Satan's seed?

[amity]

The first two passages below never gave me much trouble in and of themselves, since it could just be a metaphorical expression:

John 8:39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I John 3:6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.


But coupled with:

Genesis 3:14And 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: 15And 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.

Eve's seed seems to be Christ. But I have to wonder.... who is Satan's seed? Who are the children of the devil?

 

[Helen]

Amity, we are ALL God's creation, so first of all, keep in mind that the devil never created anyone!

In John 8:44, we find that Jesus identifies Satan and a liar and the father of lies. In Romans 1:18 and on, we find that God's wrath is poured out on those who suppress the truth by their wickedness, prefering the lie over the truth.

In letting Bible explain Bible, we can see then that the lie itself may be the 'seed' which, when preferred, makes one a child of the devil. Jesus said He is THE Truth, and that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth.

Thus, one gets to choose who one is adopted by -- the father of lies or the Truth Himself.

 

[amity]

Amity, we are ALL God's creation, so first of all, keep in mind that the devil never created anyone!

Thank you, Helen. That is a start, at least.

No, I don't really think that Satan created anyone, but neither did Adam or any of the other people who the Bible describes as having "seed." I don't think this group is the non-elect, either, but would like to hear from anyone who does. At any rate, it would not seem we get to choose our status on this matter. Seed is seed.

 

[Helen]

Amity, Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of the Father, so none of us would have the seed of the Father, certainly. And Satan does not beget, so no one has his 'seed.' Thus the spiritual truth must be somewhat different, and the Bible tells us "choose this day whom you will serve...."

 

[benz]

Metaphor?

Well Hi there,
I think the verses you use to illustrate your points are actually metaphors. God is pointing out that those who prefer to do evil over good are doing works of the devil or are working as agents of the devil. We are all creations of God and become his children when we become born again, and obeying God is a sign of our continued effort of becoming like Christ(Seed of God).

 

[amity]

Amity, Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of the Father, so none of us would have the seed of the Father, certainly. And Satan does not beget, so no one has his 'seed.' Thus the spiritual truth must be somewhat different, and the Bible tells us "choose this day whom you will serve...."

Helen, how do we know that Satan does not beget?

 

[canadyjd]

Helen, how do we know that Satan does not beget?

I know Helen is quite capable, and can probably answer better than I, but, nevertheless, I will give my opinion.

Angels and demons are spiritual, not physical. The physical creatures, including mankind, were told to be "fruitful and multiply". There is no indication that angels/demons are capable of such activity.

Notice what Jesus says to the Sadducees when they ask Him which husband a woman will have in heaven, if she had several husbands on earth.

Mark 12:25 "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

So satan, being a fallen angel, is not capable, as far as scripture tells us.

The proper understanding, as already stated, is that satan is their "father" because they tell lies and commit murder, just like he does.

peace to youraying:

 

[amity]

Canady, like I said if it was just the two NT mentions I would have no problem accepting just what you say, i.e., that this is metaphorical. But then there is the Genesis passage, which sort of clinches it in my mind. Not only are some people the children of Satan, but Satan has "seed." It seems against the odds that this is just an accidentally congruent metaphor.

So in some sense, Satan has seed. This does not have to imply sexual reproduction. It certainly does not imply that in the case of Eve's seed! So it just means Satan "begot" someone, or some group.

 

[canadyjd]

Canady, like I said if it was just the two NT mentions I would have no problem accepting just what you say, i.e., that this is metaphorical. But then there is the Genesis passage, which sort of clinches it in my mind. Not only are some people the children of Satan, but Satan has "seed." It seems against the odds that this is just an accidentally congruent metaphor.

So in some sense, Satan has seed. This does not have to imply sexual reproduction. It certainly does not imply that in the case of Eve's seed! So it just means Satan "begot" someone, or some group.

Alright, speak your mind plainly. Don't beat around the bush. Don't hym haw around. Don't duck for cover. Don't run for the hills. Don't make us guess..... Just say it.

peace to youraying:

 

[JerryL]

Helen, how do we know that Satan does not beget?

Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;

 

[JerryL]

I remember some time ago a friend of mine told me his take on the serpent seed. He thinks the fruit Eve partook of was actual sex with satan and not actual fruit. I think it is way off theolgy, it is called just as the first poster calls it, serpent seed doctrine. Some people claim Cain was the product of that union. As the poster above states, just spit it out. Is there where you're going here? :laugh:

 

[amity]

Alright, speak your mind plainly. Don't beat around the bush. Don't hym haw around. Don't duck for cover. Don't run for the hills. Don't make us guess..... Just say it.

peace to youraying:

Don't worry, if I ever get any insight, I will not be shy. Right now I have no idea, except for complete certainty that this can no longer be dismissed as "just an expression."

 

[amity]

Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;

I remember some time ago a friend of mine told me his take on the serpent seed. He thinks the fruit Eve partook of was actual sex with satan and not actual fruit. I think it is way off theolgy, it is called just as the first poster calls it, serpent seed doctrine. Some people claim Cain was the product of that union. As the poster above states, just spit it out. Is there where you're going here?

Once I started asking the question that was the first attempt at explanation I found. Problem is, they think Satan's seed is an actual blood lineage, and even racially associated, so I don't see it as having much credibility. Plus if someone slept with someone the Bible doesn't generally mince words about it, so no need to read too much into this one passage. I can't remember the scripture they used to try to substantiate that idea, but I was not impressed. I haven't really found anything half-way sophisticated being said about "Satan's seed" so far.

And yet I am sure SOMEONE must have dealt with this at some point! The anti-Christ has occurred to me, nice parallel to the identity of Eve's seed as Christ, but that does not really fit, does it?

Of course, the Bible passage you quoted explains nothing about this I am sorry to tell you!

 

[~JM~]

Here's one baptist view, that I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on.

Peace,

j
PS: It's not Parkerism.

 

[Helen]

canadyjd answered quite well. Angels, fallen or otherwise, do not have children. Procreation is a physical thing in our physical creation.

In the meantime, please know that 'seed' in the biblical sense is, when referring to the physical, a man's sperm. When God speaks of Eve's seed, it means a virgin birth; that no human male was involved. Therefore, the passage in Genesis goes, necessarily, beyond the physical.

NNE is born evil, a child of the devil. Jesus said in Matthew 18:10 that the angels of the children always see the Father in heaven. He did not say 'some' or 'a few' children, "See that you do not look down on ONE of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." There is no conception apart from God's will and plan and timing, even when we think it is an accident.

A child of God is a child by adoption, see John 1:12. One is adopted in, according to that Gospel, when one believes in His name. This is not an intellectual acknowledgement, but rather a whole life trust. In the same way, in Romans 1, we see that there are those who consciously and consistently suppress the truth even in creation itself, preferring the lie. They also have chosen their family, and their father is then the devil.

 

[amity]

Here's one baptist view, that I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on.
PS: It's not Parkerism.

Wow. Well, it is certainly sophisticated, I will say that for it. It contains some bitter pills, but might just have to swallow them. I have only glanced it over so far, am giving it a more thorough reading now. BTW, although I have heard of Parker, I would like to read something summing up his beliefs if you know of anything handy.

Helen, I appreciate your help. I didn't really hope for my question to lapse into yet another rehash of the Arminian/Calvinist debate. There are other ideas to talk about! If you have an Arminian or other view of the identity of the serpent's seed, I would be interested to read it, though.

 

[npetreley]

I brought up the same thing in a thread and almost everyone blew it off. I think there's something to it. What it is, I don't know, but I don't think you'll find out here.

 

[amity]

I brought up the same thing in a thread and almost everyone blew it off. I think there's something to it. What it is, I don't know, but I don't think you'll find out here.

Well, don't be discouraged. Apparently that one group is rather well known (more than I thought) for a rather odd view, and so maybe people didn't respond to you just because they were afraid of creating a platform for that group, which they might have thought we were members of. I think that is what was going on in this thread at first, too. I will look for your thread. I really should've done a search before I posted anyway. At any rate, be assured you asked a good question, or so I think at least.

I encourage you to read that article JM recommended. It is long, but very interesting.

 

[~JM~]

Someone ask about Parkerism?

Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit predestinarian Baptists

From Wikipedia

TWO SEED DOCTRINE SOME INCIDENTS

TWO-SEEDISM

 

[npetreley]

I encourage you to read that article JM recommended. It is long, but very interesting.

Yes, it was very interesting. Thanks to you and to JM.