Does God Love the Seed of the Serpent?

[JonC]

"at the start"..."separate from the beginning"... that's exactly how the Bible presents it:

"being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand...Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"

"Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,"

Actually, that is not how Scripture presents it (you are forgetting that the clay was a "lump" before it was formed into each vessel). Likewise, there is no distinction between Jacob and Esau except God's favor.

The problem comes in when ideas are taken from Scripture and applied to different contexts or explanations. The conclusion may not be wrong, but there is the potential that it can be so we have to be very careful.

I agree with you, BTW, in God's purpose according to election. My concern here is the care that has to be taken so that what we end up with remains biblical (or at least does not detract from what is biblical).

Another aspect (for the Calvinists, anyway) is in a logical progression. Here the Reformed have been divided. Is election pre or post Fall (did God elect prior to the Fall or out of fallen man). How one thinks of this issue affects how one addresses the OP.

 

[kyredneck]

Actually, that is not how Scripture presents it

Actually, that is PRECISELY how Scripture presents it, there are two "at the start", "separate from the beginning".

 

[Van]

This looks to be another off topic post....Did you not understand the OP.

I understand this post of yours only offers disparagement. I understand scripture to say God loves fallen mankind, otherwise Christ would not be the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world of fallen mankind.

 

[JonC]

Actually, that is PRECISELY how Scripture presents it, there are two "at the start", "separate from the beginning".

Except....that is not what Scripture says.

It begins with two people. The difference is God - not the people.

It begins with clay. The difference is the Potter, not the clay.

You attribute too much to man/ clay when you assume that to be the difference.

 

[Iconoclast]

I understand this post of yours only offers disparagement. I understand scripture to say God loves fallen mankind, otherwise Christ would not be the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world of fallen mankind.

Again,your misunderstandings are not the topic of the OP. You can start a post on your ideas, and maybe someone might be interested.

 

[Iconoclast]

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: Gen 5:4

Does God have a saving love for those in bold? Are they the serpent's seed? In your opinion; Where will they spend eternity?

See Gen 5:18-24 there was a mix of godly line, and the ungodly line
..but God preserved a godly line all the way through scripture by means of severe and timely judgments.

 

[Van]

Again,your misunderstandings are not the topic of the OP. You can start a post on your ideas, and maybe someone might be interested.

Me thinks you object too much!

God loves fallen mankind, He gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life.

Christ bought even those not saved and never to be saved.

 

[Iconoclast]

Me thinks you object too much!

God loves fallen mankind, He gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life.

Christ bought even those not saved and never to be saved.

Yes...God owns the rights to all men .He can do whatever he wants to do with them.
Ex19:5...God says all the earth is His.
So during the First Exodus...God saved some destroyed the others, just to preserve the godly line...He does so now, saving His elect sheep with that Special saving love.

 

[JonC]

All smear, no evidence.
That is why you really, really shouldn't be a moderator.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." - Yeats

I do not know why, MartinM, you have elected to insult me when I am engaging the OP honestly. Two things come to mind - the fable of a snake being a snake (people are known by their nature) and the above quote.

I mention Yeats because of another line in the poem which illustrates the precarious nature of running with scissors (or ideas). If we are not careful where we arrive is far from the intended destination.

That is what happens with two-seed theology (and the anti-missions movement). There are passages, but in the widening gyre the Christian looses sight of their Author.

 

[Iconoclast]

Since @Iconoclast has repudiated 'serpent seed doctrine' and denied that the thread has anything to do with it, don't you think you should either take him at his word or provide proper exegesis to show him his error?
To claim guilt by distant association without providing proof, and then to insinuate heresy is not a very pleasant way of conducting a debate.

