List the Cultic doctrinal errors of Branhamism

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

This video doesn't really address anything? Mr Baxter does frame the modern day church in diff terms than (I) have heard, somewhat "Evangelical v Charismatic," and respectively "short on Spirit v short on Word," which def resonated.

However, there is no mention of any specific doctrine, serpent seed, etc? It has gotten comical now, the difficulty in getting stated, in a simple paragraph, the opposition to serpent seed? I'll look a bit today, and just pretend I'm on a mission, but I can't help but feel I'm mostly wasting my time--reminiscent of my rapture discussions, frankly.

I'm curious Mr Branham's position on rapture now...I'll come back with the best de-bunk of serpent seed I can find, if no one else has it?

When you can rebut my simple paragraphs one-at-a-time then maybe we can have a dialogue. The simple statements you seek are found in the simple paragraphs I've written. I am a simple person, so bear with me.

I guess I have to say plain and simple: unless you eisegesically read a Serpent Seed into the text it's not there (unless of course you believe
Branham was the second coming of John the Baptist).



BByrd, you're not being honest.

[Jared Hanley]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

This video doesn't really address anything? Mr Baxter does frame the modern day church in diff terms than (I) have heard, somewhat "Evangelical v Charismatic," and respectively "short on Spirit v short on Word," which def resonated.

However, there is no mention of any specific doctrine, serpent seed, etc? It has gotten comical now, the difficulty in getting stated, in a simple paragraph, the opposition to serpent seed? I'll look a bit today, and just pretend I'm on a mission, but I can't help but feel I'm mostly wasting my time--reminiscent of my rapture discussions, frankly.

I'm curious Mr Branham's position on rapture now...I'll come back with the best de-bunk of serpent seed I can find, if no one else has it?

I think part of the reaction against the "serpent seed" doctrine is the unfairness of it. There have been Calvinist sects from time to time that held this doctrine though I can't think of any at the present moment. But, most Calvinists reject it because even if you believe in either singular or double predestination as Calvinists do, it would seem unfair that you wouldn't be saved because of your bloodline.

Also, I think you would have a hard time explaining how some families that are mostly comprised of reprobates have at least a couple of saved people in them and families that are mostly comprised of saved people have a couple of lost people.

I would however be interested in finding out whether or not people who believe in the serpent seed doctrine also believe in the "God gene". I think the "God gene" is similarly unfair. And I believe in double predestination. To me double predestination is fair whereas these other two views are not fair because in the double predestination view, no one deserves salvation but God chooses to save some and leave other in their state of rebellion (and in some mysterious way hardens the reprobates from my understanding of Romans 9). In this view, it is God's choice not some fluke of nature (even if God is providentially in control of that fluke of nature) that causes some to believe and others to persist in their unbelief.

[bbyrd009]

Ah, we posted simultaneously, and I hadn't read your post until just now. As I mentioned, I have heard a pretty good message on the possibility of mis-transliteration at Gen 4:1, but really, I am ambivalent here, and can't help but feel that a spiritual interpretation of "serpent seed," which you provide here, amounts to the same thing, as far as I can see, and is possibly the more probable.

All my understanding of "serpent seed" would allow for a Kenite to be saved, as you point out, just like anyone else, and do not promote "seed bashing," as I suspect a more fringe interpretation here might. However, because I am precluded from seed bashing does not mean I would trust a Kenite to translate my Bible, lol.

[bbyrd009]

Ah, and now we see what (I) sort of suspected; "serpent seed" applied to the bikers across the street; another means of condemnation, which I personally have never heard preached in a treatment of serpent seed, and would have to disagree with.

I find "God gene" inaccurate for the same reason. It strikes me as a counterfeit for "the elect," for the purpose of...what? Personal aggrandizement? The end result seems to be so that a sect may outline the qualities of those who might possess this gene, and so exclude anyone not possessing those qualities.

This strikes me as a naivete of "earth ages," and an ignorance of Genesis 1:28
"replenish the earth," after the earlier "the earth became void," et al, pointing to an earlier earth age (wherein God hated Esau...), and a pretty sound reasoning, imo, of the "elect" as being those who had already proved themselves in the first earth age, and removing most or all of the arbitrary-sounding selection by God of the elect for undiscoverable reasons. I have yet to find that any Scriptural principle required any secrecy like this suggests.

I find the hardened hearts of Romans 9 to be similar to Pharoah's heart, wherein we are told that God says "I will harden his heart," which we translate as God actively doing the hardening, when in fact God didn't need to do anything but exist to harden these hearts. Therefore, it seems at least probable to me that "I will harden his heart" should actually be interpreted "His heart will harden in response to My Spirit, and I could not change that if I wanted to--it inevitably happens, and here is what will happen as a result."

The alternative seems to be a denial of God's stated desire in scripture that all would come to God?

[Jared Hanley]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Ah, and now we see what (I) sort of suspected; "serpent seed" applied to the bikers across the street; another means of condemnation, which I personally have never heard preached in a treatment of serpent seed, and would have to disagree with.

I find "God gene" inaccurate for the same reason. It strikes me as a counterfeit for "the elect," for the purpose of...what? Personal aggrandizement? The end result seems to be so that a sect may outline the qualities of those who might possess this gene, and so exclude anyone not possessing those qualities.

