-
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!
- Status
R
RightFromWrong
Guest
OK Aaron and everyone I did my research and this is what it BOILS down to. I am sure Dr. DeHaans book explained this fact also, but like I said I haven't read it. As I said before I was guessing on the sperm, no dogma there.
According to Chapter 5 of Genesis, Adam begat Seth, and Seth begat Enosh, Enosh begat Kenan, and so on. Translated into our modern genetic terminology, Adam passed a copy of his Y chromosome to Seth, and Seth passed a copy of his to Enosh, and so on. According to this Biblical account, the Jewish priesthood was established 3,300 years ago, when the first Israeli high priest was documented. Designation of Jewish males to the priesthood continues to this day. This spiritual lineage is determined through strict patrilineal decent. These chromosomes are in the sperm, a type of blood cell. So the Y Chromosome pattern was passed from Adam to all men. This is how modern geneticist can trace if you are an American Indian or not, through the Y chromosome. Mary had to be a virgin or else the male chromosome that was patterned after Adam would have been passed on to her male offspring. Therefore God supplied the Y Chromosome.
According to Chapter 5 of Genesis, Adam begat Seth, and Seth begat Enosh, Enosh begat Kenan, and so on. Translated into our modern genetic terminology, Adam passed a copy of his Y chromosome to Seth, and Seth passed a copy of his to Enosh, and so on. According to this Biblical account, the Jewish priesthood was established 3,300 years ago, when the first Israeli high priest was documented. Designation of Jewish males to the priesthood continues to this day. This spiritual lineage is determined through strict patrilineal decent. These chromosomes are in the sperm, a type of blood cell. So the Y Chromosome pattern was passed from Adam to all men. This is how modern geneticist can trace if you are an American Indian or not, through the Y chromosome. Mary had to be a virgin or else the male chromosome that was patterned after Adam would have been passed on to her male offspring. Therefore God supplied the Y Chromosome.
R
RightFromWrong
Guest
There is no WAY you can read this article
http://parkerbiblebaptist.org/sermons_nt_Hebrews_9_11-14--The%20Blood%20Of%20Jesus.htm
and the book MIRACLE OF THE SCARLET THREAD and NOT have a clear understanding of how the Old Testament fits so well with the new. ( I was taught by a Pastor who was always comparing the OT with the NT in just about every single sermon he preached )One MUST come away believing that JESUS had to be born of a Virgin in order to not inherit original SIN !
http://parkerbiblebaptist.org/sermons_nt_Hebrews_9_11-14--The%20Blood%20Of%20Jesus.htm
and the book MIRACLE OF THE SCARLET THREAD and NOT have a clear understanding of how the Old Testament fits so well with the new. ( I was taught by a Pastor who was always comparing the OT with the NT in just about every single sermon he preached )One MUST come away believing that JESUS had to be born of a Virgin in order to not inherit original SIN !
If sin nature is borne on the Y chromosome, that means women do not have a sin nature. Interesting, but I don't buy it!
Also, Dr. DeHaan got his M.D. in 1914. I'm sure he was a very well-meaning and godly man, but his science isn't exactly up-to-date.
[ September 12, 2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Petrel ]
Also, Dr. DeHaan got his M.D. in 1914. I'm sure he was a very well-meaning and godly man, but his science isn't exactly up-to-date.
[ September 12, 2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Petrel ]
Marcia
Active Member
Well, thanks for all the info. I still don't think that the sin nature is in the blood. Christ had to have human blood according to Heb. 2 and I'm going with the Bible on this.
It was not "divine blood" or he would not have been fully human. Since the embryo makes its own blood, that is what Christ did and it was human blood. I think it is one of those mysteries as to how Jesus was fully man but did not have a sin nature.
It was not "divine blood" or he would not have been fully human. Since the embryo makes its own blood, that is what Christ did and it was human blood. I think it is one of those mysteries as to how Jesus was fully man but did not have a sin nature.
R
RightFromWrong
Guest
Of course women have a sin nature the point is God was stopping Adams line and replacing it with the " NEW ADAM " Christ.
The point still stand as always
We are all born of a sin nature because of Adam
so we have a SIN CONDITION we do not go to Hell because we sin, since we are still sinners. We go to Hell for rejecting the gospel. Babies cannot reject the Gospel they cannot distingush right from wrong therefore they are not held accountable. God through his love and grace provided a way ( miracle ) for them to go to heaven.
The point still stand as always
We are all born of a sin nature because of Adam
so we have a SIN CONDITION we do not go to Hell because we sin, since we are still sinners. We go to Hell for rejecting the gospel. Babies cannot reject the Gospel they cannot distingush right from wrong therefore they are not held accountable. God through his love and grace provided a way ( miracle ) for them to go to heaven.
