Abortion and TULIP

[annsni]

Stop for a minute. Let's look at a scenario...

A 3 year old is throwing blocks at his sister. The mommy takes away the blocks, and disciplines the 3 year old. The three year old gets mad, throws a fit, and hits his mother in the head with something, killing her. Lets ask and answer some questions...

#1 Why did the toddler throw a fit? For that matter why was he hitting his sister with the blocks in the first place?
Answer: They are morally depraved BY NATURE. A spiritually pure child would not act in anger and disobedience towards their parents, nor would they try to hurt their sister.

#2 Is the toddler guilty of killing his mother?
Answer: Yes. He killed his mother. He is guilty.

#3 Is he accountable for what he did?
Answer: No. Because the toddler is ignorant of the implications of what he has done (He does not know the law: that killing his mother is wrong). However, he still DID IT, and he did it BECAUSE he is spiritually depraved.

This is the same in terms of spiritual matters. A baby is guilty, depraved, etc. But he is not held accountable for it.

Now, in terms of "On what basis are babies saved?' Simple. Babies are not guilty of any sin, because they are not held accountable for it. This INCLUDES the sin of unbelief/lack of faith.

I'd like to agree but.... do you have Scripture to support that?

 

[Havensdad]

Don't try to interpret scripture by manmade capital and social offences.

Cheers,

Jim

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.

 

[Havensdad]

I'd like to agree but.... do you have Scripture to support that?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Havensdad
Stop for a minute. Let's look at a scenario...

A 3 year old is throwing blocks at his sister. The mommy takes away the blocks, and disciplines the 3 year old. The three year old gets mad, throws a fit, and hits his mother in the head with something, killing her. Lets ask and answer some questions...

#1 Why did the toddler throw a fit? For that matter why was he hitting his sister with the blocks in the first place?
Answer: They are morally depraved BY NATURE. A spiritually pure child would not act in anger and disobedience towards their parents, nor would they try to hurt their sister.

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

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

#2 Is the toddler guilty of killing his mother?
Answer: Yes. He killed his mother. He is guilty.

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

#3 Is he accountable for what he did?
Answer: No. Because the toddler is ignorant of the implications of what he has done (He does not know the law: that killing his mother is wrong). However, he still DID IT, and he did it BECAUSE he is spiritually depraved.

This is the same in terms of spiritual matters. A baby is guilty, depraved, etc. But he is not held accountable for it.

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.

Now, in terms of "On what basis are babies saved?' Simple. Babies are not guilty of any sin, because they are not held accountable for it. This INCLUDES the sin of unbelief/lack of faith.

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.

 

[Matt Black]

How do you know infants don't have faith? I've had 4 of my own. They had faith that I was feeding them something that was not going to kill them. They had faith that when they were in my arms, they could sleep peacefully. They had complete faith in me.

How does God deal with infants? It's either He sends them all to hell because they didn't have a chance to believe in Him - or else in His mercy and grace, He knows better than us. I'd go with #2.

Oh, don't worry, I go with #2, too. But if so, it has to be for some other reason and by some other method than by faith in Jesus Christ and His penal substitutionary atonement, the classic evangelical requirement.

 

[Matt Black]

Stop for a minute. Let's look at a scenario...

A 3 year old is throwing blocks at his sister. The mommy takes away the blocks, and disciplines the 3 year old. The three year old gets mad, throws a fit, and hits his mother in the head with something, killing her. Lets ask and answer some questions...

#1 Why did the toddler throw a fit? For that matter why was he hitting his sister with the blocks in the first place?
Answer: They are morally depraved BY NATURE. A spiritually pure child would not act in anger and disobedience towards their parents, nor would they try to hurt their sister.

#2 Is the toddler guilty of killing his mother?
Answer: Yes. He killed his mother. He is guilty.

#3 Is he accountable for what he did?
Answer: No. Because the toddler is ignorant of the implications of what he has done (He does not know the law: that killing his mother is wrong). However, he still DID IT, and he did it BECAUSE he is spiritually depraved.

This is the same in terms of spiritual matters. A baby is guilty, depraved, etc. But he is not held accountable for it.

Now, in terms of "On what basis are babies saved?' Simple. Babies are not guilty of any sin, because they are not held accountable for it. This INCLUDES the sin of unbelief/lack of faith.

I would question #2 for starters - a toddler lacks the necessary mens rea to be guilty of an offence, legally or indeed morally.

 

[annsni]

I would question #2 for starters - a toddler lacks the necessary mens rea to be guilty of an offence, legally or indeed morally.

