Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I have enjoyed his program. Also check out his website. His view of how sin did not come from Mary's nature, but through Adam's was a bit odd for me.hawg_427 said:Has anybody watched to Les Feldick teach the Bible on TV? If so what is your impression?
What is odd in your eyes about sin coming from Adam instead of Mary?Amy.G said:I have enjoyed his program. Also check out his website. His view of how sin did not come from Mary's nature, but through Adam's was a bit odd for me.
That might make a good thread.
From Les Feldick.com: This doesn't come easily to our understanding and you really must give this considerably thought. If the female of the species has been insulated from the effects of the curse in the area of reproduction, she cannot pass down from her generation to the next the curse of sin. That has to come through the father!
Physiologically speaking again, there is none of the mother's blood that ever becomes part and parcel of that little baby. The blood comes from the father. Always remember that!
Now, the line of the curse comes through the blood - through the father. So every human being, as we have been stressing through these early lessons in Genesis, is a born sinner by virtue of the fact that he has inherited it through his father, not through his mother, although she is just as much a sinner as the father is.
Aarrrrggggh! That is pure hogwash.Physiologically speaking again, there is none of the mother's blood that ever becomes part and parcel of that little baby. The blood comes from the father. Always remember that!
Like I said, I thought it was odd. :laugh:Deacon said:Aarrrrggggh! That is pure hogwash.
Preachers ought to preach truth from the word.
They shouldn't force science into supporting their points.
Physiologically speaking an infants blood is all its own.
However an infants blood is formed from genetic material from both the father and the mother.
I've never heard of Les Feldick but if this is his stuff I'd have to wonder.
Rob
Amen, Brother Deacon Rob -- Preach it! :thumbs:Deacon said:Aarrrrggggh! That is pure hogwash.
Preachers ought to preach truth from the word.
They shouldn't force science into supporting their points.
Physiologically speaking an infants blood is all its own.
However an infants blood is formed from genetic material from both the father and the mother.
I've never heard of Les Feldick but if this is his stuff I'd have to wonder.
Rob
It's a fairly old and common view. It's originator may be M. R. DeHaan, a medical doctor turned well known Bible teacher, in his book The Chemistry of the Blood (1943). His view actually was that blood does not appear until after fertilization, so in that sense the baby receives no blood from its mother. He connects this (p. 31 ff) with the federal headship view of how Adam's sin is imputed to us, and thus the creationist view of how the soul is formed--that is, directly by God each time rather than being imparted from the parents. Thus, Christ was humanly without a sin nature because his blood, as received through the Holy Spirit's action in the virgin birth, was untainted.Amy.G said:Like I said, I thought it was odd. :laugh:
Maybe he's right, I don't know, but it sounds rather "out there".
I've never read anything in the Bible to support it.
"It's a fairly old and common view. It's originator may be M. R. DeHaan, a medical doctor turned well known Bible teacher, in his book The Chemistry of the Blood (1943). His view actually was that blood does not appear until after fertilization, so in that sense the baby receives no blood from its mother. He connects this (p. 31 ff) with the federal headship view of how Adam's sin is imputed to us, and thus the creationist view of how the soul is formed--that is, directly by God each time rather than being imparted from the parents. Thus, Christ was humanly without a sin nature because his blood, as received through the Holy Spirit's action in the virgin birth, was untainted."
Right! So DeHaan is not an off-the-wall guy doing the theorizing. (I don't know about Felick--until he comes to Japan and I have to know!) I vaguely remember this view being taught growing up in the 1950's & 1960's, and no one thought it was weird. In fact, much of what he wrote in this book was based on the fact that "the life of the flesh is in the blood," so we need to study that more deeply.D28guy said:Interesting. Martin DeHaan certainly has a stellar reputation in the evangelical world.
Whether Felick is correct or not about this particular topic, I would recommend him to anyone. I used to watch his TV broadcast and have resourced his web-site many times. An excellant teacher of the scriptures, imo.
Mike