-
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
Rockson
Active Member
God clearly stated that we were to LOVE our enemies!
And you've never thought that the reason they are our enemies is because they are his?
And you've never thought that the reason they are our enemies is because they are his?
The OP. Is not talking about the foolish serpent seed doctrine at all.
The person who started the OP. Has assured me he has no interest in such nonsense.
I agree it isn't that heresy as it does go as far. The logic, however, is the same. It is a watered down form of serpent seed doctrine. The locical conclusion of the OP is that there are two "races" of men pre-salvation. It is the same doctrine (absent the element of a physical relations between man and serpent).
I do not rely on logic here but on the direct revelation from scripture.
There is a clear distinction made between the godly line,and the ungodly line.It is seen in all the scriptures.
I know you don't see the logic. Thise who hold the serpent seed doctrine believe their view is seen all through Scripture as well. People simply do not believe heresy knowing it is heresy.
The serpent seed error is one of arriving at an erroneous conclusion based on the text of Scripture, not ignoring Scripture all together. The error of the OP is that it is just a watered down version of two-seed doctrine. All heresy has some aspects of truth. That is how it gains disciples.
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.
If it walks like a duck...
Then there was the five pointer who said he was not a Calvinist.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
For God loved the world of fallen mankind in this way...
I am not saying he holds serpent seed doctrine. I am saying he holds the same logical conclusion to which serpent seed doctrine arrives.
It is a watered down version of the doctrine as the only difference is it has rejected the doctrine of the two lines being the result of physical relations in Genesis. Other than that they are identical. Both differ from traditional Calvinism and are closer to Primitive Baptist views (any Primitive Baptist worth his salt would point out that they are neither Calvinisrs or Reformed).
So the theology is an amalgamation of ideas. Whether his actual view is heresy or not depends on his church. I am Baptist and haven't a dog in that hunt. I suspect he believes as much false doctrine as he does true doctrine; rejects as much true droctrine as he holds. But what he does hold (the gospel of Christ) is enough.
No...actually. what the OP is dealing with is clear biblical revelation.
It has nothing to do with the false ideas you bring up at all. Perhaps in your mind it does, but to most believers it has no place.
You are of course welcome to start a thread on it,but that is not the subject.
God moves in time to protect and preserve the Godly line who are in union with Christ. That is the subject here.He does not have a saving love for the ungodly line at all
Other than physical lineage, how do you suppose the view of the OP differs?
All smear, no evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is what you are missing, Martin. @Iconoclast is a grown man. He is literate. He is not afraid to ask me questions or correct where he believes I have mistaken his position. I am sure he can read my post and discern that I am not claiming he holds to two-seed doctrine (because I stated as much). As far as I can tell, he has not requested requested that you jump in and provide smoke via insults against anyone who dare address the topic in a non-affirming way.
Other people have views and opinions. It is not right or fair for you to simply insult anyone who as a belief different from yours. That is cult-like, not Christ-like.
Folks need to stop engaging other people as if they were atheistic politicians supporting a party come what may.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, he is bring to the argument a specific area of danger of which the readers need to be aware.
I and others (even you) do very good at bringing to light at various times views that can be taken too far.
Personally, it is wonderful to see the exchange as the posts express the footing of various “Doctrines.”
These discussions are not hurtful unless the posters turn from factual exchange into personal sniping.
We men who love the Lord, and seek Him, are more often conformed through our own work in the Scriptures and disagreeable with opinions outside our own
For example: Luther never separated from agreement with the RC concerning the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli held they were but a portrayal, much as we do, but to this day Lutherns agree with Luther’s view.
So I congratulate you and others for expressing strong views, yet willing as Zwingli and Luther to discuss and reach as in each that which brings the wisdom of God - James 3:But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not saying that @Iconoclast holds serpent seed doctrine. He and I both agree that that view is a heresy (we may disagree in how it is a heresy, but we agree it is). So there was no need for the peanut gallery to start with the insults.
Here is the question I am asking:
Other than physical lineage, how do you suppose the view of the OP differ from Serpent Seed Doctrine?
