Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does God Love the Seed of the Serpent?
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Nemesis. @Martin Marprelate is my nemesis.
No. I was wrong in my statement.
What I am saying is that Genesis is speaking of the Messiah (crushing the head of the serpent). This cannot be extended to Christians - except as we are in Christ's identity.
@Iconoclast made a mistake when he read his theology into that verse to speak of two spiritual unsaved races of men. Scripture never speaks of the topic in that manner.
We have to stick to Scripture on its own terms. It is not something we can use to support our ideas but the source from which our theology should flow. The OP is simply wrong.
"JonC,
This is what I have posted the whole time,lol
The passage in Genesis looks to the Messiah. The "crushing" of the serpent's head points to the cross.
The danger here is where @Iconoclast takes those things by decontextualizing the passage (and the "woman's seed" in both passages) and reconstuucting it within a neo-orthodox (a hyper-Calvinistic) format that focuses on those not "in Christ" (unsaved elect and non-elect).
It is an excellent example of eisegesis- reading theology into the text.[/QUOTE]
Now we get the double talk as he has seen his own post is contradictory, so these two posts are damage control...watch;
In POST 103;JONC SAID:
The Lord Jesus died a covenant death for those in Union with the seed of the woman.
Roman's 5 is speaking only of them
You and your friend seem to not understand that, so any confused ideas come from there.
post98;
While the promised seed is indeed the Lord Jesus Christ, the elect are in saving Union with Him. The language here in Romans 16 indicates that fact as the elect sheep are used in spreading the gospel;
19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Rev.12;
7 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
This is what I have posted the whole time,lol
The passage in Genesis looks to the Messiah. The "crushing" of the serpent's head points to the cross.
The danger here is where @Iconoclast takes those things by decontextualizing the passage (and the "woman's seed" in both passages) and reconstuucting it within a neo-orthodox (a hyper-Calvinistic) format that focuses on those not "in Christ" (unsaved elect and non-elect).
It is an excellent example of eisegesis- reading theology into the text.[/QUOTE]
Now we get the double talk as he has seen his own post is contradictory, so these two posts are damage control...watch;
In POST 103;JONC SAID:
now after confronted;
post77
The Lord Jesus died a covenant death for those in Union with the seed of the woman.
Roman's 5 is speaking only of them
You and your friend seem to not understand that, so any confused ideas come from there.
post98;
While the promised seed is indeed the Lord Jesus Christ, the elect are in saving Union with Him. The language here in Romans 16 indicates that fact as the elect sheep are used in spreading the gospel;
19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Rev.12;
7 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
We were once darkness but now we are light in Christ Jesus.
Did God love us when we were "darkness", when we were enemies of God?
Scripture says God did.
Were we then of "the woman's seed" or of the Serpent? Scripture presents those "of tge woman's seed" as those who are "in Christ" and "obedient to God's commands". So this does not refer to us prior to salvation. We were if the world, or as Paul says, we were "darkness".
The problem is where you have tried to take these teachings. You have moved away from Scripture inch by inch until you have decided God either did not love us while we were sinners or that in our lost state we were the "seed of the woman".
I know what you are getting at, and I am pressing it for a reason.
The path you are taking is what some theologians have called the erroneous "backdoor" of doing theology - that is, going around the Cross to glimpse the "man behind the curtain". Scripture is Christ-centered. When we speak of unsaved elect and unsaved non-elect as two races or lines then we have taken an unbiblical path and are doing philosophy- not theology.
Martin made this observation early on, Kyred has also noticed it as well;
I'm not advocating any such thing and I'm sure Icon isn't, so why don't you drop it?
Now JonC will eventually suggest that I do not believe this heresy after i denied it three or for times, and yet let's see how many times he suggests i am indeed teaching the same thing, except for one slight difference
JonC posts;
Again - except for the physical relations heresy, how does the OP differ from serpent seed doctrine?
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).
I never said anyone was advocating such a thing. That was just smoke Icon and MM were blowing.
I am saying the doctrine of the OP seems to be the same except for the philosophical relations part. The conclusions serm identical. And I was asking how, other than the physical part, the doctrine of the OP differed.
Thus far no one has offered an explanation. It is a fair question as these views can (and have) been pushed beyond biblical bounds resulting in strange doctrines.
