Featured Was the Serpent in Genesis 3 a Literal Snake?

Agreed about the angels but Adam was the only one only because he was so described in his pre-fall condition. We would have been sons of God like him, even though procreated, had we been born of the sinless Adam before the fall.

 

Do demons possess only on express authority or is that only for God's chosen that they can only act against them with express authority?

 

Hmmm. I believe we would still be considered sons of Adam, just not sons of a sinful Adam. We are sons of God by adoption, born again. Had Adam not sinned, we would not have needed to be born again. We are called a "new creation" which is a form of direct creation, which explains the new title of children of God. Had Adam not sinned, we would not need to be recreated. At least that's my thinking at this point.

Also, Adam is linked to a genealogy of fallen men in Luke, and so Luke would have been speaking of postlapsarian Adam, the state he was in when he procreated. This leads me to believe Adam was called a son of God based on his direct creation.

Also, the sons of God angels, are fallen angels. Yet they didn't lose their sons of God title. So no issue with a fallen Adam retaining his title.

 

Demons do not normally obey God. Though in the presence of Jesus they did ask to be put into the pigs by the mercy of Jesus He allowed it to be so. The pigs ran off a cliff and killed them selves.

The lost do sometimes become possessed by demons because of there sinful activities. I believe that those who purposely hurt them selves are possessed. The Bible speaks of a boy who hurt himself and the Lord cast out the demons.
MB

 

Why does that make no sense?

I agree that it changes the meaning of the curse from a simple statement of physical fact (snakes have no legs and DO crawl in their belly) to a metaphorical pronouncement that from this point forward Stan would be debased (forced to humble himself) as we saw in Job where Satan required God's specific permission to do anything to Job (the man).

 

The symbolism is very clear. It's a metaphor of Satan's fall. He was brought low, just as the snake was brought low.

Snake imagery continues in the next verse, the killing of a snake. Impossible to separate these 2 verses.

The pushback on this may from gap theorists who place Satan's fall before the Eden.

 

That's because the metaphor doesn't start there, it's merely the narrator setting up the scene. The allegory begins when God issues the curse.

Sure there is. The devil took a third of heaven with him. Many angels fell. Satan would be the chief. The God proclaims Satan will be brought low. The symbolism is hard to miss.

No only this, the curse continues through v. 15. You've created an arbitrary separation.

Curious, though, do you believe Satan fell on the Garden? Or do you subscribe to a gap theory?

 

Yes, it's essential to setting up the literal scene which involved a literal snake. It has nothing to do with the allegorical prophecy God revealed in verses 14 and 15. By what hermeneutical principle would you deduce this?

 

Why? Is the devil less subtle than any beast of the field?
Are modern snakes more subtle than cows or goats?
Please explain how it makes more sense as a literal “snake”, because I really don’t see a lot of difference. Once you have talking snakes, realism sort of flies out the window and “we are not in Kansas any more, Toto.”

 

It told me immediately, when I read the story for the very first time with a knowledge of theology that would fit on a postage stamp ... that this was not a common black racer garden snake that was with Eve. THIS Serpent was craftier than any beast of the field (while a normal snake IS a beast of the field), so it was not to be trusted. That is good advice in general: Satan and his minions are not to be trusted and nothing good will come from listening to what they have to say.

 

The question I would have for you then, is why the name was then transferred to animals we know as snake (nachash) in the OT?

 

I think you missed the point of my question.

 

Let me put it this way. I do not believe that demons can possess the saved The lost is another matter the lost belong to Satan. As long as they do belong to Satan he can do what he wants to with his own.
MB

 

That's quite a scary thought. I don't think it's quite that simple, though. God gives common grace to all. I doubt he gives the devil total freedom on this.

The general consensus seems to be that dabbling in the occult opens doors for demonic possession. Regardless, I don't the the devil has total freedom to possess anyone he wishes.

 

I agree he can't possess the saved.
MB

 

Yes, but my point was, he likely cannot just willy-nilly possess the unsaved. God's common grace is on the earth. He's still sovereign.

 

I think you should take a good look at God's sovereign rule of this world. This world has been a more sinful place than Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a godless world and very few will find there way out of it. God is not controlling this hell we live in. That would mean he planned for it to be an evil place. I do not believe God plans the evil that goes on on this Earth.
MB