My opinion (which I doubt @Iconoclast minds me stating) is that except for how it occurred the doctrines are identical. Both view divine election along the same lines, and both see two "races" of people ("goats" and "sheep"). I do not see enough difference to amount to anything in the conclusion. We have to be careful about where we take these things.
Here is the question I am asking:
Other than physical lineage, how do you suppose the view of the OP differ from Serpent Seed Doctrine?
My opinion (which I doubt @Iconoclast minds me stating) is that except for how it occurred the doctrines are identical. Both view divine election along the same lines, and both see two "races" of people ("goats" and "sheep"). I do not see enough difference to amount to anything in the conclusion. We have to be careful about where we take these things.
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?
The significance of the OP to the matter of the "serpent seed" in comparison to the seed of the Holy Spirit is in the determination of what is "seed."
In Scriptures there are two basic uses of the word "seed" :
The OP raised the basic question of whether God loves equally all in spite of the "seed" or is God more selective by extending His unmerited favor to all, but special love for His children.
It is a valid question.
Here is my own thinking.
God is love.
In contrast, the serpent has no such capacity to love as God loves. The capacity of the serpent is masked by deceitful means a emotionalism that humankind consider what they express as love is comparable and even equal to God's love.
For example:
What the unbeliever's "love" does not nor can such "love" generate love that is pure. Ultimately unbeliever "love" is selfish and self centered, it reveals itself is seeking what preserves their own, and though self sacrifice is honorable, in the historical balance it means very little for it rarely changes the person the sacrifices were made for and far less any change effecting others. In what manner did the sacrifices of US soldiers in the 1860's change the individual in today's China? Where did the great sacrifices of the armies of the world lead to peace among nations. Such love has but a temporary lifespan, and more often is but for foggy memories. What unbelieving man unconditionally forgives, especially that of betrayal, mockery, unfaithfulness, ...
In the believer's life, the seed of the Word of God brings everlasting change. More often it not only impacts the one the seed is first implanted, but then spreads to others. The love from that seed abounds in ways portrayed in 1 Corinthians 13. Particularly in the list of how love is and is not manifested:
Therefore, the believer can and does extend and express love even in the most harsh unlovely conditions and circumstances. The believer can love and unconditionally and forgive in the midst of betrayal, mockery, unfaithfulness... Because that is what God has done for them, and such love is lived out in the believer.
It is definitely true that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit is of unmeasurable value, and that the love both of the giver and the production of that Love in the believer is unmeasurably greater.
The seed of the enemy is sown in hate, and such deceit. The unbeliever has no capacity to love as God loves.
We are told in the Scriptures that God is Love. So, even that unmerited favor that brings rain to the just and unjust is an expression of His Love. In that preservation and sustaining (for Christ sustains all things) there is no lack of Love.
Yet, it must also be acknowledged, that, though God loves all, and that He first loved before anyone loved Him, there is that unmeasurable love for those in whom He has adopted as His children, not shared by those who are under the authority of the enemy of believers.
The unescapable essence of God's love shed in our hearts is not that seed of fakery, but of eternal value.
In Scriptures there are two basic uses of the word "seed" :
- There is the literal seed. That which in agricultural methods reproduces a copy of the plant. The word is also used in the reproductive acts of human and animal. It is in this area that "serpent seed" thinking mocks the Scriptures. This heretical teaching has the serpent mating with Eve resulting in Cain. Again, it is heretical teaching, and yet as all absurdities has a following. Though the OP has not that heresy in mind, it does concern the human condition of the unbeliever and the believer and the purposed work of God in conversion. One without warning presented by others could wander over into dangerous views that are not of the Scriptures.
- There is the use of the word "seed" as a figurative seed. That which the seed is used in the Scriptures as the Word and work of the Holy Spirit, the planting of a thought, the motive of action, the core value, and other such ways. The Word of God is referred to as seed. Evil weed seed sown to mimic the good seed. These figurative uses of "seed" is to keep the reader well aware of the very basic elementary steps that lead to either great service to the Master or to a life lived as a "worthless fellow."
The OP raised the basic question of whether God loves equally all in spite of the "seed" or is God more selective by extending His unmerited favor to all, but special love for His children.
It is a valid question.
Here is my own thinking.
God is love.
