Irresistible Grace -- What About Cain?
This is the fourth installment in this series dealing with ‘irresistible grace’ or as some call it ‘effectual grace’ whereby God calls individuals to salvation. That in and of itself is correct, however the question is does God coerce or override the individual’s freewill? Those who insist that God’s will cannot be resisted confuse what God wills unconditionally with what He wills conditionally. God wills the salvation of all persons conditionally – conditioned on their repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, Biblically speaking God’s will in this sense can be resisted by an unrepentant heart. As Dr. Geisler says on page 97 of Chosen But Free, “Election is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver (God), but it is conditional from the standpoint of the receiver. And since God foreknew for sure who will receive it, the result is certain. Thus, in this sense God’s grace on the elect is irresistible.”
Let’s look at one account in the beginning of Scripture and see what it teaches us regarding this topic.
Genesis 4:3-13
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. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
In this account, God actually singled out a ‘totally depraved’ man – Cain – and confronted him over his offering and attitude. God lovingly ‘challenges’ Cain and He provides him with a choice. The choice is to ‘doest well’ and if Cain does the right thing, the LORD promises him that he will be accepted by God. So, a ‘totally depraved’ man is faced with a ‘choice’ or 'decision' to seek and obey God or not to seek Him. Sadly we see as a result of Cain’s unrepentant heart that he chooses to disobey God. We know the rest of the story – Cain made the wrong choice using his freewill. Abel chose to obey God and Cain did not – Cain chose to do it his way.
The nuggets I glean from this passage are that even in the beginning of earth’s history, shortly after sin entered the human race, God actively pursued His creation. God personally encounters Cain in love and with His holy conviction. God does not force or make Cain do anything. He simply holds him accountable for his actions and He asks him to ‘contemplate’ his sinful state. God’s dealing with Cain is motivated by His desire to see Cain ‘do well’ and follow God. It can’t be any clearer.
I ask a simple question. Did not God ask Cain to reform, or better yet repent of his sin and choose to doest well? The resounding answer is YES! Then God, who created frail man certainly knows our limitations and capabilities. Why would God ask His creation to do something He knows they can’t possibly do – to follow the extreme Calvinist’s position of total depravity which infers a dead man can not make a decision or choice to seek after the things of God? Only God can save the person who chooses to repent and believe and that is the POWER of the gospel. But man is responsible for the repenting and believing part.
Simply put, God put Cain to a test that He knew the outcome of, but He still gave Cain a choice. Just as he does each of us! We don’t know how long Cain wrestled with this, but we do know he failed. Clearly Cain resisted God’s grace as a result of his unrepentant heart and a choice of his will. Remember John 3:16...
God is love!
In Him,
Eye
posted by Eye at
Friday, July 28, 2006
25 Comments:
Eye,
Excellent post. I believe the Truth agrees with you on this one. :)
You asked: "Why would God ask His creation to do something He knows they can’t possibly do"
But it seems that this is the case when He gave the Law to the Israelites, isn't it? I'm not trying to fight the point, I promise. :)
But that's the way us dispensationalists are told to interpret the Law....your thoughts?
By
Anonymous, at July 29, 2006 12:05 AM
Mike,
The only person who kept the law was Jesus -- and of course that is because he was perfect and sinless!
Those of us who are born sinners can't keep the law, the law was given to drive us to The Savior.
Back to Cain, my point in that text is 'repentance which is a matter of the heart and will'. Cain did have the ability to do that and yet he rejected that call...
Hope that helps.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at July 29, 2006 8:30 AM
Eye,
Yep, clears up the muddiness which so often plagues my mind. Thanks again for the right doctrine, it's refreshing.
By
Anonymous, at July 29, 2006 11:34 AM
Eye,
Excellent post, I not only believe the Truth agrees with you but that this is the truth.
By
Jerry Grace, at July 31, 2006 8:45 AM
Dear brother Jerry,
Thank you for coming to this Blog, and I'm honored you did -- as one fellow Mississippian to another! I was born in Starkville and raised in Clarksdale until the ripe old age of 10, and yes I still consider that great state as my home state even though I've now lived for some twenty years two states east of it in Georgia.
