List the Cultic doctrinal errors of Branhamism

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Sabby,

Did you see my post about Branham's position on the Godhead in contrast to what Norcal had posted?

Not yet...I'll get to it.

[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.
The text refers to Satan as a snake, and some will say he disguised (transformed) himself from a horizontal snake into a vertical snake., but the reference in II Cor 11 is speaking about lying prophets and apostles that twist the word to make it palatable even as the serpent did with Eve. If you wish to believe that a serpent (nachash – a snake) had sexual relations with Eve (Ishshah – a woman) you are free to believe it, but I will bet a dollar to a donut that without Branham you wouldn’t even be talking about it right now.


Ge 3:22
¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

[Sabby]

Ge 4:1
¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD

Adam the first man,“knew” (yada’- to know [by consent]) his wife, and she conceived. How does the serpent find itself in this scripture? How is the first child conceived by the first woman who understands that Adam was made from the dust of the earth by the LORD from the serpent? The blessing of the fruit of the womb is from the LORD, unless you can substitute your own meaning of “I have gotten a man from the LORD”.

[Sabby]

Ge 4:2
And she again bare his brother Abel…….

There is nothing in this verse to support a serpent seed. If anything, Eve is continuing to beget, which of course is a result of conception. If this conception was different than Cain’s (in order to support the serpent seed doctrine) why isn’t it plainly spoken? Why is the inference and implication that Adam AND Eve “again bare” another son? You would have to approach the text with the idea of serpent seed in mind in order to pull it off, which is not a very good hermeneutic. The word eisegesis comes to mind…..

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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, 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?