List the Cultic doctrinal errors of Branhamism

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Rev 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

But how does this affect the doctrine of the serpent seed in any way?

I don't think it does. It just shows that the serpent in the garden was a fallen angel.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ah, well, you might better ask a "normal" Christian this, as I do not view Judas like most Christians do. Judas, imo, sinned in attempting to force Christ to an earthly throne, knew that Christ could blow them all away with a look if He wanted to, never expected that Christ would just submit, repented of his sin, and is in, um, let's just say "Heaven" to keep the issue clear.

Although to my understanding Kenites would naturally gravitate to positions of earthly power such as Pharisees, Sadducees, Builderbergers, etc., to my mind when one tries to use serpent seed as in a lineage against an individual, they have lost the point. We certainly don't need another way to condemn, as we are assured that all have fallen short.

You bring up a great point at "lost sheep, or goats?" that I think really puts the proper perspective on serpent seed as a spiritual distinction. While I dislike literalizing serpent seed concerning our present age, since he was given as a type, I would include Esau (father of Russia) as serpent seed, although all Russians are not atheist.

Again, strictly as a mechanism to understand how God could have already hated Esau, and a recog of how earth ages fit into the picture. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling someone who could prove that they were a direct descendant of Esau "serpent seed," however.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I don't think it does. It just shows that the serpent in the garden was a fallen angel.

And I mean, the Bible tells us that they came into human women for a time, produced "Geber," giants--it seems a small step to serpent seed once its purpose, that of fixing a mechanism, and not as a method of individual condemnation, becomes clear.

Possible ammo against a literal interpretation of serpent seed might also be found in Cain's apparently normal appearance?

It would obviously be judging to suggest that someone today was of serpent seed; we are told that we are not qualified to judge there, and anyone who has determined that they needn't demonstrate Grace to someone that they may have deemed "serpent seed" is totally missing the point--is that the resistance here?

[Jared Hanley]

For Calvinists, this really would get into the issue of hyper-Calvinism. The obvious questions that arise are:

First, why do we need to share the Gospel if everyone is already a sheep or a goat and there's nothing that can be done to change that?

and...

Second, why is there any need for talking about justification by faith alone if the elect are saved from birth? In other words, it seems like in Calvinist system people are saved by prdestination, not by faith.

As someone who believes the five points of Calvinism, I've had to counter these arguments again and again.

For most Calvinists who want to hold to a strong biblicism, these arguments are easily dismissed by appealing to other scriptures.

But, if you buy into the serpent seed doctrine, those arguments are not as easy to counter.

I agree with what you said about it being spiritual and not literal if there's anything to it at all.

You have to deal with scriptures that talk about justification and regeneration. Overlooking those passages and overemphasizing the sheep and goats passages would be a mistake.

[Jared Hanley]

bbyrd, it's interesting that you tie this in to conspiracy theory. I was talking to a friend of mine last night who is a conspiracy theorist. He likes to think that maybe the Nephillim have something to do with some big conspiracy. It would be interesting if there was some kind of relationship there.

[bbyrd009]

Ha the older I get, the more I recog that one man's conspiracy is another man's agenda. I don't remember my conspiracy remark? Didn't think I used the word much anymore, lol, but one can only believe that the Nephilim have several "conspiracies" current at any one time. "Conspiracy" being = to "something I am unaware of," a more practical def than the dictionary's, imo.

[gary boyd]

i totally understand and accept the serpent seed doctrine, it flows and makes perfect sence. i just know WB said things that a prophet of God would not say, i,e. la did not fall into the ocean and the world did not end in 1977 as he said( he thought) it would.

[gary boyd]

you could listen to his sermons and preaching 27/7 for a year and probably never here objectionable material. that to me does not make him the last prophet to this church age. ive been in many homes where WB's picture is prominently displayed . its as if its a requirement of all the message people. that is a sign in it self too me that something is not right with the peoples hearts. i was well fed spiritually at message churches for years. i always had a problem with WB's name being invoked (depending on the preacher) literally a dozen or more times during a 1 hour servce. that to me is a spirit of man worship that gets on people and ruines their ability to influence people for the goo of God.

[gary boyd]

i totally understand and accept the serpent seed doctrine, it flows and makes perfect sence. i just know WB said things that a prophet of God would not say, i,e. la did not fall into the ocean and the world did not end in 1977 as he said( he thought) it would.

[bbyrd009]

Funny, AMurray did some early "divining," too; weird. He leans Branham.

Originally Posted by gary boyd

you could listen to his sermons and preaching 27/7 for a year and probably never here objectionable material. that to me does not make him the last prophet to this church age. ive been in many homes where WB's picture is prominently displayed . its as if its a requirement of all the message people. that is a sign in it self too me that something is not right with the peoples hearts. i was well fed spiritually at message churches for years. i always had a problem with WB's name being invoked (depending on the preacher) literally a dozen or more times during a 1 hour servce. that to me is a spirit of man worship that gets on people and ruines their ability to influence people for the goo of God.

Yup. Never listened to Branham, actually, mostly for this reason.