Abel's Total Depravity?????

[praise_yeshua]

Neither is there one that directly says he didn’t. Unless of course “all have sinned” doesn’t mean “every single individual” born of Adam. But that is your yet unsupported burden to bear.

Doug

As I've said several times now, you have exclusions yourself to "all have sinned". For example, the innocent in the womb. I'm going say this one more time and I'm going to ignore your insistence that I haven't established what I said is true from this point forward.

1. You're a hypocrite in application. You have exclusions yourself. You add "context" to "all have sinned". You should. Good for you. Don't pretend you don't. Everyone knows you do.
2. "All have sinned" is a statement relative to an historical (in time) narrative. The Scripture referenced by Paul is referenced from Psalm 14. Paul begins the book of Romans talking about the righteousness passed from "faith to faith" and then details how MANKIND.... FORGOT GOD and how God turned them over to a reprobate mind. They knew Him as God but refused to speak of Him and Glorify Him as God. Which proves that your view of Adam's sin leading to the Total Depravity of every man is utterly preposterous. Faithful Adam and Eve passed their knowledge of God onto their descendents. Those descendents (like Adam) chose to sin against God. However, we know that not ALL of them did. We know because Paul speaks of how they didn't sin like Adam did.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

3. Paul rightfully witnessed the fact that mankind did not follow in the "foot steps" of Adam in his own statement. Regardless of whether they sinned or not, they still died.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,

 

[TedT]

Calvinism is dualistic. I'm absolutely sure that @praise_yeshua is not Calvinistic.

Adam's sin resulted in death for everyone but he is the one responsible for that. Each one is responsible for his own sins. God is pure who abhores sin as you stated.

There are FOR lights! Asserting over and over that GOD had Adam's sin pollute every other person into sin and death is the opposite of saying each one is responsible for his own state of sinfulness ! and opposites cannot both be true at the same time in the same way.

IF GOD is pure in holiness and love, then HE cannot create evil with sin and death as its consequences by any means, either by creating a fallen person ex nihilo or by setting up a system whereby the sins of another cause someone else to be fallen and liable to suffering and death with no free will decision from themselves to sin nor to be a sinner and liable to suffering and death.

 

[synergy]

There are FOR lights! Asserting over and over that GOD had Adam's sin pollute every other person into sin and death is the opposite of saying each one is responsible for his own state of sinfulness ! and opposites cannot both be true at the same time in the same way.

IF GOD is pure in holiness and love, then HE cannot create evil with sin and death as its consequences by any means, either by creating a fallen person ex nihilo or by setting up a system whereby the sins of another cause someone else to be fallen and liable to suffering and death with no free will decision from themselves to sin nor to be a sinner and liable to suffering and death.

Since when do you decide if you're willing to die or not? As if you have a choice in the matter.

 

[TedT]

If you will give details, I will listen.

Adam sinned in the "perfect environment". Adam was incomplete. Peccable. Adam was taken from ashes/dirt. One day that will change. We will be raised INCORRUPTIBLE......

Adam was corruptible. So tell me where you heard this from?

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. (wiki)
Gnostics believe that the source of this dualism is GOD HIMself due to HIS nature beng dualistic:
Gnosticism, Christianity, and Sophia
Kenyon College
https://www2.kenyon.edu
The gnostics believe that the evil creator God and his angels cause this ignorance.
Iow, GOD's will is the source of all evil in creation....support is found in Isaiah 45:7, where it says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” which is wrongly interpreted to refer to GOD creating moral evil.

I suggest that this dual nature of GOD and therefore of HIS creation was incorporated into Christianity in the idea HE cursed this earth as fallen and by HIS will subjected all humans to death due to Adam's sin, NOT by each person's free will choice to rebel against HIM and HIS goodness. I now reject all the sophisticated arguments used to reconcile HIS goodness with hIS supposedly forcing us to be created fallen in Adamic sin in a cursed world so cursed ourselves for Adam's sin.

GOD is pure and holy with no taint of creating anyone as fallen or in a system where no one is righteous, not one.

I contend that only sinners are sown into the earth, Matt 13:36-39, since each person at the moment of conception is subject to the consequences of sin and evil ie, suffering and death, and only a free will decision to rebel against GOD can make one a sinner, not by being forced to be sinners by creating us in the cursed Adamic system through no choice of our own.

Either we are created evil under the curse of sin within the Adamic system OR we have chosen to be sinners by our own choice to rebel before our conception into the Adamic system under the Adamic curse. Our being created into Adamic sin under Adam's curse denies the purity of GOD's holiness and loving kindness and no word games can change this!