One problem that needs to be addressed right off (and I am surprised has not been mentioned) is the inference that "her seed" somehow refers to a spiritual "race" of men (the elect, to include "lost sheep") and "thy [the serpent's] seed" refers to the non-elect.
"Her seed" is a very interesting phrase rarely used in Scripture (or in any Jewish literature). Traditionally this has been interpreted as foreshadowing the Messiah as it would be Jesus who crushes the head of the Satan - NOT the "sheep".
Since the OP contrasts "seed of the serpent" with "the seed of the woman", please explain the reasoning that the "seed of the woman" can possibly be the "Sheep" rather than Christ Himself (show how the sheep have crushed the Serpent's head).
t seems that you have presented two spiritual "races" of people - the "non-elect" who will not be saved and the "elect" who will be saved. In other words, it seems that your post has at least approached the conclusion of two-seed doctrine in the form of "sheep and goats" theories of lost people. I understand neo-Reformed theology and the idea of two spiritual "races" of lost people, but I do not understand the leap from Genesis they would make. Your posts are an amalgamation of parts of passages put together to somehow support an idea.
No one is denying that the wicked will perish. The issue is applying the Genesis verse to a spiritual "race" of people when the passage is speaking of Christ.
Were you to compare the lost and the saved, then you would have a point. But as it stands you are going back and forward, deconstructing passages and recontextualizing them in a way foreign to Scripture to support your view.
If I am mistaking, then by all means clarify your views
Unfortunately it is erroneous due to it's treatment of the passage in Genesis which was pure eisegesis.
My point is the seed of the woman in Genesis is NOT referring to unsaved sheep. Even in the passage you provide the "rest of her seed" refer to the faithful in Christ.
There is absolutely no justification for @Iconoclast 's eisegesis. We cannot "connect the dots" by taking passages dealing with those "in Christ" and applying them to yet saved elect people in order to "prove" two races of unsaved men.
Think of it this way - Scripture looks to and through the Cross. Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethren. The logical conclusion of the doctrine of the OP renders the Cross meaningless as it tramples the blood in favor of its theology.
There are two spiritual races - those "in Christ" and those not.
Yes. We agree there. To those who believe God has given the right to be called children of God.
My claim was meant in the context of the OP (I think we may have crossed wires in the process).
The criteria is being found "in Christ". This is the difference. Those who are not in Christ (the world) are under the dominion of Satan. Those who are "in Christ" are reborn and freed from that bondage.
The passage in Genesis looks to the Messiah. The "crushing" of the serpent's head points to the cross.
The danger here is where @Iconoclast takes those things by decontextualizing the passage (and the "woman's seed" in both passages) and reconstuucting it within a neo-orthodox (a hyper-Calvinistic) format that focuses on those not "in Christ" (unsaved elect and non-elect).
It is an excellent example of eisegesis- reading theology into the text.
The issue is not "serpent seed doctrine". As you well know we have both agreed that you do not hold that view.
I suspect you are ignoring that fact because you realize the truth of my question. Except for the physical relation superstition, how does the OP differ? IT DOESN'T! It is the same doctrine arrived at differently. The heresy of Serpent Seed doctrine is not the superstition of the Serpent mating with Eve...although that is a heresy (that is a type of ancient Jewish superstition) but the conclusion to which it arrives.
I think you would do better to return to a more mainstream faith. This has been my concern for the topic. It is like the illustration of boiling a frog. I do not believe you realize have far you have drifted from where you were just 5 years ago.
I am not sure if your comment about new ideas is supposed to be some sort of insult towards my view (which is a historic position)....if so then it only shows a degree of ignorance about non-Reformed views. Even among the Reformed the notion of two unsaved spiritual races is typically linked to Hyper-Calvinism.
I do not see how "the rest of her seed" refers to the unsaved but chosen. The verse itself even says these are obedient to God.
No. I was wrong in my statement.
What I am saying is that Genesis is speaking of the Messiah (crushing the head of the serpent). This cannot be extended to Christians - except as we are in Christ's identity.
@Iconoclast made a mistake when he read his theology into that verse to speak of two spiritual unsaved races of men. Scripture never speaks of the topic in that manner.
We have to stick to Scripture on its own terms. It is not something we can use to support our ideas but the source from which our theology should flow. The OP is simply wrong
We were once darkness but now we are light in Christ Jesus.
Did God love us when we were "darkness", when we were enemies of God?
Scripture says God did.
Were we then of "the woman's seed" or of the Serpent? Scripture presents those "of tge woman's seed" as those who are "in Christ" and "obedient to God's commands". So this does not refer to us prior to salvation. We were if the world, or as Paul says, we were "darkness".
The problem is where you have tried to take these teachings. You have moved away from Scripture inch by inch until you have decided God either did not love us while we were sinners or that in our lost state we were the "seed of the woman".
I know what you are getting at, and I am pressing it for a reason.
The path you are taking is what some theologians have called the erroneous "backdoor" of doing theology - that is, going around the Cross to glimpse the "man behind the curtain". Scripture is Christ-centered. When we speak of unsaved elect and unsaved non-elect as two races or lines then we have taken an unbiblical path and are doing philosophy- not theology
JonC,
Of course He did, I have not suggested otherwise
Yes it does, that is what I have always posted.
While all of the elect children were elected while they were viewed as sinners,God has set his love on them before time, having considered all mankind as fallen.
The seed of the woman is Christ Himself, but us In HIM has always been God's purpose. Jesus as mediator and surety of the elect assures that.
Obviously we were children of wrath before being quickened by the Spirit. There was never a time when we were viewed as anything but In Christ according to God's eternal purpose.
2 Timothy 1:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
This is clear He saved us and called us with a holy calling...before the world was Jesus was mediator and surety. salvation from sin happens in time, but it was assured from the beginning which you JONC have denied several times in this very thread.
You of course are welcome to your mistaken understanding, but before trying to pin this pr=erverted serpent seed doctrine, or Hyper calvinism label on me, you need to examine your own conflicted ideas expressed here.
Of course it does....God saves sinners....He has elected a multitude of sinners that He is saving throughout time.
It looks like you do not have the basic idea of God's decree being effected by means in real time.
Perhaps if you studied in detail the doctrine of Union with Christ this confusion would vanish
If you re-read the thread, that is an idea that you introduced into this thread. You have restated it about 8 different times, and have been rejected all 8 times. Everyone has seen it that way.
Everyone questioned you on it, but you seem oblivious to it.
You thought MartinM was insulting you, but he was just trying to stop you and get you to see it.
Of course He did, I have not suggested otherwise
Yes it does, that is what I have always posted.
While all of the elect children were elected while they were viewed as sinners,God has set his love on them before time, having considered all mankind as fallen.
The seed of the woman is Christ Himself, but us In HIM has always been God's purpose. Jesus as mediator and surety of the elect assures that.
".
Obviously we were children of wrath before being quickened by the Spirit. There was never a time when we were viewed as anything but In Christ according to God's eternal purpose.
2 Timothy 1:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
This is clear He saved us and called us with a holy calling...before the world was Jesus was mediator and surety. salvation from sin happens in time, but it was assured from the beginning which you JONC have denied several times in this very thread.
You of course are welcome to your mistaken understanding, but before trying to pin this pr=erverted serpent seed doctrine, or Hyper calvinism label on me, you need to examine your own conflicted ideas expressed here.
Of course it does....God saves sinners....He has elected a multitude of sinners that He is saving throughout time.
It looks like you do not have the basic idea of God's decree being effected by means in real time.
Perhaps if you studied in detail the doctrine of Union with Christ this confusion would vanish
If you re-read the thread, that is an idea that you introduced into this thread. You have restated it about 8 different times, and have been rejected all 8 times. Everyone has seen it that way.
Everyone questioned you on it, but you seem oblivious to it.
You thought MartinM was insulting you, but he was just trying to stop you and get you to see it.
Again, I understand the union with Christ - both as presented in Scripture and as embodied in your theology.
I am pushing the issue for a reason. It seems at times that you approach glimpsing the fuller gospel by some of your comments. I would like that for you. But we have to take redemptive history as it is offered in Scripture, otherwise we are left with a superficial (yet still effective) faith.
What you have done with the OP is to take Scripture as if it were a sort of textbook. It is perhaps an error of the Enlightenment - gathering doctrines but never seeing the depth embodied in the fuller picture. You see redemption but can't quite get redemption history (you see trees but never the forrest the Gardner has laid out). There is truth in the "trees", but only insofar as they are a part of the forrest. You are transplanting treas to form your own garden, which reflects you just as much as the master Gardener.
