Abortion and TULIP

[Havensdad]

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Which is exactly what I am saying. Compare this to Romans..

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.

A lack of knowledge of right and wrong would mean no "Mens rea". That is why Paul said:

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

At the age which we realize our own sinfulness,at the age of "accountability" so to speak, our spiritual depravity "kills" us.

 

[Matt Black]

The toddler therefore is not guilty?

 

[webdog]

The toddler therefore is not guilty?

Would have to be the case. If one is guilty, one is a sinner.

 

[Havensdad]

The toddler therefore is not guilty?

Yes. He is not "guilty" in the sense of committing a crime. He is guilty only in the fact that he committed the act (actus reus).

But although he is not "guilty", in a criminal sense, His acting out in anger and rebellion to his mother shows his spiritual depravity. So once he reaches the age where he understands the "law" which God has written on our hearts, the "Light given to every man", His spiritual depravity comes alive, and kills him, spiritually.

I hope that clears things up. I think perhaps we have a bit of a English/American language issue, which is causing confusion. Or perhaps I am just failing in my attempts at explaining what I think scripture teaches.

 

[Havensdad]

Would have to be the case. If one is guilty, one is a sinner.

Bro, I know this a divergence from orthodoxy in the reformed tradition, but I think there is a clear distinction between being sinful/depraved and "a sinner". A depraved person is one who is spiritually corrupted, whereas a "sinner" is one who has committed acts against God's law, for which he is fully accountable for.

 

[Jim1999]

There is an "age of accountability"? I cannot recall chapter and verse on that one.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Matt Black]

Funny, I was thinking that myself...

 

[webdog]

There is an "age of accountability"? I cannot recall chapter and verse on that one.

Cheers,

Jim

Paul's was described in Romans 7.

 

[Havensdad]

There is an "age of accountability"? I cannot recall chapter and verse on that one.

Cheers,

Jim

Romans 7. While it is clear this is not a specific "age", it rather denotes the time in a persons life when they come to understand their sin, and are able to respond to Christ in faith.

 

[Jim1999]

I just read it three times and fail to even see children mentioned..Maybe I missed something there..It was talking about marriage and faithfulness, and how the Law, God's standard of righteousness, can convict a sinner already dead in his sins,,,but age of accountability....nothing!

Age of accountability was a term used by some preachers to appease parents who had a child die.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Havensdad]

I just read it three times and fail to even see children mentioned..Maybe I missed something there..It was talking about marriage and faithfulness, and how the Law, God's standard of righteousness, can convict a sinner already dead in his sins,,,but age of accountability....nothing!

Age of accountability was a term used by some preachers to appease parents who had a child die.

Cheers,

Jim

Wrong.

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

Paul is exceedingly clear here, that He was once "spiritually alive", but died when he attained a knowledge of the Law.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Why should we want to even consider diverging from what has always been taught by the Church and her fathers from the early Church forward. We have plenty of writings from the Church fathers and opinions that have guided the Church for Centuries.

Christ promise to His Church was that He would never leave her and that He would remind His Church of ALL things. There’s no “reforming” Orthodoxy. The reformers didn’t figure anything out that wasn’t already Orthodox.

There is no “age of accountability” in Orthodoxy as taught by the Church. We inherit death from the sin of Adam. We are not guilty of Adam’s sin. We are guilty and responsible of our own sin and that sin is what condemns us to hell. But in order for us to be guilty of sin we have to know what we did was in fact sinful and rebellious.

Babies, small children and the mentally retarded who aren’t in the quality of state, or state of being aware especially of something within themselves do not sin in the biblical sense of sinning. Sure they may cry, throw a temper tantrum or refuse to cooperate, but they’re not damned by that.

The Catholic Church believes we inherit Adams guilt and are damned from birth, thus babies are baptized as soon as possible or they go to limbo. Some reformers took this theological concept and rejected baptism and limbo, but didn’t reject inheriting Adam’s guilt, and thus we hear new terms of “depraved” and “age of accountability”. Both of these new concepts are truly foreign to the early Church.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[webdog]

I knew it was only a matter of time before we got a RCC perspective

Commence to page 30...

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I knew it was only a matter of time before we got a RCC perspective

Commence to page 30...