 

[synergy]

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. (wiki)
Gnostics believe that the source of this dualism is GOD HIMself due to HIS nature beng dualistic:
Gnosticism, Christianity, and Sophia
Kenyon College
https://www2.kenyon.edu
The gnostics believe that the evil creator God and his angels cause this ignorance.
Iow, GOD's will is the source of all evil in creation....support is found in Isaiah 45:7, where it says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” which is wrongly interpreted to refer to GOD creating moral evil.

I suggest that this dual nature of GOD and therefore of HIS creation was incorporated into Christianity in the idea HE cursed this earth as fallen and by HIS will subjected all humans to death due to Adam's sin, NOT by each person's free will choice to rebel against HIM and HIS goodness. I now reject all the sophisticated arguments used to reconcile HIS goodness with hIS supposedly forcing us to be created fallen in Adamic sin in a cursed world so cursed ourselves for Adam's sin.

GOD is pure and holy with no taint of creating anyone as fallen or in a system where no one is righteous, not one.

I contend that only sinners are sown into the earth, Matt 13:36-39, since each person at the moment of conception is subject to the consequences of sin and evil ie, suffering and death, and only a free will decision to rebel against GOD can make one a sinner, not by being forced to be sinners by creating us in the cursed Adamic system through no choice of our own.

Either we are created evil under the curse of sin within the Adamic system OR we have chosen to be sinners by our own choice to rebel before our conception into the Adamic system under the Adamic curse. Our being created into Adamic sin under Adam's curse denies the purity of GOD's holiness and loving kindness and no word games can change this!

Calvinists are the dualists. PY is not a calvinist by any stretch of the imagination. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[TedT]

Since when do you decide if you're willing to die or not? As if you have a choice in the matter.

<head shake> <facepalm>

 

[TedT]

Since when do you decide if you're willing to die or not? As if you have a choice in the matter.

When??? When I decided to take the chance that CHOOSING to rebel against HIS command to 'come out from among them' might indeed make me a sinner liable to suffering and death...that's when.

 

[synergy]

When??? When I decided to take the chance that CHOOSING to rebel against HIS command to 'come out from among them' might indeed make me a sinner liable to suffering and death...that's when.

God allowed physical death to prevail when Adam sinned. So everyone dies. Do you imagine yourself to be a Vampire that does not die? Do you have a choice in the matter?

---

 

[TibiasDad]

1. You're a hypocrite in application. You have exclusions yourself. You add "context" to "all have sinned". You should. Good for you. Don't pretend you don't. Everyone knows you do.

Unborn children are not cognizant rational people yet. The life they have is dependent upon their mother’s life and body. Sin is a conscious choice that breaks a known law of God, and where there is no law, sin is not charged to the account of the person.

Paul spends a good portion of time in Rom 7 talking about how his proneness to coveting was not held against him until he learned what “You shall not covet” meant. That was not held against him, and thus, prior to the law, he was alive once, but when he realized the truth of the law, “sin revived and I died”. He had been dead all along, but didn’t know it.

The fact that we are not held liable does not mean we haven’t sinned. The base affliction of sin is selfishness, and we see that in the smallest of children who are seemingly innocent. Nobody naturally “loves his neighbor as himself”!

Doug

 

[TedT]

God allowed physical death to prevail when Adam sinned. So everyone dies. Do you imagine yourself to be a Vampire that does not die? Do you have a choice in the matter?

---

ad hominem failure...sigh.

 

[TedT]

Unborn children are not cognizant rational people yet. The life they have is dependent upon their mother’s life and body. Sin is a conscious choice that breaks a known law of God, and where there is no law, sin is not charged to the account of the person.

Paul spends a good portion of time in Rom 7 talking about how his proneness to coveting was not held against him until he learned what “You shall not covet” meant. That was not held against him, and thus, prior to the law, he was alive once, but when he realized the truth of the law, “sin revived and I died”. He had been dead all along, but didn’t know it.

The fact that we are not held liable does not mean we haven’t sinned. The base affliction of sin is selfishness, and we see that in the smallest of children who are seemingly innocent. Nobody naturally “loves his neighbor as himself”!

Doug

Death (and suffering) is the wages of sin...only a sinner experiences the suffering of death. Death is NOT a natural byproduct of life in Adam...it is only a consequence of choosing to be sinful in YHWH'S sight.

 

[TedT]

Unborn children are not cognizant rational people yet.

Oh really??
GOD told Rebecca that Jacob and Esau were fighting in the womb trying to ensure they were the first born!!!

How cognizant did they have to be to know they were to be born into Abraham's family and how cognizant were they to know the laws of primogeniture in their father's culture?? Cognizant enough to try to crush each other to pieces, the actual word used to describe their jostling (sic) in the womb!!

How cognizant was John the baptiser to know the voice of Mary the mother of his Lord and, out of his understanding of such things (may we call them theological implications?), he leapt for joy???

The refusal to accept scripture to define our understanding of the cognitive awareness of babies and to use these biblical understandings of the cognition of infants to offset our pre-orthoxy conceptions and prejudices, is only one of the definitions orthodoxy fails in their understanding of our reality.

 

[civic]

Oh really??
GOD told Rebecca that Jacob and Esau were fighting in the womb trying to ensure they were the first born!!!

How cognizant did they have to be to know they were to be born into Abraham's family and how cognizant were they to know the laws of primogeniture in their father's culture?? Cognizant enough to try to crush each other to pieces, the actual word used to describe their jostling (sic) in the womb!!

How cognizant was John the baptiser to know the voice of Mary the mother of his Lord and, out of his understanding of such things (may we call them theological implications?), he leapt for joy???

The refusal to accept scripture to define our understanding of the cognitive awareness of babies and to use these biblical understandings of the cognition of infants to offset our pre-orthoxy conceptions and prejudices, is only one of the definitions orthodoxy fails in their understanding of our reality.

How refreshing then was the Biblical, Hebrew culture where all children were considered to be gifts from the Lord. Rachel spoke as the mother of her people when she cried, "Give me children, or I shall die!" (Genesis 30:1). Hannah prayed in the temple for a child. When God answered, she named him Samuel ("God has heard"). She later gave Samuel to the Lord's service (1 Samuel 1:20, 28). Hebrew culture elevated the family and children!

How refreshing then was the Biblical, Hebrew culture where all children were considered to be gifts from the Lord.

Mark 10 shows a further elevation of children by our Lord. The account opens in verse 13 with Mark telling us that "they were bringing children to [Jesus] that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them." As best we can gather, fathers, mothers, and perhaps older children, were bringing young children, many of whom were babies (for that is how Luke describes them in his parallel account, 18:15), to Jesus for his blessing. This was in keeping with a classic Jewish custom that dated all the way back to the time when the patriarch Israel laid his hands upon the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh and blessed them (Genesis 48:14). It was all very proper, traditional, and wonderful. Proud parents held out their precious children to Jesus, who took them in his arms where they snuggled close. He placed his hand on their warm little heads, and lifting his eyes to Heaven, pronounced a blessing.

We can surmise that quite a number of cheerful families stood in line chatting, with babes in arms and children scurrying around. Then it stopped. Outside the house the disciples were sending them away with a rebuke!

Why were they doing this? They were protecting Jesus. They knew Jesus was under pressure. Wherever he went, he found conflict–one time with demons, another time the religious establishment, etc. And if that was not enough, there were the crashing crowds. This matter of blessing children was simply one more drain. Besides, these were just children. They were of little importance. They could not enter debate or contribute to the cause, even if they did understand about Jesus. So the disciples stopped the flow.

Verse 14 indicates that Jesus saw what was happening, and "he was indignant." The Greek word translated "indignant" occurs only here in the New Testament and is a combination of two words: "much" and "to grieve." He was much grieved!

Our Lord's Elevation of Children​

Jesus was angry, and his words have a clipped, staccato ring to them: "[He] said to them, 'Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God'" (v. 14). What should we draw from these passionate words?

First, Jesus loves children. Jesus, after all, had been a child himself. He was a real baby, child, teenager, and man. We see Christ's love for children as he celebrates the delight of a mother on giving birth (John 16:21), the gentle love of a father who cuddles his children (Luke 11:7), and parental love that listens to a child's every request (Matthew 7:9; Luke 11:11).

Many of his miracles involved children: the nobleman's little son (John 4:46-54), the demonized son of the man at the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:14-29), Jairus' daughter to whom Christ tenderly said, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, rise" (Mark 5:41). Jesus truly, as man and God, love children!

So we learn from Jesus' indignation, first, that Jesus loves children, and, secondly, that Jesus affirms and respects the personhood and spirituality of children.In saying, "for to such belongs the kingdom of God," he affirms their full spirituality. They are the hearts he takes to himself! Christ affirms and proclaims the spiritual capacity of children.