I suspect the reason you have started up the smoke machine by erroneously implying my view here is somehow new, pertending Martin's edited comment was not an insult, claiming I am pinning serpent seed doctrine on you (when I clearly stated otherwise), etc. is that at some level you are begining to sense an error in your theology. At least that would be a preferable reason as there would exist hope God is opening your eyes to the meat of the gospel.
Set aside your theology for a moment and just read Scripture - read at least Genesis, Matthew and John (as it is, not as a reference book). Do this a couple of times. Then let's have this conversation.
You can hold on to your ideas....I think I will hold on to mine.
I think Rev.12 is a Divine commentary and over view of redemptive history.
I am comfortable with Jonathan Edward's, and virtually every commentary saying what I have offered.
Reading through the thread,you clearly stated that the history of the promised seed DID NOT extend to the church at all. Then you sort of changed to say it did extend to those "In Christ".
That is good, change from error to truth is always desired.
Martin saw clearly what you were doing,as has Biblicist, and Kyred.
You framed it as an insult from the "peanut gallery"...but if you view it as a constructive criticism it will make more sense.
Kyred noticed the exact same thing.
But you insist I am the one off track? I think not as when I double check against others, on the commentary site...I find exactly what I have offered.
You are offering help,but if it is your ideas that need the help...you will post as you have been correct,when you have not.
That is how I see it so we can let the readers decide.
I went through the thread and listed all the times you mentioned the serpent seed doctrine.
When confronted you said 2 or 3 times that you agreed I did not hold it.
Then in the next breath you were saying I held a "watered" down version and error that was virtually the same thing, despite my clearly stating otherwise.
So...let's leave it for the reader to examine.
Of course we will both hold to our ideas. I am not trying to change your view. I am simply pointing you to Scripture as a whole. Of course Christ extends to the Church. What I said was the "woman's seed" in Genesis was not speaking of Christians but of Christ. This, perhaps, is a good illustration of how you decontextualize ideas and rebuild them as you see fit. What you did with my comment you do with Scripture. Consider the context as a whole.
When we pull out things we see in Scripture and arrange them to our liking there is always a danger of creating ideas foreign to Scripture. Scripture deals with ideas in its own context. Consider that it is possible God intended those "trees" to comprise a complete "forest" (the "forest" matters).
But at the same time I have learned to be careful not to offer "meat" to those who have yet been weaned from the "milk". That is why I have been pointing and suggesting that you set aside theology for a time and simply read Scripture as it is presented. You have a heart for God, and I am confident that if you are able to do this you will discover a depth of Scripture that transcends the sum of its parts.
I think your views here (and elsewhere) emphasize a danger of churches that emphasize theological concepts over Scripture itself. That is why I've illustrated with two-seed and anti-mission doctrine (not that you hold either but that you are treading dangerous ground). Perhaps we rush into systematic theology to quickly....I'm not sure. But the idea of Scripture as sort of an encyclopedia of doctrine is a growing problem that is perhaps more damaging than doctrinal ignorance as it fosters Christian infancy rather than growth.
No....the teaching is what is offered very clearly.
Multitudes have seen it.
This idea that you have transcended all theological positions and you alone have come to truth and spiritual maturity is only held by you.
This thread is not about me, or you.
I think your ideas about theology are seriously flawed.
Martin and Biblicist pastored churches and you ignored most of what they said.
You said you enjoyed their posts, but your posts indicated something else.
I notice they are not posting here now.
I am not here to focus on your ideas in that many times they are opposed to sound historical teaching as in this thread. So once again let the readers decide.
Multitudes have seen it.
This idea that you have transcended all theological positions and you alone have come to truth and spiritual maturity is only held by you.
This thread is not about me, or you.
I think your ideas about theology are seriously flawed.
Martin and Biblicist pastored churches and you ignored most of what they said.
You said you enjoyed their posts, but your posts indicated something else.
I notice they are not posting here now.
I am not here to focus on your ideas in that many times they are opposed to sound historical teaching as in this thread. So once again let the readers decide.
Again, this is not about whether or not our ideas are flawed. It is about redemptive history and Scripture as a whole.
The "doctrines" you identify in Scripture belong in the context that Scripture provides. When we pull them out to build a "human wisdom" about the Bible and about God we are not doing theology proper. We are doing philosophy. I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong in itself. It can be useful. BUT it leads to knowledge - NOT spiritual maturity.