I remember sliding down the Mississippi levee on cardboard boxes -- now that's something every kid should have the distinct honor of doing when they get bored. We'd head up to Tunica and find a good spot and my folks would pull out some packing boxes and tear them down until they looked like a brown sled and then they would give us the green light! As a parent of three I know what they were up to now, trying to wear us out so we would beg for the bed by 8 o'clock! That was back before Tunica got all fancy and sinful. It was a couple of streets with sharecropper shotgun shacks and a couple of tired retail strip centers.
I checked out your Blog and enjoyed it very much! Keep up the great work.
ps -- my parents and grandparents grew up in Mississippi around DeKalb and Baysprings.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at July 31, 2006 9:35 AM
Eye,
I wonder what role "common grace" and the Holy Spirit have in the ability of unregenrate humans to respond to God's commands? There is certainly a work of God involved with the restraining of evil as I understand 2 Thessalonians 2:6,7. This restraining is a blessing to all the world and must perhaps limit the blinding affect of sin and Satan with the unsaved. The Holy Spirit is working to reprove the world of sin, righteousness and judgment per John 14. Surely this too works in some way to keep the lost open to the gospel. Something for me to dwell on I suppose.
Interesting that you mention Mississippi and levees. I have just started reading a book on the Great Flood of 1927. A lot of work goes into restaining that River, yet it seems to keep winning.
I hear a crash sounds like the twins are at it again, better leave. The heat wave here in Michigan seem to keep the kids up longer than usual.
Blessings,
Leo
By
Leo, at August 01, 2006 9:08 PM
Dear Leo,
Great to hear from you and glad you survived your business trips! It was 95 in the shade here today...
You raise a good point with regard to God's grace and His active role in the world. Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
This verse tells us that God is reproving the world of sin.
Now that word reprove is indeed an interesting word. Here is how it is defined in Strongs:
1) to convict, refute, confute
a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose
2) to find fault with, correct
a) by word
1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove
2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation
b) by deed
1) to chasten, to punish
I also notice John 16:8 clearly teaches the reproving is in regard to the world which I believe includes every person, not just the elect. Of course, as we read the Holy Writ, only the elect will ultimately repent and believe the gospel. That said, each person under the conviction of the Spirit hearing the gospel has that same opportunity -- sadly many choose not to believe...
To me Cain is a sound example of one hearing and knowing what to do and still choosing to do things his own way.
Hope the children are fine.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at August 01, 2006 9:27 PM
Great post Eye! I agree with everything you have said.
Geisler: "Election is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver (God), but it is conditional from the standpoint of the receiver. And since God foreknew for sure who will receive it, the result is certain. Thus, in this sense God’s grace on the elect is irresistible."
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I disagree with part of Geisler's statement. Election = chosen. How can being chosen be unconditional on God's part? I agree that the grace extended is unconditional, but not the election part on either side.
As far as the irresistible part, I can mostly agree with Geisler that it is irresistible for those of us who are the elect. We've been given an offer that we can't refuse. However, I don't think the "irresistibleness" of grace is what God was trying to convey to us in His word. I think God was trying to show us His LOVE toward us while we were yet sinners.
Irresistible Grace is a Calvinist term and its Calvinist definition demands the opposite of what God has said in His word - man has a choice in the matter even though, to some, it may be irresistible. God's grace IS resistible. As you've pointed out, Cain is the first example of resistance to God's grace.
I haven't read the book yet, but maybe Geisler is merely trying to meet the Calvinist halfway-ish in an effort to come together as brothers and sisters in Christ?
Sorry Eye, I'm not trying to be difficult.
By
Dawn, at August 02, 2006 4:52 PM
Eye: "Those of us who are born sinners can't keep the law, the law was given to drive us to The Savior."
Exactly Eye!
Unfortunately, Calvinists erroneously use this example to prove that God's telling us to believe, receive, repent, etc. is impossible. Like He's telling us to do things we can't possibly do. Not true.
They're comparing apples to oranges because the law was NEVER intended to SAVE us. Rather, as you have stated, its purpose was to show us our need for a savior. It's other purposes were to show us the perfectness and holiness of God and it is THE guide to how we we SHOULD conduct our everyday lives by walking in the Spirit. But I digress.
The point is we CAN make a choice and grace IS irresistible.
By
Dawn, at August 02, 2006 5:05 PM
Dawn,
Great points! I re-read Geisler's statement again. I think you have hit the nail on the head in that he is trying to bridge the gap and reach out to the extremers by using their lingo. I hadn't really thought about it like that, but I do think you have a point now that I have meditated some more on that paragraph.
Let's look at Geisler's quote again:
Geisler: "Election is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver (God), but it is conditional from the standpoint of the receiver. And since God foreknew for sure who will receive it, the result is certain. Thus, in this sense God’s grace on the elect is irresistible."
I realize this might stir up a rather large hornet's nest but what this really says to me is simply that God truly desires ALL men to be saved and He wants them to be part of His family (1 Timothy 2:4) -- the elect. But, that said, God KNOWS that will not be. Why? Not because of God's choice, rather it is conditioned on man's choice not to heed the call to repent and believe the gospel...
God is love.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at August 02, 2006 9:55 PM
Eye,
Fact: God offers choices.
Fact: We make real choices from our own wills that have real consequences.
Fact: God holds us responsible for our choices.
Almost all people agree on those biblical facts.
Fact: Without God's intervention, a man will never use his will to choose to honor and obey God. This is the "regeneration before faith" discussion that is ongoing elsewhere.
Fact: God sovereignly directs the actions of all men (Job 14:5; Ps 33:14-15; Pr 16:9; 20:24; Jer 10:23; Dan 4:35; Ac 17:26).
Calvinists accept all these biblical facts but admit that the human mind cannot reconcile all five facts together this side of glory. Arminians reject the last two biblical facts.
One danger for Calvinists is being proud of the ability to hold on to a philosophy that contains such a conundrum. One danger for Arminians is putting human reason above Scripture by saying, "I will not accept that fact because I cannot make it fit with my reasoning."
God calls on Cain to make a choice, Cain fails to make the right choice (because God did not predestinate him and enable him to choose right). Cain dishonors God and kills his brother. God holds Cain accountable for his actions. It fits in Calvinism, conundrums and all.
Dr Davy
By
Anonymous, at August 15, 2006 3:47 PM
Dr. Davy: "Fact: Without God's intervention, a man will never use his will to choose to honor and obey God. This is the "regeneration before faith" discussion that is ongoing elsewhere."
God's grace is prevalent to some degree to everyone. (Matthew 5:45; Romans 1:19-20) This form of grace is WHY God holds us responsible. We are able to see the truth enough to be able to put our trust in God.
Dr. Davy: "Fact: God sovereignly directs the actions of all men (Job 14:5; Ps 33:14-15; Pr 16:9; 20:24; Jer 10:23; Dan 4:35; Ac 17:26)."
I don't deny the fact that God is in complete control. These scriptures do not teach that God makes us DO evil or good. They only say that God is in complete control over what He allows whether we are good or bad. He uses us for HIS purposes.
Dr. Davy: “Calvinists accept all these biblical facts but admit that the human mind cannot reconcile all five facts together this side of glory. Arminians reject the last two biblical facts.”
That has not been my experience, present company included. In fact, you ARE reconciling these facts together with your form of systematic theology known as Calvinism...of the extreme persuasion.
Yes, you have admitted you don’t necessarily understand it, but you ARE reconciling it and even stating that your interpretation is the correct one. You go on further to say that non-Calvinists (though you used the term Arminian) reject these biblical facts. That is not true; at least not in my case. I think it is safe to say that it is not true in Eye’s case, either.
What we reject is the Calvinist interpretation of these scriptures. Does God direct our steps? Yes, but I don’t believe He micro-manages us. I don’t believe He guides our EVERY step. Can He if He wanted to? Yes, but I don’t think He does, for if He did then HE would be responsible for all the evil in the world. I believe we have free-will and He will allow us to be free TO A POINT. And only God knows what that point is. I’ll expound more on the “Born Again Before Faith” thread when time permits.
Dr. Davy: “One danger for Calvinists is being proud of the ability to hold on to a philosophy that contains such a conundrum. One danger for Arminians is putting human reason above Scripture by saying, "I will not accept that fact because I cannot make it fit with my reasoning."”
You are right that some Calvinists are very proud of their system of theology and believe they “have arrived.” It’s just too bad that “Arminians” either don’t have the intellect or the humility to acquiesce to what “scholarship” has concluded to be the truth. And pride, when left unchecked can be a grave danger to one’s self and others.
I agree that putting human reason above Scripture is very dangerous. Maybe some are saying to themselves that they are not willing to accept the “actual” facts of the bible, but I am not one of them. No, I know better than that. When I was first given the list of scriptures that you all call Calvinist proof-texts I wondered, “Have I been wrong all these years in my belief and understanding of what the bible teaches?” I had NEVER seen Calvinism in any of the scriptures presented, but taken out of their contexts some of them gave me pause which took me aback at first, and even brought me to tears. But I told God that I wanted the truth and would believe whatever the truth IS. So I read all the scriptures in context and even consulted a few commentaries. The only way I would become a Calvinist is if I bowed to “scholarship” over the clear teaching of the word of God.
I agree with Eye that Calvinists take terms like “dead” farther than God intended them to be taken. But Calvinists don’t take the term “dead to sin” that far, do they? No, because THAT idea doesn’t fit the Calvinist construct of “dead”. Calvinists can’t have it both ways.
Dr. Davy: “God calls on Cain to make a choice, Cain fails to make the right choice (because God did not predestinate him and enable him to choose right). Cain dishonors God and kills his brother. God holds Cain accountable for his actions. It fits in Calvinism, conundrums and all.”
Where does it say that God did not predestinate Cain and enable him to choose right? Doesn’t your interpretation do “violence” to the scripture?
Why does God even bother to give us this account as though Cain DID have a choice? Why does God write like men have a choice throughout the entire bible?
Isn’t that pretty deceptive of God to make us think we’re to take the things He says at face value?
Could it be that Calvinism has caused the conundrums and NOT the word of God? Hmmm.
I guess we’re all just a bunch of robots?
By
Dawn, at August 16, 2006 2:16 PM
Dawn,
Well said and a hearty amen! I don't think I can add much of anything else to your well-stated response.
I snicker every time I see the reference to robots because there is (or at least used to be) a local preacher on cable over here and he had a show called 'God's Robots'. The banner hung right over the podium....
Hmm, you think he was a Calvinist... ;-)
dr davy,
Nice try on Cain and believe me, some of the best bulldogs for the extreme Calvinist camp have tried to refute the clear facts of this text, and you gave a well thought out response that fits nicely in your system, but that said I don't think the following points are addressed:
God loves a depraved man and has a conversation with him.
Irresistible Grace as I understand it means if God calls you then you will obey and follow. Chicken or the egg -- only those who follow are the elect? Since Cain didn't follow he couldn't have been one of the elect, right? Well we can certainly sit in judgment now and understand that with the completion of the canon -- but Cain didn't know that at the time of his confrontation! Did God? Yes!
After all, since he wasn't one of the elect to begin with -- why was God dealing with him??? I mean come on, what's the point of confronting a non-elect when it is already determined and settled by God picking him for eternal damnation anyway as the extremers teach? I mean he didn't have snowball's chance in you know where if you follow that teaching because there was nothing he could do according to hyper-calvinism. It was all SDG!
Could it really be as simple as God truly loved Cain and wanted to see Him repent? Eye for one will never believe anything other than that, for that is the God of the Bible I know, love and follow!
Back to Dawn's point, for God to give Cain a choice shows us God's heart -- Cain's reaction shows us his heart! Abel managed to make the right choice and I submit Cain had the ABILITY to make it to -- he didn't want to repent and believe. But if he had, well guess what -- he would have been one of the elect.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at August 16, 2006 4:34 PM
Eye and Dawn,
Eye wrote: "God loves a depraved man and has a conversation with him."
Dr Davy responds: I agree. God, out of His love, offers grace to all people.
Eye wrote: "Irresistible Grace as I understand it means if God calls you then you will obey and follow. Chicken or the egg -- only those who follow are the elect? Since Cain didn't follow he couldn't have been one of the elect, right? Well we can certainly sit in judgment now and understand that with the completion of the canon -- but Cain didn't know that at the time of his confrontation! Did God? Yes!
Eye continues: "After all, since he wasn't one of the elect to begin with -- why was God dealing with him??? I mean come on, what's the point of confronting a non-elect when it is already determined and settled by God picking him for eternal damnation anyway as the extremers teach? I mean he didn't have snowball's chance in you know where if you follow that teaching because there was nothing he could do according to hyper-calvinism. It was all SDG!"
Dr Davy reponds: Yes, if God 'called' Cain, Cain would have responded. But what God is doing here is commanding Cain, confronting Cain, telling Cain what the requirements are. Cain, of his own free will, rejected it.
You are upset because Calvinists say that God knew Cain couldn't repent, yet God demanded obedience. But the Arminian speaks of God's foreknowledge, so God foreknew that Cain wouldn't repent, yet demanded obedience. What have the Arminians gained?
Eye wrote: "Could it really be as simple as God truly loved Cain and wanted to see Him repent?"
Yes, God loves all people and it is His will, in some sense, that all repent and enjoy His blessings forever. But, in the other sense of God's will, only those to whom God grants election will do so. The others will reject God of their own free will (which is in bondage to sin). All kinds o' conundra!
Dawn wrote: "Where does it say that God did not predestinate Cain and enable him to choose right? Doesn’t your interpretation do “violence” to the scripture?"
Dr Davy responds: Gen 4 is silent concerning the inner workings of God's plan for Cain. We have to go elsewhere to explain what was happening. What I expressed is the Calvinist explanation.
Dawn wrote: "Why does God even bother to give us this account as though Cain DID have a choice? Why does God write like men have a choice throughout the entire bible?"
Dr Davy responds: People do have choices. God does direct those choices. There is Scripture that teaches both. That's the conundrum.
Dawn wrote: "Isn’t that pretty deceptive of God to make us think we’re to take the things He says at face value? Could it be that Calvinism has caused the conundrums and NOT the word of God? Hmmm. I guess we’re all just a bunch of robots?"
Dr Davy responds: No, God is not deceptive. Scripture teaches that too. Another conundrum. And even though God directs all our actions, we're not robots. Aren't you impressed that intelligent people can embrace a theology that makes so little sense? But another way to see it is: No intelligent person would propose such a system if they did not believe that's what the Bible teaches.
Y'all know, of course, we're not going to settle this.
Your brother,
Dr Davy
By
Anonymous, at August 17, 2006 7:23 AM
PS -- and the text does say God told him (Cain) that if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
This looks to me like a conditional statement -- clear and simple. God tells Cain 'if you do this, then I will accept you.'
God would not have asked Cain to repent and do well if He didn't want him to do that would He? I might give more credence to the extreme Calvinist teachings if this account did not play out the way it does in Scripture -- in other words it would be easier for me to buy into the argument that Cain was not one of the elect and chosen for Hell if God had not taken the time to deal with him personally. But God did do that! My point is if He would do it for Cain, would He do it for you and me and everyone else? My answer is YES!!!
And, if He asked that of Cain don't you believe it was possible for Cain to do it?
Think about it this way -- as a Jew reading the Torah you would have been pulling for old Cain through verse 7 of Genesis 4 and the thought of him not being able to repent like his brother and parents would have never crossed your mind because you would not understand nor believe that God had chosen some for eternal damnation...
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at August 17, 2006 7:26 AM
dr davy,
I agree with you that this friendly exchange will not resolve this age old debate. That said, I do find this text in Genesis 4 challenging to several of the extreme Calvinist's positions.
1. Depraved man can not even contemplate the things of God, much less act on them. Remember, Cain actually did present an offering -- soooo, he did hear the message and acted on it to a degree.
2. Cain resisted God when He showed up and confonted him. Saul of Tarsus did not. Why? I submit it was an act of their individual wills -- not some secretive regeneration occurring before being born again. It's another topic -- but I believe Saul was saved on the Damascus road and indwelt with the Spirit at that point and then 'filled' or baptized with the Spirit 3 days later when the disciple prayed for him...
3. God conditions a result on Cain's obedience. This to me is the most intriguing part of this discussion. If Cain had repented and gotten right with his brother and God by bringing the right offering, there is no doubt he would have been accepted! God promised such!
