"And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Ge 4:6-7 AV)
This passage has always interested me especially in its preceding Abel's murder of his brother. This was a man who talked with God, not in prayer as we commune with the LORD but in discussion with the Living LORD. This was also a man who clearly was given a choice by God, a sincere choice to turn to Him and do what was right by God. Yet, he slew his brother nonetheless. Given the hand of opportunity by God, can we state that Cain was determined by God to kill Abel? If so, what does that speak to God's words and extension to Cain? Can we suggest the LORD was sincere if He had determined Cain's murderous actions? Certainly the LORD decreed the actions of Cain but in viewing His extended hand to Cain we should not consider that such decrees were necessary. Cain had a choice to make and he made the choice that suited him. The LORD decreed that choice and as such it was certain to occur yet because the LORD sincerely offered Cain an alternative that choice could not have been necessary but was omnisciently foreknown instead. Those comments made to Cain are certainly a conundrum of sorts but perhaps more so to those who advance determinist notions rather than those of us who understand the effect of God's grace upon the freed will of man.
15 comments:
I'm not sure how you view your comments on this as being different than what a Calvinist says.
God decreed Cain's action.
"Certainly the LORD decreed the actions of Cain"
God also warned Cain.
"This was also a man who clearly was given a choice by God, a sincere choice to turn to Him and do what was right by God."
God knew all along what Cain would do, since he decreed it and knew what Cain would do beforehand.
"The LORD decreed that choice and as such it was certain to occur"
Are you under the impression that God knew what men would do in time, then chose to step in here and there or do you believe that God's involvement in time was part of his plan, therefore the responses of men to God's direct and indirect involvement were also part of his plan?
Some people view God as seeing world events playing out and then stepping in as it goes while other see that God's "dipping his hand in the river" changes the course, in essence directing the course.
As to the sincereness of the proposal by God, whether we understand it or not, the offer is most certainly sincere. God knowing that Cain would kill his brother anyway does not make the offer less valid. It is not as if God said, "I know he's going to do it anyway, but I'll make the offer anyway." But, on the other hand, it is also not as if God thought that Cain might not do it, if he made the offer. He knew he still would, because that was part of his decree and plan.
Jay wrote:
Are you under the impression that God knew what men would do in time, then chose to step in here and there or do you believe that God's involvement in time was part of his plan, therefore the responses of men to God's direct and indirect involvement were also part of his plan?
I reply:
I would be comfortable stating that everything has been known to the LORD from eternity and His plan of redemption had been settled before creation. Logically, to have established such, He is not peering down through time or interjecting in various places along this "time map". However I would be quite comfortable with stating that God's eternal will is expressed through the Father and God's will in time has been revealed to us through His Son Jesus Christ. The two must reconcile and never be at odds with the other. That brings me back to Cain.
The conundrum for Calvinists with this passage is in explaining how the concept of unconditional election fits with the sincerity of God's offer to Cain. If Cain is considered lost and reprobated (I believe that is the case with Cain)then this sincere offer has to be reconciled with the antithesis of unconditional election, that of unconditional reprobation.
How is it that God could make a sincere offer to Cain if He had already excluded him from election from before the foundations of the world?
"How is it that God could make a sincere offer to Cain if He had already excluded him from election from before the foundations of the world?"
You have to answer the same question.
How is it that God could make a sincere offer to Cain if He had already seen Cain's end before the foundations of the world?
The Calvinist says this was all part of God's purpose.
You say it was also part of God's purpose, i.e. that men exercise their will absolutely freely.
Here we both share the same burden, yet we both know God does make a sincere offer here to Cain.
Jay asked:
"How is it that God could make a sincere offer to Cain if He had already excluded him from election from before the foundations of the world?"
You have to answer the same question.
I reply:
My reply is simple. He could not make a sincere offer if He had reprobated him before the foundations of the world therefore determinism is inconsistent with Gods character and goodness. On the other hand, He can certainly make a sincere offer of reconciliation knowing full well that the offer will be rejected and this would be fully consistent with our knowledge that the LORD desires all men turn to Him, that none perish. The sincere offer refused places accountability squarely upon man.
"My reply is simple. He could not make a sincere offer if He had reprobated him before the foundations of the world therefore determinism is inconsistent with Gods character and goodness. On the other hand, He can certainly make a sincere offer of reconciliation knowing full well that the offer will be rejected"
Asseting that does not prove it. I could assert the same for your view. You need to show, which I would argue you can't, that the assertion is true logically.
Cain's reprobation was decreed yes.
From your point of view, which I keep bringing out, he was just as much on his way to hell before God created him and before God made the statement. One way or the other, when God spoke to Cain, from your view or mine, Cain was going to reject it. That does not make it any less sincere.