How sobering, then, are Jesus' words, "do not hinder them." The Talmud says, "A child tells in the street what its father and mother say at home." What are children learning in our homes and in our churches?

Our Lord's Elevation of Children's Faith​

Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." The word translated "not" is very strong. New Testament scholar William Lane comments: "The solemn pronouncement is directed at the disciples, but has pertinence for all men confronted by the gospel because it speaks of the condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God." No one will get into the Kingdom of God unless he or she receives God's salvation like a child—no one! How are we to understand and apply this?

For starters, coming as a "child" does not infer innocence. Any two-year-old dispels such a notion! Neither does "like a child" suggest the wondrous subjective states we often find in children such as trustfulness, receptivity, simplicity, or wonder, beautiful as these are.

What Jesus has in mind here is an objective state that every child who has ever lived, regardless of race, culture, or background, has experienced—helpless dependence.

Every single child in the world is absolutely, completely, totally, objectively, subjectively, existentially helpless! And so it is with every child who is born into the kingdom of God. Children of the kingdom enter it helpless, ones for whom everything must be done.

The realization that one is as helpless as a child naturally fosters humility. Jesus gave reference to this connection when, in a similar but separate statement, he said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3-4).

Do you desire to be held in Christ's arms, to hear him pronounce blessings over you? Eternity will reveal that is all we ever wanted, and our Spirit-given response is, "Dearest Father"–"Abba! Father!" (cf. Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6). Kent Hughes

Conclusion: Children are blessings not dirty rotten little sinful babies. Why didn't Jesus say children were sinners but instead insisted adults become like children ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Continued:

The Old Testament is full of passages about the importance of raising children to love and worship God (Deuteronomy 6:7, Proverbs 22:6). Parents are reminded that children are a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). And children are instructed to obey the instruction of their parents (Exodus 20:12).

It’s in the Gospels that we really discover God’s soft spot for children. He’s gentle and kind with them, and passionate about protecting them from harm.

Here are three passages where Jesus demonstrated God’s heart for children:

1. Greatest in the kingdom of heaven​

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me” (Matthew 18:1-5, New International Version).

Jesus often used things in His environment to teach spiritual truth. In this case, there were children in the crowd and Jesus used them to make an important point.

“Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

It seems like a simple question. From the disciple’s religious context, they likely would have answered, “One who keeps the law.” No one answers right away-probably because they’re all waiting for Peter to give the wrong answer. Meanwhile, Jesus calls a child over and tells them:

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

There’s a lot of conjecture about what Jesus means. Are we supposed to become innocent like children? Do we need childlike trust? Luckily, we don’t have to guess what Jesus meant. He tells us.

Children didn’t have a lot of rights in the first century. Kids were seen and not heard. We see this in Luke 18 when parents were bringing their infants to be blessed by Jesus, and the disciples try and chase them away. In their opinion, the Lord had more important things to do.

Jesus uses this opportunity to reiterate one of His most common points about godly leadership. Like children, kingdom-minded leaders shouldn’t be jockeying for position, looking to have power over others, or worrying about how people perceive them. They should serve God by serving others.

He then makes a point that He’ll come back to in a parable about sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-46). By welcoming and serving those that society doesn’t value, we welcome and serve God. In this case, we serve God by serving children.

2. Christ’s stern warning about protecting children​

“If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” (Matthew 18:6-7, NIV)

When Jesus had something important to say, He often used hyperbole. This was His way of communicating the sheer magnitude of what He was trying to communicate. You see this in the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus tells the crowd, “And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away” (Matthew 5:30, NIV).

When it comes to temptation, we’re all responsible for our own behavior. But here Jesus wants His listeners to understand the dangers of being the vehicle through which temptation comes. If your behavior leads innocent children astray, it’s better to be tossed into the depth of the sea than to face the judgment of Jesus.

3. Jesus raises a child from the dead​

When Jesus entered the synagogue leaders house and saw the noisy crowd and people playing pipes, he said, “Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up. News of this spread through all that region (Matthew 9:22-26, NIV).

During Jesus ministry, He raised three people from the dead. One was Lazarus (John 11), who Jesus loved. Another was a young man in the town of Nain. Jesus got caught in a funeral procession and was moved by a mother’s grieving so he raised her son (Luke 7).

In the third case, a synagogue leader named Jairus comes to Jesus because his daughter is sick and near death (Luke 8:41). He begs Jesus to come and do something, but by the time our Lord gets there, the child has died.