This strikes me as a naivete of "earth ages," and an ignorance of Genesis 1:28
"replenish the earth," after the earlier "the earth became void," et al, pointing to an earlier earth age (wherein God hated Esau...), and a pretty sound reasoning, imo, of the "elect" as being those who had already proved themselves in the first earth age, and removing most or all of the arbitrary-sounding selection by God of the elect for undiscoverable reasons. I have yet to find that any Scriptural principle required any secrecy like this suggests.

I find the hardened hearts of Romans 9 to be similar to Pharoah's heart, wherein we are told that God says "I will harden his heart," which we translate as God actively doing the hardening, when in fact God didn't need to do anything but exist to harden these hearts. Therefore, it seems at least probable to me that "I will harden his heart" should actually be interpreted "His heart will harden in response to My Spirit, and I could not change that if I wanted to--it inevitably happens, and here is what will happen as a result."

The alternative seems to be a denial of God's stated desire in scripture that all would come to God?

Okay. But I'm not sure that I see how you could hold an Arminian/synergistic/two-handed view of salvation as opposed to a Calvinistic/monergistic/one-handed view of salvation and buy into the serpent seed doctrine.

[TJJJ]

I have been following this thread with interest, there are some interesting thoughts here.

Obviously the serpent had a different form of propulsion, otherwise why was the curse changin him?

But to have a serpent/devil having sexual intercourse with a human is to have two different natures trying to come together.

That is impossible because of the different natures.

[TJJJ]

Furthermore, if that was possible then why is it not possible now?

Why don't we see humans and devils mating now?

There were some definitive things that happened at the curse.

1-Adam had to contend with weeds to grow garden, he was cast out of the garden of eden.
2-Eve would now have to have pain in childbearing as opposed to no pain, she would be subject to her husband.
3-The serpent would now have to crawl instead of .....?

We do not see any other changes physically except that the serpent, who was the serpent before the change, lost his means of motivation other than crawling.

If serpent seed doctrine was true then they should still be able to mate.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Furthermore, if that was possible then why is it not possible now?

Why don't we see humans and devils mating now?

There were some definitive things that happened at the curse.

1-Adam had to contend with weeds to grow garden, he was cast out of the garden of eden.
2-Eve would now have to have pain in childbearing as opposed to no pain, she would be subject to her husband.
3-The serpent would now have to crawl instead of .....?

We do not see any other changes physically except that the serpent, who was the serpent before the change, lost his means of motivation other than crawling.

If serpent seed doctrine was true then they should still be able to mate.

The doctrine (not explicitly stated in scripture) teaches that the serpent was closer to what man looks like. The serpent could talk right?
Gen 3:1
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Strong's concordance: 6191
arom: to be shrewd or crafty
Original Word: עָרֹם
Transliteration: arom
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-ram')
Short Definition: shrewd

Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to be shrewd or crafty
NASB Word Usage
become shrewd (1), make shrewd (1), sensible (1), very cunning (1).

http://concordances.org/hebrew/6191.htm


The curse, however changed the serpent's form to what it looks like today, so that's why mating is not possible today. It is also espoused that the serpent looked more like man before the curse and that is the "missing link" which evolution is looking for...I'll try to get a quote for that...

[bbyrd009]

Ah--well, I treat it like "Big Bang," more or less; a perspective that addresses facts, or in this case the spirit of other Scripture, provides a good working model, and as long as it is not distorted, amounts to the same thing whether it is a literal, or more spiritual interpretation that is applied. I'm fully prepared to abandon it the moment it becomes a vehicle for some agenda.

But like the Bang, and evolution, and a lot of other things that many Christians feel threatened by, I tend to see God in. I also see a connection to ignoring facts staring one in the face for the sake of ones religion and the position the Catholic church has repeatedly found itself in over the years in similar fashion.

If serpent seed is a division of humans for some selectivist agenda, then I am not interested, and my interpretation of serpent seed only extends to a more literal interpretation of what most Christians would surely admit happened spiritually anyway, ostensibly for the purpose of having a higher understanding of what really occurred v earth ages, etc.

However, I'm finding it more a point of contention that a literal interpretation of has not really expanded the spiritual interpretation of any, at least not yet. Cain sprang from satan somehow, in the only way that matters, spiritually, satan being a spirit, and Cain is satan's spiritual seed. Cain also had descendants, Kenites, who as far as I know may also accept salvation, but would you want one babysitting your kids?

Well, but how do you know if someone is a Kenite? The Bible has always made this a spiritual distinction, as far as I can see. A Kenite is portrayed less as the literal offspring of Cain than as spiritually following Cain, imo.

[Jared Hanley]

bbyrd, I think one would have a hard time explaining Judas if they took a hardline approach to this. Why would Judas need to be descended from the serpent if satan had to enter him in order for him to accomplish what God had ordained to take place?

On the other hand, Jesus clearly tells the pharisees that they are of their father the devil. And, since I believe in the five points of Calvinism I can certainly understand the logic that they are goats. The difficulty with this is that it seems that you have to at some point become a sheep.

But even this is a difficult matter because if we think about the parable of the shepherd leaving the ninety-nine to find the one lost sheep, then it would seem that some are lost sheep and others are goats.

I guess I have to admit that it is an interesting idea. But, it offends my mind. I know that's not a good reason to reject something. But, you would think that if this were clearly taught in scripture then there would be more people championing this view throughout the history of the church.