List the Cultic doctrinal errors of Branhamism

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sabby

Ge 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The seed (zera’) of the serpent in this reference can mean “child” as some insist, but traditionally means fruit – the evil effect of the evil entering of the knowledge of good and evil into the earth. It is about spiritual wickedness on the earth.
(A spiritual example: Romans 16:20: And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly)
The emphasis in this verse is about the seed of the woman (the Lord Jesus Christ) bruising – establishing dominion over - the serpent’s (Satan’s) head.
If the emphasis is the serpent’s seed, why is the seed of the serpent not being bruised by the seed of the woman? The text specifically says that the serpent’s head would be bruised. The seed of the serpent has to do with wicked attributes, tendencies, fruit, as it were. This isn’t a straw man argument. You have to KNOW that the seed of the serpent in this verse is literally human progeny in order to believe it. But you can’t KNOW it. You conjecture and theorize and eventually interpolate something into the text that Christendom rejects.

Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

So are you saying the enmity is between the woman and the wicked attributes, tendencies...i'm trying to understand what you're saying...

Originally Posted by Sabby

The text refers to Satan as a snake, and some will say he disguised (transformed) himself from a horizontal snake into a vertical snake.,

Gen 3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Can't it be inferred that the serpent was not the crawling snake that we know today? it was the curse that made it start walking on its belly right?

[bbyrd009]

Amen, TG; I also believe that we don't get cliches by accident, and find that "snake" as a euphemism for body parts also speaks here, over and above the laugh.

Originally Posted by Sabby

Ge 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

This verse should be a stand-alone destroyer verse against the serpent seed doctrine.
The fact remains, (depending upon the strength of your Calvinism) Cain still had choices. Had he done well, his brother Abel’s desires would have been subservient to his own, and he would have ruled over Abel. He chose a violent resolution instead. The sin of envy and murder was at the door, and he (sadly) succumbed to it.
Cain knew the difference between good and evil and chose evil. “If thou doest well”, and “if thou doest not well” make it clear he had that choice to make.
If he is the serpent’s seed, how could he possibly have a choice?

Amen. Cain had the same chance at salvation as anyone, and I don't find serpent seed trying to refute this. Your dad could be best friends with Alistair Crowley, and you could be on fire for God.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[seekerman]

Actually, the serpent in the garden was the fallen angel, Lucifer, it wasn't a literal serpent.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Actually, the serpent in the garden was the fallen angel, Lucifer, it wasn't a literal serpent.

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?