Implications of Serpent Seed Doctrine?

Does the Serpent Seed Doctrine destroy the Gospel message?

  • Yes, if abused

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not at all

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
Status
Not open for further replies.

MyCrows

Puritan Board Freshman
I have not found any threads where the "Serpent Seed Doctrine" is discussed.

The teaching puts forward the idea that Cain was the physical offspring of Eve and Satan, and that there are two bloodlines in the world, (Satan's and Adams).

I have however noticed several mentions of teachers such as Arnold Murray, who teach British Israelism, a derivative of Serpent Seed teaching, where the teachers are not recognized to be false/heretical.

This poll is closely related to personal experiences in my recent evangelizing, which I will detail in another area.
 

John The Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
Said not sure, then reread the fact that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan. Yeah I’m gonna say weird and gospel-destroying.

I reckon they take Jesus’ words in John 8 literally, with the Pharisees being the children of Satan.
 

MyCrows

Puritan Board Freshman
Said not sure, then reread the fact that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan. Yeah I’m gonna say weird and gospel-destroying.

I reckon they take Jesus’ words in John 8 literally, with the Pharisees being the children of Satan.

This is one of the many places that they use to defend their doctrine.

However, one of the necessary implications of the teaching is *no original sin*, since they see Eve being "wholly deceived" as a sexual act, and not one of disobedience towards God that her husband also partook in.

So they don't see spiritual sons of Satan, they see physical sons.
 

Polanus1561

Puritan Board Junior
You need to kill the root of this by fundamentally establishing Sola Scriptura. No point putting out these fires one by one
 

John The Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
This is one of the many places that they use to defend their doctrine.

However, one of the necessary implications of the teaching is *no original sin*, since they see Eve being "wholly deceived" as a sexual act, and not one of disobedience towards God that her husband also partook in.

So they don't see spiritual sons of Satan, they see physical sons.
Odd. So odd. So Adam does matter too much?
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Sophomore
This is one example of hyper literal Bible interpretation gone amuck. I assume this flourishes in more dispensational circles?

There are examples in the NT where the term offspring is obviously being used in a non-literal way. That might help if you are talking with someone who is vaguely rational, sensitive to the Spirit, and actually cares about the truth.
 

ReformedChristian

Puritan Board Freshman
I have not found any threads where the "Serpent Seed Doctrine" is discussed.

The teaching puts forward the idea that Cain was the physical offspring of Eve and Satan, and that there are two bloodlines in the world, (Satan's and Adams).

I have however noticed several mentions of teachers such as Arnold Murray, who teach British Israelism, a derivative of Serpent Seed teaching, where the teachers are not recognized to be false/heretical.

This poll is closely related to personal experiences in my recent evangelizing, which I will detail in another area.
It has racial undertones as well ie British Israelism and Christian Identity.
 

dhh712

Puritan Board Freshman
I have not found any threads where the "Serpent Seed Doctrine" is discussed.

The teaching puts forward the idea that Cain was the physical offspring of Eve and Satan, and that there are two bloodlines in the world, (Satan's and Adams).

I have however noticed several mentions of teachers such as Arnold Murray, who teach British Israelism, a derivative of Serpent Seed teaching, where the teachers are not recognized to be false/heretical.

This poll is closely related to personal experiences in my recent evangelizing, which I will detail in another area.
My dad's caught up in this nonsense. He studies under Murray. His defense: "He goes back to the original languages!" : /. I don't quite see how it destroys the gospel; it appears to confuse spiritual children with physical children, so I don't know then if they believe in a spiritual rebirth? When I was first converted, I tried to talk to my dad about his beliefs and my new ones, but he was totally hardened to the Confession's interpretation of Scripture (took a decisive dislike to them). More recently, I try to talk to him about trusting in Jesus for forgiveness of sin; at least he appears to agree with me in that.
 

MyCrows

Puritan Board Freshman
My dad's caught up in this nonsense. He studies under Murray. His defense: "He goes back to the original languages!" : /. I don't quite see how it destroys the gospel; it appears to confuse spiritual children with physical children, so I don't know then if they believe in a spiritual rebirth? When I was first converted, I tried to talk to my dad about his beliefs and my new ones, but he was totally hardened to the Confession's interpretation of Scripture (took a decisive dislike to them). More recently, I try to talk to him about trusting in Jesus for forgiveness of sin; at least he appears to agree with me in that.

The arguement I kept running into was that there was no need for faith or repentance on their part, that Jesus died for his people, and they are his people essentially by birthright.

They hold to a view of election, but it's one that has God bringing them into the promised birthline, not being adopted into his family by grace through faith in Christ.