R
RightFromWrong
Guest
Yeah Marcia I myself am not totally convienced on that one either. I do know it doesn't change what I said in the first place. Just was a small rabbit trail and intersting at that.
When you come right down to it, none, neither infant nor adult, has the power in himself to accept the Gospel. It is no easier for a man to apprehend the Gospel than an infant. In fact, it's harder. We must become as little children.
Really, once someone understands the sovereignty of God in salvation, the regeneration of infants, even pre-born infants, is no difficulty, and we certainly don't have to fabricate anti-biblical myths about supernatural Holy Ghost blood, or about how or why the salvation of an infant is any different than that of an adult.
Really, once someone understands the sovereignty of God in salvation, the regeneration of infants, even pre-born infants, is no difficulty, and we certainly don't have to fabricate anti-biblical myths about supernatural Holy Ghost blood, or about how or why the salvation of an infant is any different than that of an adult.
R
RightFromWrong
Guest
You are right RightFromWrong.Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
ituttut Obviously thas was evident in MY last three post. You wrote after the fact
I had read only to Marcia's previous post. Company was coming and I didn’t have time to read further. You did good in finding that information and you deserve all of the credit here. I apologize for the late entry writing after a fact well known many years ago. Christian faith, ituttut
T
Travelsong
Guest
This is an interesting thought. I believe it's related to the notion that sin first resulted because God removed a portion of His sustaining grace to demonstrate that all of ceation is entirely dependant upon Him. It certainly doesn't answer every question, but it may shed some light on the subject.
Scripture says (and I might be splitting hairs), Except a MAN be born again...
Suffer the little children to come unto me.
I know Jesus was saying to allow them to come to Him. Children were drawn to Him. He had a special love for little ones.
I find it appalling that anyone can believe that a LOVING and JUST God would send an infant who died before being born or before they realized their need for a Savior to Hell.
Let's face it--His ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts.
Suffer the little children to come unto me.
I know Jesus was saying to allow them to come to Him. Children were drawn to Him. He had a special love for little ones.
I find it appalling that anyone can believe that a LOVING and JUST God would send an infant who died before being born or before they realized their need for a Savior to Hell.
Let's face it--His ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts.
T
Travelsong
Guest
I have a similar gut reaction. My daughter is three and I find the thought of her burning in hell for all eternity repugnant beyond words. I am confident however that God is just and good and His judgement in all matters will become clearer to us one day.
The message doesn't have to be understood, it simply has to be received, and that's the real meaning of "faith cometh by hearing." It means receiving, not understanding. Why else call it a mystery?
What can a little child understand about Santa Claus? Yet they receive the story as Gospel truth and really, really believe it (if their parents are foolish enough to teach it to their children as truth.)
It is in that sense that we are to become as little children. Receiving and believing, though our natural wisdom is telling us that the Gospel is foolishness.
A critical aspect that is being avoided in this discussion is the fact that the things of God are spiritually discerned. We know that John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elisabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's greeting, (and Elisabeth was revealing John's motivation while under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost), what cognitive abilities could John have possibly possessed?
To say the spirit of an infant cannot comprehend the Word of God is presumption at it's worst. It's no different for an infant than it is for an adult in that regard. The infant's spiritual ears must be opened by the Holy Spirit before it will hear God's call.
Aaron,
the above is the only part of what you've said before that I still can't totally wrap my mind around. Are you saying that an infant can get saved if the gospel is presented to them....we just don't know it till they get older? Or are you saying this is a providential happening for those infants who die? Or am I totally off-base still?
You basically answered your own difficulty. You can only have the reaction you have if you insist that God sees infants as you see them. But He's told us time and again that he doesn't look on the outward appearance. He looks on the heart. When you look on an infant, you see a helpless innocent. Is that what God sees?
When you truly face it, that His ways and thoughts are NOT your ways and thoughts, then you will see why it's irrational to make assumptions about God's provisions for infants based on your feelings.
In a way, that's what I'm saying. They can be saved if they receive the Gospel message, and that it's no more a miracle that an infant believes than an adult. (Less of one actually.) And yes, the fruit of that seed is borne later.
This is one reason that Presbyterians baptize their infants. I don't go that far, though, because baptism is for believers, and until we see evidence, we should withold it.
But if I saw things as Helen and RFW see them, I would say, baptize all infants. According to them, they're Christ's, and as such must of necessity be filled with the Spirit. Who could justly withold water from them?
- Status