"and this would be fully consistent with our knowledge that the LORD desires all men turn to Him, that none perish. The sincere offer refused places accountability squarely upon man."
Again, we both agree that the accounting is all on man. You assume that in my view man could argue, "I never had a chance, because God made me reprobate."
But, in your view, man could equally argue, "I wouldn't have sinned had God not made me fallible."
First, what does the Bible say to such questions? We both know what the answer is:
Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
"the LORD desires all men turn to Him, that none perish."
God desires all men to believe in him. God desires all men to obey him. God desires all men to love him.
Hence, he commanded as much. Yes?
So, what? I believe the same.
The difference: God did not will that all men believe in him, obey him and love him.
He didn't in my view and he didn't in your view.
We both believe that his will and his desire are two. Since you know Calvinism, I assume you know my view on the two wills.
But, can you see that your view contains the same: For what God desires, obedience, love and faith, is not what he wills, which to you is man's freedom to choose or not to choose him.
Here we face the same issues.
I assume you were alluding to this passage:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I will give, probably the stndard remark. Note the words beloved and us-ward. Those explain what the any and all refer to in the passage.
Eventually, we will get to the second big issue, what makes the difference between a believer and a nonbeliever, but I don't think we're finished here yet.
Jay,
Claiming I am making an assertion without proving it is to ignore the obvious. If the LORD determined to create a man for the purpose of reprobation, we cannot turn around and state that the LORD desires all men to be saved or sincerely offers anything of the sort to the determined reprobate. Granted, it is an assertion regarding the illogical Calvinist position but it is not challenged by returning another assertion regarding another issue. You have agreed the LORD desires all men to be saved yet it appears you hold to the determinist theology of the Calvinist. How do you reconcile the two thoughts. How is the LORD sincere with Cain if the LORD had already determined his reprobation and by most Calvinist accounts, did so for His glory? Let's not appeal to arguments against other issues. How do you explain what I have mentioned above?
"Claiming I am making an assertion without proving it is to ignore the obvious. If the LORD determined to create a man for the purpose of reprobation, we cannot turn around and state that the LORD desires all men to be saved or sincerely offers anything of the sort to the determined reprobate."
And, what I am saying is that it is just as sincere as God creating a man he knows will be damned and saying the same thing to them. Basiccaly, your argument is that it cannot be sincere if it cannot be actuated and I am saying that would be just as much an argument in your view, since God already knew Cain would reject it, therefore the acceptance of the offer could in no way be actuated.
Also, I have answered your question since if God desires that all men be saved and they are not, then there must be something above the desire of the Almighty. That is his will. He has a desire, expressed in his commands, as I said, but his WILL is displayed in what occurs. For, if he is not WILLING that anyone die, they would not surely die. There is a distinction in his WILL and his DESIRE both in your view and mine.
"You have agreed the LORD desires all men to be saved yet it appears you hold to the determinist theology of the Calvinist. How do you reconcile the two thoughts. How is the LORD sincere with Cain if the LORD had already determined his reprobation and by most Calvinist accounts, did so for His glory? Let's not appeal to arguments against other issues. How do you explain what I have mentioned above?"
Again, you must say God desires all men to be saved but he does not will all men be saved. So do I.
The distinction is between his desire and will.
God offered Adam and Eve the sincere choice, yet, he placed the tree there, allowed Satan to be there and tempt Eve, knowing the whole time what Eve would do. That offer to them was true, but God knew they would not accept it as he knows no one will accept anything from him, unless HE takes away the blind eyes, opens the ears and gives a new heart to them.
Jay wrote:
And, what I am saying is that it is just as sincere as God creating a man he knows will be damned and saying the same thing to them. Basiccaly, your argument is that it cannot be sincere if it cannot be actuated and I am saying that would be just as much an argument in your view, since God already knew Cain would reject it, therefore the acceptance of the offer could in no way be actuated.
I reply:
You are making a false dichotomy with this argument. There is nothing in scripture or reasonable logic that infers God's foreknowledge demands necessity or removes a valid choice. God can make a sincere offer knowing that it will be rejected albeit willingly so. He can make this offer for the purpose of providing a way of redemption consistent with His desire and not contradict his will that what is known will happen and mercy and justice will prevail. However, it is a challenge to suggest that God's will is opposed to His desire, that He could sincerely make an offer all the while having predestinated the one to whom the offer is made to an end other than what He supposedly has sincerely offered.
I am struggling with why you are not grasping the concept of sincerity. We could not design the killing of someone all while feigning the saving of him. To put God's will at odds with His desires is to make Him double minded in my view. Additionally, you are making an a priori assumption that God's will cannot be thwarted.