So they believe Christ did die for them, in their way of looking at it.
 

dhh712

Puritan Board Freshman
The arguement I kept running into was that there was no need for faith or repentance on their part, that Jesus died for his people, and they are his people essentially by birthright.

They hold to a view of election, but it's one that has God bringing them into the promised birthline, not being adopted into his family by grace through faith in Christ.

So they believe Christ did die for them, in their way of looking at it.

That would make sense. I just remembered another huge problem with my dad's beliefs is that there's no need for evangelism or concern about anyone going to hell right now. Murray teaches that everyone will be given "another chance" in the millennium, where Christ teaches those who didn't get it right for 1,000 years. Like he knows my brother doesn't believe in God and scorns him, but my dad just shrugs and says, "He'll have another chance in the millennium". I see the appeal of that teaching for those who don't like the idea (like my family) of a "harsh" God; but, it has no basis in a properly interpretated Bible. Murray's misunderstanding of the original languages has gotten him making up this ridiculously absurd tale about God and his people that is like way, way out there. It's a nice story for those who put their own standards above God's.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Senior
The cult I grew up in taught serpent's-seed. Despite lots of evidence to the contrary, they even claimed to have had the initial “revelation” of the doctrine…(in reality a few mystical Jewish writers like Philo alluded to such cabalistic beliefs as early as the 1st century, and in the 2nd century Irenaeus refuted various Gnostic sects that made proto-serpent's-seed claims). Ecclesiastes 1:9. In the cult’s case no ongoing racial component was claimed, which did raise the question, what then are the practical or theological implications of the doctrine? Despite their insistence that it was a vital doctrine to accept, I never heard a cogent answer.

This is one example of hyper literal Bible interpretation gone amuck.

Literal vs. non-literal interpretation is actually applied on a very haphazard basis. Some verses are taken ultra-literally/physically (e.g. Gen. 3:15; 2 Cor. 11:3; John 8:44; 1 John 3:12), while others must be read allegorically (Gen. 3:3-6, 10-13) or even euphemistically (Gen. 3:3). A very arbitrary hermeneutic. Ancillary support is claimed from Gen. 3:7 and Gen. 3:16. But of course the doctrine ignores the principle of Gen. 1:24, blatantly denies Gen. 4:1, and defies the plain chronology of Satan’s deed taking place in the garden, while Cain was conceived after their expulsion.

Any ongoing racial claims associated with the doctrine run afoul of Acts 17:26, 1 Pet 3:20 etc...

Serpent’s seed is definitely a bizarre, unbiblical and even grotesque doctrine. I’m not sure that it inherently destroys the Gospel message though, as posited in the poll question. I’d be interested in seeing someone who believes that it does lay out the case.
 
Last edited:

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Serpent seed tells me “the gospel is only for white people. All [insert hated minority] people are going to hell and it’s useless to preach to them.”

If that doesn’t destroy the gospel not much else can.
 

ReformedChristian

Puritan Board Freshman
The arguement I kept running into was that there was no need for faith or repentance on their part, that Jesus died for his people, and they are his people essentially by birthright.

They hold to a view of election, but it's one that has God bringing them into the promised birthline, not being adopted into his family by grace through faith in Christ.

So they believe Christ did die for them, in their way of looking at it.
I guess John 1:12-13; 3:6-8 where it speaks on spiritual birth really is not in their mind.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Senior
Serpent seed tells me “the gospel is only for white people. All [insert hated minority] people are going to hell and it’s useless to preach to them.”

If that doesn’t destroy the gospel not much else can.
Some versions of serpent's seed have racist implications. Yet the Branhamite cult version does not. In fact there are more Branhamites in black Africa than anywhere else in the world, due to a concerted missionary effort there by the cult.
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
How do they handle Jacob and Esau who clearly of the same line both paternally and maternally?
 

Northern Crofter

Puritan Board Freshman
So they don't see spiritual sons of Satan, they see physical sons.
So what do they do with the text of Genesis 4.1: Afterward Adam knew Eve his wife which conceived and bare Cain, and said, "I have obtained a man by the Lord."? It seems clear from the Scriptures that Cain was the physical offspring of Adam and Eve, thus any doctrine to the contrary must be heretical.
 

MyCrows

Puritan Board Freshman
I noticed that all the votes that were cast were in the affirmative...

While I may have trouble articulating exactly *how* the doctrine is gospel destroying, I do believe that if followed to it's logical conclusion it destroys the *need* for the gospel.

Thank you all for your responses, and I pray that those of us with loved ones caught up in it will be guided away from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top