And, in a time when the child mortality rate was likely very high, Jesus was moved enough by this man’s faith-and this girl’s untimely death-to intervene. He demonstrates His compassion and love for children by raising Jairus’s daughter from the dead.jesusfilm.org

conclusion: If children are sinners/wicked why would Jesus demand/command adul stinners become like little children who are sinners ? That makes no sense.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 19:13-14
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Mark 9:36-37
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receivesone child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs tosuch as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

hope this helps !!!

 

[TibiasDad]

Cognizant enough to try to crush each other to pieces, the actual word used to describe their jostling (sic) in the womb!!

The use is figurative and could be said of almost any set of twins.

Hithpo`el reciprocal, Imperfect3masculine plural וִיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ Genesis 25:22 (J) the children crushed (thrust, struck) one another within her.

The literal translation is “struggled together”.

Their contentious nature is not a cognitive act. Of the twins it is said, “before either had done anything good or bad”, thus, consciousness or volitional awareness of what they are doing is not apparent. God simply used the normal, though vigorous movements, in the first time mother’s body to foretell the future of her yet unborn children.

How cognizant was John the baptiser to know the voice of Mary the mother of his Lord and, out of his understanding of such things (may we call them theological implications?), he leapt for joy???

Luke 1:41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

That was a reaction of the Holy Spirit filling Elizabeth. It is a correlative not causative description. The implied active cause of the baby leaping, is not the baby hearing, but the Holy Spirit filling Elizabeth at the moment she heard Mary’s voice. Elizabeth heard, not the baby. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, which effected the baby leaping within her.

And by the way, there is no “joy” in relation to baby John’s leaping in verse 41, and verse 44 is Elizabeth’s interpretation of what happened, imposing her experience upon the child within her. It is not an objective statement.

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Unborn children are not cognizant rational people yet. The life they have is dependent upon their mother’s life and body. Sin is a conscious choice that breaks a known law of God, and where there is no law, sin is not charged to the account of the person.

Paul spends a good portion of time in Rom 7 talking about how his proneness to coveting was not held against him until he learned what “You shall not covet” meant. That was not held against him, and thus, prior to the law, he was alive once, but when he realized the truth of the law, “sin revived and I died”. He had been dead all along, but didn’t know it.

The fact that we are not held liable does not mean we haven’t sinned. The base affliction of sin is selfishness, and we see that in the smallest of children who are seemingly innocent. Nobody naturally “loves his neighbor as himself”!

Doug

Even a child in the womb learns. Believe whatever you want to believe but you're horribly wrong.

Cognizance = the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

Life begins at conception when the seed of the man and the seed of the womb are joined. Just like when Christ was joined Incarnate to Mary's seed.

It really is crazy how we (mankind) hold on to traditions to comfort our own minds in failures.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The use is figurative and could be said of almost any set of twins.

Hithpo`el reciprocal, Imperfect3masculine plural וִיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ Genesis 25:22 (J) the children crushed (thrust, struck) one another within her.

The literal translation is “struggled together”.

Their contentious nature is not a cognitive act. Of the twins it is said, “before either had done anything good or bad”, thus, consciousness or volitional awareness of what they are doing is not apparent. God simply used the normal, though vigorous movements, in the first time mother’s body to foretell the future of her yet unborn children.


Luke 1:41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

That was a reaction of the Holy Spirit filling Elizabeth. It is a correlative not causative description. The implied active cause of the baby leaping, is not the baby hearing, but the Holy Spirit filling Elizabeth at the moment she heard Mary’s voice. Elizabeth heard, not the baby. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, which effected the baby leaping within her.

And by the way, there is no “joy” in relation to baby John’s leaping in verse 41, and verse 44 is Elizabeth’s interpretation of what happened, imposing her experience upon the child within her. It is not an objective statement.

Doug

So you're one of those evil men that believe that a child can't use senses in the womb? Just rip a fetus into pieces right?

 

[TedT]

The use is figurative and could be said of almost any set of twins.

It is figurative when our theology needs it to be and plain fact then it doesn't. Your faith chooses one way, mine another.

But that still does not explain their preternatural knowledge of their existence and future...

 

[TedT]

The literal translation is “struggled together”.

...the basic word is to crush to pieces...it is only struggle in translation when it seems inappropriate to go with the base meaning of crushing to peces.

But that still does not explain their preternatural knowledge of their existence and future...