OK - The ONLY reason I know what mens rea is, is because of Legally Blonde. How terrible is that???

OK - just thinking some more on this. With the arminian point of view, it's man's choice as to whether or not they are saved. With the Calvinist point of view, it's all God. If God is the one responsible for turning our hearts towards Him for salvation as in the doctrine of grace, then can't God turn the heart of even an unborn child towards Him? I mean there's NO way if it's man's choice but if it's God's election, and He's God, can't he help the child to understand the Gospel on His own? It would be the same with the "person in Africa who never heard".

Just thinking on this early rainy morning as I'm waiting for the teens to be ready to go to school...

 

[Havensdad]

I would question #2 for starters - a toddler lacks the necessary mens rea to be guilty of an offence, legally or indeed morally.

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.

 

[webdog]

Hmm. One of the first sentences my 5 year old said (when she was 2) was "I love Jesus".

So that's what faith entails?

 

[webdog]

OK - The ONLY reason I know what mens rea is, is because of Legally Blonde. How terrible is that???

OK - just thinking some more on this. With the arminian point of view, it's man's choice as to whether or not they are saved. With the Calvinist point of view, it's all God. If God is the one responsible for turning our hearts towards Him for salvation as in the doctrine of grace, then can't God turn the heart of even an unborn child towards Him? I mean there's NO way if it's man's choice but if it's God's election, and He's God, can't he help the child to understand the Gospel on His own? It would be the same with the "person in Africa who never heard".

Just thinking on this early rainy morning as I'm waiting for the teens to be ready to go to school...

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.

 

[Havensdad]

So that's what faith entails?

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?

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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.

If there is no mens rea he cannot be guilty. EG: if a somnambulist strangles his wife in his sleep, then he is not guilty of homicide, providing he can run the defence of automatism successfully; in fact he's not committed an offence at all.

 

[Matt Black]

OK - The ONLY reason I know what mens rea is, is because of Legally Blonde. How terrible is that???

OK - just thinking some more on this. With the arminian point of view, it's man's choice as to whether or not they are saved. With the Calvinist point of view, it's all God. If God is the one responsible for turning our hearts towards Him for salvation as in the doctrine of grace, then can't God turn the heart of even an unborn child towards Him? I mean there's NO way if it's man's choice but if it's God's election, and He's God, can't he help the child to understand the Gospel on His own? It would be the same with the "person in Africa who never heard".

Just thinking on this early rainy morning as I'm waiting for the teens to be ready to go to school...

Apples and oranges to a degree: the person in Africa at least has the intellectual capacity to understand the Gospel should God choose (in the Calvinist scheme of things) to quicken his spirit to the Gospel and elect him for salvation. A newborn has no such mental capacity and therefore cannot be saved according to sola fide being the (evangelical) pre-requisite for salvation.

 

[Havensdad]

If there is no mens rea he cannot be guilty. EG: if a somnambulist strangles his wife in his sleep, then he is not guilty of homicide, providing he can run the defence of automatism successfully; in fact he's not committed an offence at all.

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.

 

[Matt Black]

I didn't skim your post: I read it and disagreed with it. The fact is, if there is no mens rea then there is no murder, no homicide; therefore a lawyer defending such a case would not say "my client murdered his wife", because his case is that he didn't commit murder due to the lack of mens rea.

 

[Havensdad]

I didn't skim your post: I read it and disagreed with it. The fact is, if there is no mens rea then there is no murder, no homicide; therefore a lawyer defending such a case would not say "my client murdered his wife", because his case is that he didn't commit murder due to the lack of mens rea.

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.

 

[Matt Black]

For the record, I am a practising lawyer with a 2.1 bachelor of law honours degree, who used to specialise in publicly-funded criminal defence work until the funding dried up . And you are wrong (at least as far as English law is concerned, but I believe the US law is built upon the same common law foundation). To have committed an actus reus does not make one guilty; if I go to open a third floor window and the window falls out and kills a pedestrian below due to the window being badly installed, then I have certainly killed the pedestrian (the actus reus) but in no way am I guilty of their homicide in any shape or form.

 

[Havensdad]

For the record, I am a practising lawyer with a 2.1 bachelor of law honours degree, who used to specialise in publicly-funded criminal defence work until the funding dried up . And you are wrong (at least as far as English law is concerned, but I believe the US law is built upon the same common law foundation). To have committed an actus reus does not make one guilty; if I go to open a third floor window and the window falls out and kills a pedestrian below due to the window being badly installed, then I have certainly killed the pedestrian (the actus reus) but in no way am I guilty of their homicide in any shape or form.

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea