was at risk. But even in 1986, everyone knew what the Catholics taught because they had reaffirmed their teaching at Vatican II.

In 1965, Vatican II concluded and made definitive statements on when life began. Dr. Enquist writes about and cites the Catholic position as stated in Vatican II:

The Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to induced abortion is well known. The most succinct modern text was given at the Second Vatican Council: “From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” “Since the fetus is regarded as a human being from the moment of conception, its destruction is a mortal sin and, in fact, ought to be declared illegal by governments.”⁸

(emphasis mine).

When we consider the fact that Catholics had settled the abortion issue in the 1960s, that is nearly prophetic in the Biblical sense of the term. In the meantime, mainline Christians and American Democrats were wrapping up their political rallies to make abortion and contraception mainstream in the United States. But some might argue that even the Church was late to the discussion on abortion, considering Margaret Sanger and her efforts began in the early 1900s.

But Daniel K. Williams, author of the book The Defenders of the Unborn, shows us that even as early as the 1930s, the Catholic Church was already condemning contraception and abortion. The Church’s prophetic voice to the world was already preaching, but Protestants ignored the warnings.

It was thus not surprising that when Pope Pius XI issued his landmark anti-contraceptive encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930, he coupled his condemnation of artificial birth control with an injunction against “the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother’s womb.” While most of the encyclical was devoted to the issue of contraception, which he viewed as the more immediate threat, he also believed that abortion was merely a more extreme manifestation of the same impulse: a general attack on the family.⁹

Again, we ask, “How is it that the Catholics got this right, but the Protestants got it wrong?” The answer, I think, lies in the principle of Scripture Alone and the ideas that flow from it.

Scripture Alone necessarily acts as a blinder to the historical Christianity that we are indebted to. It’s also a blinder to the Catholic Church and her teachings; from a Protestant view, the Catholic Church is the last one they should consult, and even if they wanted to, they should probably spend more time in Greek and Hebrew before they get involved in the latest “political” issue of their day.

Finally, this leads the Protestant to foster an entire “Christian worldview” on the ideas of skepticism of anything not scripture, except, of course, their own faculties and motives; this includes any Protestant creed or teaching that came before them. They are not in constant reform; they are in constant revolution.

Protestantism and Semper Reformanda

One thing that Protestantism has in common with Marxism is the idea that barriers should be removed through reformation or negation of the status quo. The idea that the revolution never stops is a Marxist idea and concept that we all recognize leads to political death and destruction. According to R.C. Sproul— though I think he and his followers would object profusely — this concept is also part of the Protestant idea of Scripture Alone. In a lecture on Scripture Alone, R. C. Sproul said the following:

[In] the Protestant heritage the principle of semper reformanda is embraced by virtually all Protestants. That is, the church is always called to undergo reformation and always called to check her own creeds and confessions to make sure that they are in conformity to sacred scripture…there is only one authority that can bind the conscience, and that authority is Sacred Scripture.¹⁰

It’s this idea of “constant reformation” that comes out of Scripture Alone and leads people to question authority, look down on ancient Christians as pagans, and see themselves implicitly as the “authors of their faith,” rather than the receivers of the Faith.

When we survey the historical record, we see that the Protestant Reformers were not only aware of what Scripture Alone might do, but that they were willing to accept it, regardless of the evils, heresies, or distortions that might come from empowering every man and woman to be their own interpreter of Scripture. R.C. Sproul, in the same lectures, says:

“When Luther talked about getting the Bible to the laity, the church said, ‘If you do that it will open up a flood gate of iniquity, because people will start creating all kinds of horrible distortions.’ — which is exactly what happened. But Luther said, ‘If that is the case, and if a floodgate of iniquity is opened by opening the pages of the Bible to people, so be it…but the message that is clear is so important. It contains the message of our salvation. It is so important that we’ll take the risks of all the distortions and all the heresies that go with that to make sure that the central message of Scripture is heard.”¹¹

This, of course, leads to the question: “How will the message be discerned if heresies and distortions abound?” To be clear, I’m not saying that the Church should have locked up the Bible, nor is Sproul entirely right about the context of this quote from Luther. But what does matter is R. C. Sproul’s acceptance of the “floodgate of iniquity,” in other words, I will accept any kind of evil and sin in the world, if it means I can interpret the Bible for myself.

When we combine the numbers from abortion and IVF, we begin approaching a number that is north of 100 million dead babies. That sounds like a “floodgate of iniquity to me.”

Are Protestants really going to look at that number and say, “Yes, my ESV was worth it”? I don’t know, but I know what I would have done as a Protestant. I would have argued that “It’s not my version of Protestantism that caused it,” or I would have said, “Yep, but God knew, and now I have to ask myself, what am I gonna do about it today?” Some of them will just deny it. They will deny that their beliefs, their history, and the history of the Abortion movement are intimately connected. And I can’t blame them. I would have probably made that argument at one point, too.

When we talk about Communism today, we are baffled by how people could fall for its poison and false promises. This is because we have seen the fruit of it. I think it’s the same with Luther.

If he could have looked into the future and seen what moral evils would have come about, I like to think he would have probably rethought his position. But we are not permitted to know the future. We are expected to live by faith in the teachings of the Word of God, both written and spoken.

