Les Feldick | Baptist Christian Forums

• Forums New posts Search forums
• What's new New posts New profile posts Latest activity
• Members Registered members Current visitors New profile posts Search profile posts

Log in Register What's new Search

Search

Everywhere Threads This forum This thread Search titles only By: Search Advanced search…

• New posts
• Search forums

Menu Log in Register Install the app Install

• 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!

• Forums
• Baptist Debate Forums (Baptist Only)
• Bible Versions & Translations

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. Les Feldick

• Thread starter hawg_427
• Start date Dec 28, 2007

Status Not open for further replies. H

hawg_427

Member

Has anybody watched to Les Feldick teach the Bible on TV? If so what is your impression? A

Amy.G

New Member

hawg_427 said: Has anybody watched to Les Feldick teach the Bible on TV? If so what is your impression? Click to expand...

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. J

JerryL

New Member

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. Click to expand...

What is odd in your eyes about sin coming from Adam instead of Mary? D

D28guy

New Member

He may have meant to type "Eve", rather than "Mary". Mike A

Amy.G

New Member

It's been a long time since I read this, so I had to do some research to find it. Here is an excerpt:

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. Click to expand...

Here is the link http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesqa-c.html#2c

Deacon

Well-Known Member

Site Supporter

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! Click to expand...

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 Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2007 A

Amy.G

New Member

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 Click to expand...

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. E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>

Les Feldick: //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!//

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 Click to expand...

Amen, Brother Deacon Rob -- Preach it! :thumbs: This statement: "blood comes from the father" is the determining factor of Caste in Hindu Doctrine. Those who teach "blood comes from the father" are teaching Hindu Doctrine NOT Christian Doctrine. I've read the Holy Bible several times since i've been a Christian the past 55 years. I never found even a hint that the "blood comes from the father". Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2007

John of Japan

Well-Known Member

Site Supporter

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. Click to expand...

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. D

D28guy

New Member

"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." Click to expand...

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

John of Japan

Well-Known Member

Site Supporter

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 Click to expand...

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. I think this may be one place where feminism and its drive for perfect equality has an influence on our thinking. Not that I am saying anyone on this thread is a feminist, but our society does influence our theology sometimes. In this case, though, DeHaan is saying that the sin nature comes through the male. Seems like feminists would like that! :smilewinkgrin: :laugh: J

JerryL

New Member

Les Feldick is a good teacher and like alot of good teachers, they are sometimes faulty on some things. That doesn't make them a bad teacher on one bad thought. I'm not saying Les's view of the blood is right or wrong. I've saw flaws in several very good teachers, yet they have good teachings also. We have to use a Bible and a diserning mind sometimes to sort through some stuff. I will venture out and say Luther,Spurgeon, Calvin and Arminus(sp?) had flawed teachings mixed with good. D

Daniel71317

New Member

I have had a few folks in my church ask me about him... seems to be a pretty straightforward and understandable Bible teacher. He does preach what is called "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism" or Hyperdispensationalism. This system of Bible interpretation leads to some significant doctrinal departures from what Baptists have traditional taught and practiced. (Ignoring the Great Commission, not practicing the observance of the ordinances, preaching two different gospels - one for Jewish Christians and another for Gentile Christians, minimizing the doctrinal importance of all but the Pauline epistles) I personally have been cautioning my church members regarding his ministry. A

annsni

Well-Known Member

Site Supporter **Just a note, this is a 10 year old thread** D

Daniel71317

New Member

sorry... fairly new to message boards and such! Thanks!!

Squire Robertsson

Administrator

Administrator This zombie thread is closed. Status Not open for further replies. Share: Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Share Link

• Forums
• Baptist Debate Forums (Baptist Only)
• Bible Versions & Translations

Top