Is it your defense that God is sincere in His desires yet opposed to that sincerity in His will?
Basically, I guess I don't understand what you think God is saying to Cain? What extension do you mean?
God asked three questions and made two other statements.
Why art thou wroth? (As if he didn't know)
why is thy countenance fallen? (As if he didn't know)
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? (True or Not)
if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. (True or Not)
And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (True or Not)
Have you been suggesting all along that God was calling Cain to salvation here or that he was trying to stop him from killing Abel?
It seems to me here, now that I have taken more time to respond, that God is simply letting Cain know that He knows what Cain is up to.
As to God being "doubleminded," I had said that he expressed his desire in his commands and his will is what happens. In one sense, God desires men to obey, etc. through his commands, in the other sense, what happens is what he is willing to happen.
If he were not willing that anyone die, he has the ability to keep that from happening. If people die, he was willing that they die.
As I have said before, you have the same thing in your view if you say that God desires all men without exception to be saved and they are not, then he was not willing that they be saved.
I also correctly noted the verse you referenced: "2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I will give, probably the standard remark. Note the words beloved and us-ward. Those explain what the any and all refer to in the passage."
Beloved...to us-ward. Not to everyon-ward.
God is not willing that any of us, BELOVED, perish.
I'm sorry I got so far off track, but I can't see that God was doing anything, in the Cain verses, but let Cain know he couldn't hide anything from Him.
Jay, what I have been stating all along is that God extended His hand by telling Cain what he could gain by following after Him. It actually has nothing to do with Abel's murder and instead has everything to do with Cain's displeasure at having his groceries rejected as a sacrifice.
I have previously offered these comments that go to the heart of your problem here.
The quandary exists among both Calvinists and Arminians. For the Arminian, the tension is with explaining why one turns to the LORD and another resists. We do not know. However, with the Calvinist, the antinomy is irreconcilable. Divine determinism is excused from responsibility. From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist conflict between divine determination and human accountability does far more damage to God's character and goodness than our lack of comprehension for why a man resists the grace of God and another does not resist.
We are still left with your thesis that God's desires are at odds with His intentions. If God was sincere with Cain, then Calvinist determinism cannot logically stand.
I would disagree that the portion only deals with the sacrifice. The whole story of Cain and Abel is very compact. God asks Cain several questions, including after he kills Abel, that do not appear to be an "extension," but a showing to Cain that God knows what is going on, what Cain is planning and, finally, what Cain did. Just as God asked Adam and Eve questions in Ch 3.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. If you use that same standard of logic, the Arminian is not just left with "We do not know," they stand against the same argument. If that were the case, then the Calvinist could just say, "We do not know." The argument is equally valid, then, and again we are left with a stalemate.
The Arminian would not let the Calvinist off with that line and the Calvinist is not going to let the Arminian off with that line.
I just don't think this is the place to prove the distinction between God's desires, or commands, and his will.
Where would you like to go next?
Jay, you are taking the passage beyond it's immediate context.
“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Ge 4:3-7 AV)
The passage is not instructing us with regard to God's omniscience. Instead we are being shown God's displeasure with Cain's groceries and Cain's wroth and countenance because of that rejection. Cain's act of murder results from his willful rejection of God's extended hand.
Unless you can come to terms with this, I do not think we are going to progress here.
Again, I think the comment "if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him," is looking forward.
"Cain's act of murder results from his willful rejection of God's extended hand."
No, his act of murder results from his jealousy toward Abel. No doubt, he is also angry toward God, yet unable to murder God.
Again, I do not see the "extended hand." God did indeed show Cain that, in his question, He knew what was going on.
We haven't discussed other relevant aspects of this episode like why didn't God accept Cain's sacrifice?
Truly, I hope that you will leave room for disagreement, since, if you look at what is said, this is what the passage teaches:
God accepted Abel not Cain.
Cain got mad.
God had a conversation with Cain.
Cain killed Abel.
These are the facts. You and I have been discussing what we think those facts extend to, and we disagree.
"Unless you can come to terms with this, I do not think we are going to progress here."
This seems to me to indicate that if I do not see it your way, then we cannot progress. There's just no way you can prove from this passage that God is not sincere if Calvinism is true. You may want to try from some others, but this is not the one, or even close.
"The passage is not instructing us with regard to God's omniscience."
Well, the passage is anthropomorphic, yes, but I am saying it is not instructing us as to the sincerity of God in relation to the truthfulness of Arminianism or Calvinism either.
I see that this argument has been debated before:
http://conversationsincalvinism.blogspot.com/2006/05/does-story-of-cain-contradict.html
And there, a stalemate.
I see that I am not the only one who would disagree on the issue. If you would like to discuss something else or another passage. Let's move on.
Post a Comment