In contrast, the serpent has no such capacity to love as God loves. The capacity of the serpent is masked by deceitful means a emotionalism that humankind consider what they express as love is comparable and even equal to God's love.
For example:
What the unbeliever's "love" does not nor can such "love" generate love that is pure. Ultimately unbeliever "love" is selfish and self centered, it reveals itself is seeking what preserves their own, and though self sacrifice is honorable, in the historical balance it means very little for it rarely changes the person the sacrifices were made for and far less any change effecting others. In what manner did the sacrifices of US soldiers in the 1860's change the individual in today's China? Where did the great sacrifices of the armies of the world lead to peace among nations. Such love has but a temporary lifespan, and more often is but for foggy memories. What unbelieving man unconditionally forgives, especially that of betrayal, mockery, unfaithfulness, ...
In the believer's life, the seed of the Word of God brings everlasting change. More often it not only impacts the one the seed is first implanted, but then spreads to others. The love from that seed abounds in ways portrayed in 1 Corinthians 13. Particularly in the list of how love is and is not manifested:
4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8Love never fails; ...
Imo, possibly the single most unmet item in that list by the vast number of those claiming to be believers is "...does not take into account a wrong suffered..." That is a remarkable translations that (again, imo) brings out the nuance of what is communicated. The KJV rendering is also very good because it also focuses upon the thought process "seed" resulting in the mulling over hurts and thoughts of revenge.8Love never fails; ...
Therefore, the believer can and does extend and express love even in the most harsh unlovely conditions and circumstances. The believer can love and unconditionally and forgive in the midst of betrayal, mockery, unfaithfulness... Because that is what God has done for them, and such love is lived out in the believer.
It is definitely true that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit is of unmeasurable value, and that the love both of the giver and the production of that Love in the believer is unmeasurably greater.
The seed of the enemy is sown in hate, and such deceit. The unbeliever has no capacity to love as God loves.
We are told in the Scriptures that God is Love. So, even that unmerited favor that brings rain to the just and unjust is an expression of His Love. In that preservation and sustaining (for Christ sustains all things) there is no lack of Love.
Yet, it must also be acknowledged, that, though God loves all, and that He first loved before anyone loved Him, there is that unmeasurable love for those in whom He has adopted as His children, not shared by those who are under the authority of the enemy of believers.
The unescapable essence of God's love shed in our hearts is not that seed of fakery, but of eternal value.
Last edited:
Where the line of thinking goes astray (from Scripture) is in assuming there are two "races" of people at the start (elect and non-elect). Two-seed theology asumes that there is a spiritual "race" of people who cannot be saved and a spiritual "race" of people who will be saved - and these are separate from the beginning. It reads back into Scripture ideas that point to the conclusion of redemption.
The point of Scripture is that the division is between the saved and the lost -NOT between the "to be saved" and the "won't be saved".
The significance of those who are "darkness" is that God loved us while we were still enemies of God - while we were sinners Christ died for us.
@agedman rightly identifies the importance of this concept. It is about God's love. The isdue with two-seed doctrine (whether at the extreme or a watered down version) is that it misapplies God's Word to create a doctribe that has little to do with Scripture and nothing to do with God. Both versions arrive at an erroneous conclusion.
It is not necessarily a Calvinist issue. Some Calvinists (e.g. Sprugeon, Edwards) viewed God as choosing to save a people from fallen man. Others view election as prior to the Fall (which logically concludes in some form of two seed doctrine).
The point of Scripture is that the division is between the saved and the lost -NOT between the "to be saved" and the "won't be saved".
The significance of those who are "darkness" is that God loved us while we were still enemies of God - while we were sinners Christ died for us.
@agedman rightly identifies the importance of this concept. It is about God's love. The isdue with two-seed doctrine (whether at the extreme or a watered down version) is that it misapplies God's Word to create a doctribe that has little to do with Scripture and nothing to do with God. Both versions arrive at an erroneous conclusion.
It is not necessarily a Calvinist issue. Some Calvinists (e.g. Sprugeon, Edwards) viewed God as choosing to save a people from fallen man. Others view election as prior to the Fall (which logically concludes in some form of two seed doctrine).
"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,"
- Status