Again, @Iconoclast , I recognize your heart for God. I know that you are a brother in Christ. But I think that it is past time you seek the "meat" of the word. Too often I have seen brothers trapped in their own quest for knowledge, erroneously believing that they will find "meat" in human wisdom gained about God rather than growing in knowing God more fully. They set their eyes on "trees". Look at the "forest".
You cannot treat the Bible as an encyclopedia and expect to walk away with anything but a superficial and humanistic view.
You are free to reject my view of theology (that theology must be Christ-centered and any other method that seeks God apart from Christ is religious philosophy). I agree that this is one thing that separates us. That said, it does not make my view of theology wrong. It simply means that we disagree. We can explore each other's theological background and compare where our ideas were developed if you would like, but on another thread.
What I have posted is Christ centered and scripturally based.
The thing you accuse me of, seems to be what you are doing, as if you are projecting it on me.
I will stick with what I have posted.
I will stick with proven men as they are given by God to the church as gifts.
They are not infallible but given as gifts.
I know that is what you believe to be true. I've been where you are now. What I have found is that there is much more to Scripture than the sum of its parts. The Holy Spirit guides us to all truth, @Iconoclast .
Many stick to the milk of the issues, I think sometimes because the milk makes very little demand of us. As you continue you studies, I encourage you to prayerfully consider what is being communicated not only by theological doctrines that you see in your reading but also (and more importantly) by the Scripture as a whole. Look at the context in view of redemptive history. When you are able to do this you will see an amazing depth of Scripture that you may not have recognized in the theological expositions you sometimes seem to favor.
Take your time. Pray. Read and re-read Scripture as it comes. Let Scripture define itself. Ask yourself why an idea is where it is. Explore the overarching purpose. Realize the forest is more than a bunch of trees or a couple of groves.
As always, I'll keep you in my prayers. You do have a passion for biblical doctrine. I pray as you continue this passion will increasingly pale to that passion for God Himself.
...and beyond:
17 And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus: Rev 12
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Gal 4
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above Jn 3 YLT
The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into All Truth, not us.
We are given the Spirit to be able to welcome truth, but we do not have the same promise the Apostles had.
No... this is not milk issues, but meat.
Correct doctrinal root leads to correct spiritual fruit.
We are given the Spirit to be able to welcome truth, but we do not have the same promise the Apostles had.
No... this is not milk issues, but meat.
Correct doctrinal root leads to correct spiritual fruit.
Perhaps that is an issue, @Iconoclast . We have to rely on the Holy Spirit to work in our lives and unveil what is revealed in Scripture. We cannot work apart from the Spirit. Your suggestion the Spirit only guided the Apostles may be part of the problem you are having problems identifying the meat of Scripture.
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Again, step back and read Scripture in its own context. Stop treating the Bible as if it were an encyclopedia and the "meat" of the Word as a knowledge hidden from all but the enlightened believer. Look at what is communicated through Scripture that transforms us with ever increasing glory.
Knowledge about God is important, but this type of "wisdom" never leads to spiritual fruit. Prayerfully read at least the Gospel accounts and you will see what I mean. The Spirit unveils what is already present in Scripture.
Nemesis. @Martin Marprelate is my nemesis.
Well, maybe not now that he (and The Bib) are no longer posting. I guess that makes you the victor, right? Happy now?
Well now... the context to the verse is only the Apostles . So that might identify the problem as in your court. I can demonstrate that for you very easily
It is surprising that snip you have missed this fact
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:20 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:20 PM Pacific.
This is a good topic (one we will not have enough time to discuss here).Well now... the context to the verse is only the Apostles . So that might identify the problem as in your court. I can demonstrate that for you very easily
It is surprising that snip you have missed this fact
I believe that when the Spirit was sent He was sent as a helper to Christians. I do not believe that apart from God's Spirit one can discern spiritual things.
This is what some Baptists have referred to the "indwelling" of the Spirit. That you find this problematic is very interesting to me as I was not aware there were Baptists who denied this work of God in the lives of believers.
But this is a key (probably THE key) that separates us in how we view the "meat" of the Word. I do not believe the Holy Spirit revealed to the Apostles truth and His work was done. So the "meat" of the Word is not something I view as an apprehension of knowledge, but rather the working of God.
- Status