4. God foreknew the outcome obviously, but that does not deter God from confronting this man! I can not understand the extreme position that says God chose Cain for destruction knowing that would be the end result, and yet you have God 'reasoning' with Cain -- 'come let us reason together...' over his sin if there was absolutely nothing Cain could do about it in the truest sense of repenting and believing the gospel.
Back to my feeble Stargate analogy -- the gate was activated for Cain even though God knew he would not walk through it! How do I know it was activated? Because God as much as said so in that, 'if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? The power was on -- ie the power of the gospel was available to save. God's grace was evident in that exchange with Cain and yet Cain resisted God's grace!
This is why I find Geisler's 'moderate' Calvinism if one can call it that because it is so much more congruent with Scripture IMHO. God is sovereign and yet man is responsible. It is left up to man to believe and ultimately we will all be held accountable based on whether we did or did not. After all, Cain believed in God -- he heard his voice. The demons do the same. The issue isn't believing with an intellectual understanding, rather it is believing in faith -- for without it it is impossible to please Him. (I know I'm preaching to the choir... :-) ) Anyway, like the Jews in Egypt on the night of the passover -- they had to believe that killing that lamb and putting some of its blood on the doorposts would keep the death angel away. If you didn't believe -- you died. Your obedience to the Word proves your faith (Heb 5:9).
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at August 17, 2006 11:00 AM
Dr Davy: “I agree. God, out of His love, offers grace to all people.”
So I guess God’s offer to Cain was not sincere since He didn’t “enable” Cain to accept the offer? If that is the case, then God does not really “offer” grace to ALL people. What kind of “love” puts forth an insincere offer?
But the bible says that God DOES TRULY offer grace to all people. And God has made it very clear that it is THE PEOPLE who refuse His offer of grace as seen in the account of Cain and not because God didn't "enable" him to respond positively.
Dr Davy: “Yes, if God 'called' Cain, Cain would have responded. But what God is doing here is commanding Cain, confronting Cain, telling Cain what the requirements are. Cain, of his own free will, rejected it.”
Genesis 4:6-7 “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.”
There is where I think Calvinists are wrong. God IS calling Cain. In God’s reminder to Cain of the requirements He is CALLING Cain. He’s REASONING with Cain. He’s trying to PERSUADE Cain. He’s saying why are you so wroth and forlorn? He’s asking rhetorical questions. Cain knows the right answers. He’s reminding Cain that He is in sin if he doesn’t do well. He even reminds Cain that God will put him over Abel (Cain’s right as the firstborn), if He would but do well!
You are right in one point. Cain rejected God of his own free will. BUT not because God had not called him. This IS an example of God’s CALLING us!
Eye said: “Think about it this way -- as a Jew reading the Torah you would have been pulling for old Cain through verse 7 of Genesis 4 and the thought of him not being able to repent like his brother and parents would have never crossed your mind because you would not understand nor believe that God had chosen some for eternal damnation...”
This is similar to what I have said in the past about Paul reminding Timothy to continue in what the scriptures have taught him and that they were able to make him wise unto salvation.
2 Timothy 3:14-15 “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
What were those scriptures? They were the Old Testament. He had the account of Cain and everyone else God dealt with throughout the scriptures. Those accounts were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. The scriptures teach salvation through belief in a coming Savior. Part of that belief was following the Law which points to the Savior. Cain was not properly following the Law; therefore he was rejecting the provision God had made for salvation. In essence, Cain was not a believer of His own free will and God did everything EXCEPT force Him to believe, which God never does with ANY of us. There is no such thing as Irresistible Grace.
Dr. Davy: “You are upset because Calvinists say that God knew Cain couldn't repent, yet God demanded obedience. But the Arminian speaks of God's foreknowledge, so God foreknew that Cain wouldn't repent, yet demanded obedience. What have the Arminians gained?”
What is gained by the non-Calvinist point of view? I admit that THIS is the mystery for me. Why did God create the world and mankind knowing that some would never make it to heaven. That is where my faith comes into play and I must say that God’s ways are higher than our ways. BUT at the VERY least God has given us a REAL CHOICE in the matter! It is quite clear throughout His word.