The Word and His Mother

A wise man once told me that in order to conquer sin in my life, I had to replace that sin with something good. The reason, he said, “Is because emptiness needs to be filled. If you remove the sin, but don’t fill the void with something good, then, like a black hole, the sin will find its way back into your life.” Or as another wise guy said, “Nature abhors a vacuum” — not to be confused with the kind that cleans your carpet; nature loves those vacuums.

This is relevant to the Protestant-Catholic dialogue because both have a tendency to elevate their distinctive dogmas to the exclusion of other important dogmas. On the one hand, the Protestants emphasize 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

While the Catholics tend to emphasize 1 Timothy 3:15,

…You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Here we have the two pillars of the Christian life, the scriptures and the Church. Just as Christ was the Word made flesh and was born from the Blessed Virgin, so the Church, pregnant with the Word of God, birthed the scriptures. To separate them would be to orphan the Word of God and put it into the foster care system, where it moves from house to house, but never puts its roots down morally or doctrinally. And as R.C. Sproul implied, this constant reforming and challenging of doctrines is a feature, not a bug.

This usurping tradition by the individual rather than a valid authority creates a vacuum that is either filled by individual pride that refuses to submit to any church, or it is filled by false teachings like “Abortion is not murder.”

God in His grace has still worked through many Protestant communities to help spread an understanding of the importance of scripture, the ever-popular “Bible Study,” the Christian’s relationship with God, their need for a savior, and many other great things— even, dare I say it, Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). One thing is sure: Protestantism is a much safer route into the fullness of Christianity than the alternatives: paganism or atheism. Protestants are also incredibly valuable allies in the political fight for Pro-Life legislation today, despite them being a catalyst for it in the past.

On the Catholic side, a vacuum can form when individuals elevate Church authority to the exclusion of scriptural authority or the teachings of the Church. In other words, they believe they don’t need to learn anything about what Christianity teaches or what the scriptures teach because, after all, the Bishops and Pope will take care of it. The filling of this scriptural void is seen when Catholics debate about what the Pope said to a group of reporters.

Depending on which side is affirmed, they all act as if his comments from the microphone were from The Chair, also known as Ex Cathedra. Catholics are expected to know their faith and the scriptures so that they can better receive the sacraments, honor their Blessed Mother, worship Christ in sacrifice, and ultimately obtain eternal life —fun fact, a major part of Vatican II was exhorting the laity to take responsibility for their faith and evangelize more.

Catholics definitely have not had a spotless past, but one of the miraculous things about her is that she has endured trials and tribulations, both from within and without. She is only around because she has been preserved. As one Cardinal said to Napoleon, “Your Majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best for the past 1,800 years to destroy the Church. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

It is a fact of history that the Church has, in its various nations, states, provinces, parishes, and whatever other level of geography you can think of, committed violence and evil against people both within and outside her walls. This is largely due to the Church ignoring and/or violating her teaching, and/or getting too cozy with state power. But even still, the Church has never affirmed something like abortion as morally permissible. It is the Protestants who have done this on virtually every issue: from divorce to abortion, they have made exceptions that ultimately lie with the individual, not with the ecclesiastical authority.

History is complicated, and I’m not going to defend the idea that the moral distinctions between Protestants and Catholics have always been this clear. But it does seem like we are living in a time where we are privileged with a perspective that lets us see clearly that the morally safer Church to submit to today is the Catholic Church.

Killing babies for any reason should always raise alarm bells, but it seems that when Scriptura Alone is operating, the Natural Law written on our hearts is ignored, and our conscience is seared. This manifested itself in the 1970s most clearly when the voices of the unborn were stifled by the preaching and teaching of prominent Christian teachers and denominations. To be sure, some stood in the breach. R.C. Sproul was one who apparently was strong on abortion from the beginning, and another was John MacArthur.¹² When it comes to denominations, the strongest position I found was in 1978, and it was the PCA.

God is using Protestantism, despite their failings, to highlight the path to the one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism of Christianity, only found in the fullness of the Catholic faith. We share our Lord, we share our Baptism, but we do not share all of our faith: that is the praxis and teachings we submit to.

Every aspect of a Protestant experience can find its way back to Catholicism, even smoke machines (incense smells so good!). But we also can’t downplay the fact that, if the Church’s teaching on mortal sin is true, then moral teachings like we have discussed today are not only leading to the death of babies, but it is also leading souls who commit these mortal sins to Hell.

If “once saved always saved” is true, then nothing I’ve written here matters. But if “once saved always saved” is false, then the consequences of these ideas are not just life or death; they are Heaven or Hell.

Thanks for reading.

— DR

1. Richard Fuller, Francis Wayland, 1856. Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution. 170. Accessible on Google Books

2. 1971 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual Meeting: Resolution on Abortion.

3. Geisler, Norman, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House 1971), 218-219.

4. Ibid. 222.

5. Ibid. 228.

6. Ibid. 224.

7. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options by Norman Geisler

8. Roy J. Enquist, “The Church’s Response to Abortion.” 417. Accessed: October 25, 2025.

9. Williams, Daniel K.. Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade (p. 17). Kindle Edition.

10. R.C. Sproul, lecture on Ligonier Ministries, title: Scripture Alone. Timestamps ~12:00-13:00.

11. Ibid. Timestamps: ~21:00-22:00

12. John MacArthur has two sermons right around Roe V. Wade. Here is the link to Part I and Part II from 1974. I have not read Part II yet.