Yes indeed MM.
It is clear you understand the point of the OP.
Some have missed it completely.
We see the language used after Satan was defeated at the cross
In romans16:19-20 as the gospel is spreading by this local Church....
The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
Revelation describes the nature of this conflict in ch12.....then sums it up quite clearly in verse 17.....the dragon making was with the remnant of Her seed which keep the commandments

 

[JonC]

Yes indeed MM.
It is clear you understand the point of the OP.
Some have missed it completely.
We see the language used after Satan was defeated at the cross
In romans16:19-20 as the gospel is spreading by this local Church....
The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
Revelation describes the nature of this conflict in ch12.....then sums it up quite clearly in verse 17.....the dragon making was with the remnant of Her seed which keep the commandments

I do not see how anyone could have missed the point of the OP. It is very clear.

Again - except for the physical relations heresy, how does the OP differ from serpent seed doctrine?

I know how I would answer, but I do not share your view here - I believe God chose out of fallen man (our "order" is different).

 

[Van]

Yes...God owns the rights to all men .He can do whatever he wants to do with them.
Ex19:5...God says all the earth is His.
So during the First Exodus...God saved some destroyed the others, just to preserve the godly line...He does so now, saving His elect sheep with that Special saving love.

Interesting turn of phrase, God owns the rights to all men. A little vague as to whether the idea is the right of the potter over the clay, or the purchase with His blood of all mankind, which demonstrated His love for us.

 

[percho]

See Gen 5:18-24 there was a mix of godly line, and the ungodly line
..but God preserved a godly line all the way through scripture by means of severe and timely judgments.

I do not really understand what you are saying there, relative to the saving love of God.

 

[percho]

I do not see how anyone could have missed the point of the OP. It is very clear.

Again - except for the physical relations heresy, how does the OP differ from serpent seed doctrine?

I know how I would answer, but I do not share your view here - I believe God chose out of fallen man (our "order" is different).

God will say the following.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Tim 2:13-15 See Gen 5:15
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matt 1:24,25

Joseph had just eaten from the tree of life, IMHO. Was, "and he knew her not," absolutely necessary for the man child she brought forth to be the redeemer from sin and death? Redemption foreordained before Adam was created.

What tree did Adam eat of? Who had he been listening to?

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[fn] of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Gal 4

Did birth have anything to do with the need of redemption?

 

[JonC]

Did birth have anything to do with the need of redemption?

I'd say "no", because Adam needed to be redeemed and he was not born. Birth, then, does not contribute to our need of redemption. That we exist, however, may be another conversation.

The issue with the OP is whether or not there exist two races of people outside of Christ (the non-elect and the elect who are yet saved). Scripture never speaks of the elect except they be saved (which introduces various philosophies into the equation).

It could be that the two lines are the saved and the lost (to include those who would be saved). It could be that God created two spiritual races of people. It could be that God created man and chose from fallen man a people.

The discussion is not as cut and dry as the OP might lead some to believe because all three can (and have) been defended with Scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Interesting turn of phrase, God owns the rights to all men. A little vague as to whether the idea is the right of the potter over the clay, or the purchase with His blood of all mankind, which demonstrated His love for us.

No.

It is simple....he purchased the whole field to get the pearl of great price....the elect.

 

[kyredneck]

how does the OP differ from serpent seed doctrine?

In fifty words or less can you define serpent seed doctrine for me? I'd like to know where you're coming from.

 

[JonC]

In fifty words or less can you define serpent seed doctrine for me? I'd like to know where you're coming from.

The serpent seed and the Kenites | CARM.org

 

[JonC]

@kyredneck ,

The difference between serpent seed doctrine and the OP is the physical relation element.

Both, however, arrive at an erroneous conclusion (two races of people - lost sheep and the non-elect).

Think of wheat and tares. The tares do not represent the non-elect but specifically the unsaved who appear to be saved (which is the point of the parable). The church addresses sin but does not try to "root out" professing believers who may not be saved as they look the same.

The clay is of the same lump. The difference is the Potter and His purposes. Not two different kinds of clay.

The spiritual is at odds with the flesh. We have to be careful because people with good intentions have arrived at very dangerous and damaging ends.

 

[agedman]

The serpent seed and the Kenites | CARM.org

Good explanation and how even in the modern such heretical view would thrive.