Abortion and TULIP

You cannot attack my interpretation of scripture by saying it is illogical, and then condemn my argument when I demonstrate that it is logical. I gave a view of scripture, then showed that it was logically feasible as well.

Those particular "man made" capital and social offenses, are based on scripture, BTW.

 

Sure.

We are spiritually wicked and depraved, from the moment of birth (or even conception)>

(Psalm 51:5, Psalm 14:1-3)

Self explanatory. He broke God's law. Exodus 20:13

Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law

Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.


We ARE NOT born dead...

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Notice how these scriptures speak in a "backwards" manner, regarding faith/belief..

Rom 11:20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.

Rom 11:23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

Heb 3:18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
Heb 3:19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

 

So, because He is a toddler, he did not perform the action? That does not make sense. Of COURSE he is guilty> he is not accountable though. "Mens Rea" is where point number three comes in. He did it, He is just not held accountable.

 

So that's what faith entails?

 

You start off on the wrong foot. It is not man's choice whether they are saved...it's God choice who He saves. It is man's choice whether to accept the Truth of not (Romans 1). The result of man's choice determines whether God chooses that person or not based on His requirements He set forth, not ours. Salvation is authored and completed by God, it is all of Him.

 

I think faith is dependent upon the ability of the particular person to understand.

Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.


For example, a mentally handicapped person might not be able to fully understand the concept of saved by grace alone. An eight year old may not be able to understand the full implications of Christ's death, and what that means to us. But I don't think God expects more of us than we are capable of.

I cannot count the number of extremely young children that I have seen, that seem to be connected to God in a way that we are not, as adults. And since it is sin that separates us from God, is this not logical?

 

I agree with your premise for the most part. I don't agree that since a child knows who Jesus is, he is capable of faith. My son is 3, can tell you Jesus died for our sin, had "boo boo's" all over Him, nails in His hands, etc., but doesn't grasp the concept of what it all means.

 

I cannot help but think you just skimmed my post, and did not actually read it.

The fact is, if someone strangles their wife in their sleep, THEY DID IT. Whether or not you are accountable for something, does not change reality. The woman does not suddenly come back to life, because the person is not held accountable for what he has done.

Lack of "Mens Rea" (guilty mind: intent), does not imply that a person was an "automaton": it can mean something as simple as being mentally incapable of fully understanding the consequences of ones actions, or an inability to firmly distinguish between right and wrong.

A prosecutor defending such a case, might say "Yes, my client murdered this woman" (acknowledging guilt of committing the act) , "but he was unaware of what He was doing" (he cannot be held accountable).

In my illustration, the toddler DID have "intent" to exact retribution against his mother: He cannot be held accountable because He cannot fully understand.

 

Incorrect. I hope you are not a law student. Your going to get an F. :laugh:

There are two terms, "actus reus" (Guilty act) and "mens rea" (guilty mind). A person who is incapable, mentally, of standing trial (too young, mentally handicapped, mentally ill, etc.) is said, yes, to have "actus reus" (guilty act: they are guilty of the action), but NOT "mens rea", (guilty mind, intent).

Actus reus (guilty of the act), plus mens rea (intent to commit the act) is required for a crime to be considered a crime.

 

All information was taken from Harvard law, and other U.S. Law sites. The word "actus reus" MEANS "'Guilty' Act". From Nolo...

Latin for a "guilty act." The actus reus is the act which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime. For example, the crime of theft requires physically taking something (the actus reus) coupled with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the object (the mental state, or mens rea).

It acknowledges the person as guilty of committing the actual crime ("reus" i.e. guilty) but not with intent.

*EDIT Addition: In other words, Iam saying the toddler would be guilty an "Actus reus" sense.

 

Using Matt's analogy, the toddler would not be guilty, due to the bad install of the window (sin nature) that action occured. There is no guilt charged.