Featured Does God Love the Seed of the Serpent?

"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:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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