DJC49 wrote:
And so it goes with those who tightly hold to the twin false doctrines that: (a) the sin nature is "in the blood" and (b) the immaterial sin nature is somehow transmitted from generation to generation through the physical and biological agencies of DNA/chromosomes/blood! An offshoot of this misconception is that the human body, i.e., "the flesh," is sinful in and of itself. Yet another branch of this many-headed Hydra is the notion that Christ had to be genetically "pure" and free from ALL physical/biological defects. They get this from misinterpreting the typology of the OT animal sacrifices having to be "without spot or blemish." Men like Henry Morris, therefore, come to the rescue by "proving" that Christ had absolutely NO biological connection with the Adamic race -- a totally "new creation."
But what this gains in Christ being "genetically pure" loses in Christ's ability to save ANYONE of the Adamic race! Christ HAD to be ONE OF US yet w/o sin.

DJC49 wrote:
DLF-

The Christology of Henry Morris, Paul S. Taylor, and William L. "Sonny" Payne has a tragic FATAL FLAW. They all hold to a Christ with a humanity which is newly created without ANY GENETIC CONNECTION to Mary.

Morris's "Christ" has a humanity unto himself; a humanity UNCONNECTED to the humanity for which He came to suffer and die. A humanity NOT of the seed of Abraham or David. A

In fact, the greater Glory unto God would come THROUGH the FALL and REDEMPTION. Man would be PERFECT MAN only in Christ Jesus - having EXPERIENCED the effects of sin.

The point: Redemption not re-creation brings the greater glory. Conclusion: Jesus is genetically linked to Adam.

MurrayA wrote:
1. When you say that Christ from heaven is calling to Himself a people, and reigning in the lives of the redeemed - fine! Precisely my point: calling and ruling in lives is the exercise of kingship. He reigns as His Kingdom is extended; cf. the Kingdom parables in Matt.13. However, it's only a Reformed view of salvation that enables one to assert this, and you seem to be coming from that perspective. The Arminian/semi-Pelagians on this board cannot say this sort of thing.
2. Yet there is still the more general rule over the nations, whereby He reigns such that ALL things (and people) are brought to a climax in the fulness of time (Eph.1:10-11). IOW, not only a saving rule, but a providential rule as well. That's the bit that premill'sm is strongly moved to reject: just look at the rhetoric from the likes of JD!! His view of Christ's reign certainly is Deistic!
But thank you. I feel that we are together doing some theology, and not merely point scoring.

Thank you for your post.

Yes, is there any other position other than Reformed?

JD would say otherwise; but, it looks like he is on vacation. I haven't seen any recent posts of his.

MurrayA wrote:
Kendall,
Your point is ONLY valid if you posit a millennial reign, before which Christ will not be reigning. Christ has reigned ever since His ascension; The ascended Christ reigns now - from heaven - and will continue to do so until He puts all enemies under His feet, and that last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Cor.15:25-26). And when will that be destroyed? At His second coming, of course: that's the whole argument of 1 Cor.15.

DJC49 wrote:
There's a gap there ONLY if one assumes that Jesus Christ is not reigning unless He's sitting on some earthly throne in some ancient city called Jerusalem.
He commanded demons to come out of those possessed; He commanded the wind and the seas to be still; He rode on a donkey proclaiming His Kingship; He reigned over sin and death -- He reigned before He came, while He was yet The Servant, and He reigns NOW and forever more!
No "gap."

DJC49 wrote:
MurrayA,
Help me out here!
I've searched high and low, but I still can't seem to find the GAP that others say exists between verses 26 & 27 of Daniel 9. It shouldn't be THAT difficult to locate since it's a HUGE gap of some 1950+ years.
This so-called GAP is probably related to the other gap found between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I find it somewhat amusing how people find gaps in the Scripture -- particularly when they need explanation of a pet theory of theirs when no solid evidence of their position can be otherwise found in the text of Scripture.
It's also quite amusing to me that a non-apocalyptic prophecy which explicitly states the duration of which as being 490 years (70 weeks of years, or, 70 sevens) can be stretched out over some 2450+ years and still be understood as being sensible and reliable.

chappie wrote:
Maybe it's time to consider not buying Tyson products?

Daniel Lee Ford wrote:
Tony's right about Party politics and this issue:
[URL=http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin080730.htm]]]Save The Planet? How About Saving The Republic? [/URL]
The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary, because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the principles of constitutional government.
It is our duty to "throw off" any system of government that does not secure our liberties and protect our constitution. And this we have not done.
Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that is also the job of every single American citizen.

Time is Short wrote:
[homosexual rights] I see it as a major component of the coming great apostacy in preparation for the end of the age.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Kendall, I am very well aware of that, however the point still stands, how can a neuter pronoun refer back to a feminine antecedent. Even in the English language, rules of grammar need to be consistent.
Do you have any ideas?

However here is my attempt.

“IT” can refer to an unspecified or implied antecedent or to a previous or understood CLAUSE, phrase etc.
“Antecedent” in grammar can be a word or phrase to which the pronoun refers.

The writers of the KJV in using “it” clearly applied this rule because they identified the CLAUSE as the description of “gift” not just the grace as some may argue.

Discerning Believer wrote:
RK, just out of curiosity, how can a neuter pronoun [it] refer back to a feminine antecedent [faith]?