I'm Orthodox Christian, not Roman Catholic (there is a difference), my view is strictly Orthodox. But the RCC doctrine is important to bring up, since the reformers were Roman Catholic. :wavey:

In XC
-

 

[Havensdad]

I'm Orthodox Christian, not Roman Catholic (there is a difference), my view is strictly Orthodox. But the RCC doctrine is important to bring up, since the reformers were Roman Catholic. :wavey:

In XC
-

If your gonna look at it that way, so was the Eastern Orthodox Church (from which, apparently, you get your belief).

By the time of the Schism, the false doctrine had already pervaded the "church" organization.

Scripture says of itself, that it is inspired by God, and is SUFFICIENT

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

2Pe 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,


More sure than what? PAUL'S and the apostles own words. Hence, God's word is superior to the "institution" of the church.

We are not given "gurus" who tell us what to do (we are not Hindus). God gave us his sure word.

 

[Jerome]

Why should we want to even consider diverging from what has always been taught by the Church and her fathers from the early Church forward. . . .
There’s no “reforming” Orthodoxy. . .
The Catholic Church believes . . . they go to limbo."

NYT April 21, 2007
"The netherworld of limbo, long speculated in Roman Catholic teaching as the destination of babies who die unbaptized, has been replaced with the “prayerful hope” that they reach heaven. Pope Benedict XVI signed a theological report, years in the making, that effectively demoted limbo, a place neither in heaven nor in hell, where unbaptized babies would not be in communion with God but would nonetheless enjoy eternal happiness. Many in the church felt the idea, never formally a part of church doctrine, was outdated and caused undue worry for parents."

 

[Agnus_Dei]

NYT April 21, 2007
"The netherworld of limbo, long speculated in Roman Catholic teaching as the destination of babies who die unbaptized, has been replaced with the “prayerful hope” that they reach heaven. Pope Benedict XVI signed a theological report, years in the making, that effectively demoted limbo, a place neither in heaven nor in hell, where unbaptized babies would not be in communion with God but would nonetheless enjoy eternal happiness. Many in the church felt the idea, never formally a part of church doctrine, was outdated and caused undue worry for parents."

Of course the RC has "replaced" the teaching, but the question should be, why was the teaching ever taught in the first place? The teaching of limbo was never an early Church teaching in the first place. Now, how many other teachings of the RCC are in error. Since the Schism, the Roman Catholic Church has taken on its own identity from that of the Eastern Orthodox.

In XC
-

 

[Havensdad]

Of course the RC has "replaced" the teaching, but the question should be, why was the teaching ever taught in the first place? The teaching of limbo was never an early Church teaching in the first place. Now, how many other teachings of the RCC are in error. Since the Schism, the Roman Catholic Church has taken on its own identity from that of the Eastern Orthodox.

In XC
-

No offense, ma'am, but you need a history lesson. The church had gotten corrupt LONG before the Schism.

The early Church ALWAYS pointed to scripture for it's teaching and doctrines. Even the apologists, nearly always started from and argued from the scriptures: not church tradition. We are commanded to compare everything to the scriptures, not to compare everything to what some clergy tells us. The Orthodox Church has almost all the same problems that the RCC has.

BTW, where do you think the idea of "seven sacraments" come from? (Hint: this neither started with Church tradition, nor from scripture).

Conclusion: Neither the "Roman Catholic" church, nor the "Orthodox" church are actually orthodox.

Sola Scriptura. Sola Gratia. Sola Fide.

(P.S. My thoughts are not "flowing" right now. I am afraid I have a bit of a high fever. I hope they are coherent.)

 

[Matt Black]

Havensdad, first off get well soon; you sound coherent enough ATM but do get some bed-rest!

That said, I have to take issue with you on your assertion that the Church was in error prior to the Great Schism. This is a horse which has been flogged to death in threads passim here but suffice it to say that there are some of us here - not necessarily RC - who rely on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and do not see the two as in conflict. An example of the balance between the two is found in both the verse you quoted above - 2 Tim 3:16 - and the verse preceding it, when Paul talks about the Church being the "pillar and foundation of the Truth". It's not an either/or but a both/and.

 

[Matt Black]

Interesting article on the salvation of infants here - what do you all make of it?