---
title: "Immediatism — dealing with sin fully and now — is the biblical pattern; gradual toleration is not"
description: "Scripture's pattern for dealing with sin is decisive and immediate, not gradual. Christ says if your hand causes you to sin, 'cut it off' (Matt. 5:29-30) — total, urgent, final, not phased reduction. The narrative paradigms confirm it: Moses refuses Pharaoh's staged 'increments' and demands full…"
type: "argument"
id: "arg-immediatism-biblical"
category: "Philosophical"
mode: "Offensive"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/arguments/arg-immediatism-biblical.html"
---

# Immediatism — dealing with sin fully and now — is the biblical pattern; gradual toleration is not

**Category:** Philosophical · **Mode:** Offensive · the positive case

## The argument

Scripture's pattern for dealing with sin is decisive and immediate, not gradual. Christ says if your hand causes you to sin, 'cut it off' (Matt. 5:29-30) — total, urgent, final, not phased reduction. The narrative paradigms confirm it: Moses refuses Pharaoh's staged 'increments' and demands full release ('not a hoof shall be left behind,' Ex. 10:26); Saul's partial obedience is called rebellion (1 Sam. 15). Applied to abortion, immediatism means calling for total and immediate abolition now, every year, until it passes — not pursuing increments that legalize some abortion as the goal.

## Supporting points

- The biblical way to fight a besetting sin is to cut it off, not to reduce it by degrees (Matt. 5:29-30).
- Moses rejects Pharaoh's escalating 'increments' (leave the children / leave the animals) as traps.
- Saul's partial, people-pleasing obedience is judged as rebellion (1 Sam. 15:22-23).
- Immediatism is about what you call for (total abolition), not how long it takes to achieve it.

## Discussion questions

1. In personal sanctification, does anyone counsel reducing a sin gradually as the goal? Why apply a different logic to abortion law?
2. What increments did Pharaoh offer Moses, and why did Moses refuse each one?

## Source transcript

Drawn from The Sin of Pro-Life Incrementalism (T. Russell Hunter) — Moses/Pharaoh and Saul/Samuel expositions; the cut-it-off analogy..

## References

_The case here rests on the cited scriptures; see Related below._

## Related

**Related scriptures:**

- [1 Samuel 15:22-23](../scripture/1-samuel-15-22-23.md)
- [Micah 6:8](../scripture/micah-6-8.md)
- [James 4:17](../scripture/james-4-17.md)
- [Proverbs 24:11-12](../scripture/proverbs-24-11-12.md)

**Related arguments:**

- [“A bill that protects some children now is better than a bill that protects none and…”](def-some-justice-better.md)
- [“William Wilberforce is the model incrementalist: he took ~20 years and accepted partial…”](def-wilberforce-gradualist.md)
- [Reframe the debate: it is abolition vs. regulationism, not abolition vs. 'incrementalism'](arg-regulationism-not-incrementalism.md)