Mixed Breed: Angels & Mankind (Gen. 6 alt view)

This was sent in from a good pastor friend of mine and although we disagree about angels here, I believe it is a very good read and he supports it with scripture. Most will most likely find themselves following this view varried over what I have written in my last post. I have added a few notes of my own in blue. Please enjoy.

---

A reoccurring theme throughout the Old and New Testament is that believers are not to marry unbelievers. To do so would lead, in most cases, to corruption of godly morals and principles and there are examples of this in the Scriptures. King Solomon and his wives who lead him into idolatry. King Ahab and his marrying of Jezebel, In Malachi chapter 2; 10-16 the issue is addressed, In Ezra the daughters of the land were taken and were put away in repentance when the children of Israel returned to the Lord. Even some of the priest were considered corrupt because their blood lines were not pure (read Ezra Chapters 9-10) and of course, there is the passage you have chosen: Genesis 6 is another example of godly principles and values being lost through the marriage of believers and non- believers---that is why God said don't do it! (II Corinthians 6:14). The word Seth means appointed. Adam and Eve were given another seed (son) instead of Able whom Cain slew. Genesis 6:25. I think that does mean that Adam and Eve were given a son with a likeness of Abel. Personally, I think that was spiritually. Abel offered a more respectable sacrifice than Cain, Seth would have done like wise. Now, I know there is no biblical support for that other than Genesis 6:26 that after Seth bore Enos, then men began to call on the name of the Lord. I think call means to turn to or at least acknowledge. When the sons of God saw the daughters of men, I believe that it is referring to a godly race and the godly were corrupted by the ungodly. 1 rotten potatoe in a bag will make you think that all the potatoes are bad---the stink of one corrupts the rest. Same is true when Godly principles and values are compromised---America is a prime example of that. I do not believe the sons of God were angels, but if you do, you are in good company because I know many great people who think the same way---I just do not think it is right :-)

Yes, we can agree with the birth of Enos scripture declares men began to call on the name of the Lord, but I don't find scriptural support that all the lineage of Seth was godly and all the lineage of Cain was ungodly. Also, within the white pages, were Cain, Able, and Seth Adam and Eve's only male children? Although my friend does not agree about angels here, the fact that scripture clearly teaches against the saved and unsaved joining in marriage is undeniable.

You say that the case is weak against such a view, well, It is no more weak than the argument that these sons of God were angels, but the later seems to make far more sense. You asked: "And why would the joining of a saved person and a lost person produce giants and “mighty men which were of old, men of renown”? the word giants does not refer in this passage to men of great stature, it refers to men of status. I think that some of the worlds most deceptive men where of such; Hitler and Stalin were men of status and are renown, but there are others who are not so cruel and even fly under the banner of Jesus Christ, Benny Hinn, Jessie Duplantis and yes I will say it, Joel Olsteen. These are men of status who are deceiving and leading people away from the knowledge of God.

The view that I find weak is the thought that all the lineage of Seth was godly and all the lineage of Cain was ungodly.

As for God placing an enmity between Christ and Satan and causing men to sin and rebel, there is some truth to what you say. Because of sin, we are enemies of God. For those in Christ that enmity has been taken away (Romans 5). But, I think the Seed of Satan and the seed of the woman (the Messiah) go much further than just believer and unbeliever. Satan's seed is not just the unbeliever but also the Anti-Christ who is Satan incarnate. Christ (who is God incarnate) willl crush his head! He defeated Satan at the Cross through the resurrection from the dead and He will ultimately defeat him and cause Satan to be bruised under the feet of the saints of God---Romans 16:20.

What exactly are you suggesting here? What exaclty is meant by "the Anti-Christ who is Satan incarnate"? That he produces a seed, that he comes in the flesh, or will indwell (possess) an individual?

I can't follow your logic that it is God's fault that we sin and rebel against Him, but I can follow the fact that we won't we can't come to God. God must come to each of us and for those who are saved, God takes the initiative and the course of action. I think you would be hard pressed to make our sin and rebellion God's fault. You will have to twist a lot of Scripture to do that. It is this type of teaching that turns good people into hyper-Calvinist saying: it doesn't matter what I do, I do what I do because God made me this way and if God wants me to change He will change me. . . That puts no responsibility on the individual which violates much Scripture. I do not think the teachings on the Sovereignty of God were ever meant to be taken to such extremes. It was given to comfort the hearts and minds of God's people so they could learn to trust and worship Him no matter what! Not for a license to sin.

I did not clarify myself properly, it was supposed to be posed as a question and not as a fact that it is God's fault that we sin and rebel. We are sinners because Adam disobey God and has pasted that depravity down to all mankind, yet I still believe that the enmity (the punishment for sin as one put it) does cause us to run and rebel from God instead of causing us to run and cleave to God. I would never on purpose take the personaly responsibility of sin off of man and place it on God.

Just my take for what it is worth.

Thanks. Good stuff!