Dr Davy: “Gen 4 is silent concerning the inner workings of God's plan for Cain. We have to go elsewhere to explain what was happening. What I expressed is the Calvinist explanation.”
It is silent because there is no such thing as to what you’re talking about with regard to God’s plan for Cain when it came to his salvation. God is showing us WHY Cain was not saved. And it was simply that he refused to do what God required for salvation.
Dr Davy: “People do have choices. God does direct those choices. There is Scripture that teaches both. That's the conundrum.”
I agree we do have choices and that God directs some of our steps because He KNOWS where the circumstances will lead: good and bad. He uses us for HIS purposes. BUT the bible does not teach that God chooses to enable only certain people to believe the gospel! There is only a conundrum in the Calvinist’s mind.
Dr Davy: “No, God is not deceptive. Scripture teaches that too. Another conundrum. And even though God directs all our actions, we're not robots. Aren't you impressed that intelligent people can embrace a theology that makes so little sense? But another way to see it is: No intelligent person would propose such a system if they did not believe that's what the Bible teaches.”
Right, God is NOT deceptive. There is NO conundrum. Again, there is only a conundrum in the mind of a Calvinist. He does not direct ALL of our actions. I thought you guys taught that the devil was the one in control? That people are in BONDAGE to sin because they were under the devil’s control? Where does the devil fit into all of this if it is GOD who is directing our actions?
Dr. Davy: “Aren't you impressed that intelligent people can embrace a theology that makes so little sense?”
No. And I’ll leave it at that.
Dr. Davy: “Y'all know, of course, we're not going to settle this.”
I know that we won’t settle this between us, but I’m doing this for those who are undecided. And those who are searching for truth. And for those who still have hope.
By
Dawn, at August 17, 2006 1:57 PM
LOL Eye, we said some of the same things and I had not even read your response before I posted mine. :-)
By
Dawn, at August 17, 2006 2:02 PM
Dawn,
You wrote: "What is gained by the non-Calvinist point of view? I admit that THIS is the mystery for me. Why did God create the world and mankind knowing that some would never make it to heaven. That is where my faith comes into play and I must say that God’s ways are higher than our ways."
You also wrote: "There is NO conundrum."
Conundrum, mystery -- tomayto, tomahto.
Allow me to add a fine point of exegesis. You wrote: "He even reminds Cain that God will put him over Abel (Cain’s right as the firstborn), if He would but do well!"
You were referencing Gen 4:7 -- "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."
If I understand you, you are saying that "thou shalt rule over him" is God's promise that Cain would rule over Abel.
Actually, the near referent for "his desire" and "over him" is "sin," not "Abel." Sin, which is personified here as lying at the door, desires to enslave Cain, but God exhorts Cain to rule over sin. (The imperfect "thou shalt" has an imperative sense, "thou must.")
I wrote that Gen 4 is silent with regard to the inner workings of God's plan for Cain's salvation. You responded: "It is silent because there is no such thing as to what you’re talking about with regard to God’s plan for Cain when it came to his salvation. God is showing us WHY Cain was not saved. And it was simply that he refused to do what God required for salvation."
If we do not look elsewhere for the explanation of God's workings with Cain -- that is, if we confine our exegesis to these verses -- then God is preaching works righteousness to Cain. All God says is that if Cain does well God will accept him. God doesn't call for repentance or faith, only works. And we all agree that there is no salvation in works.
My point is, in order to understand the full meaning of God's ultimatum to Cain, we have to appeal to our understanding of salvation as we understand it from other Scriptures.
When God exhorts Cain to rule over sin, the only way that can be done is for Cain to turn to God in faith, looking forward to the atonement in Christ.
You wrote: "BUT the bible does not teach that God chooses to enable only certain people to believe the gospel!"
Sure it does! I have listed several verses (and Nathan has offered several on your site), but you do not accept them.
(I would encourage readers to check out the discussion on Dawn's site, starting with "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth." Sorry, I'm not computer savvy enough to be able to put a link in my message.)
Dr Davy
By
Anonymous, at August 18, 2006 7:51 AM
Dr. Davy: “You [Dawn] wrote: "What is gained by the non-Calvinist point of view? I admit that THIS is the mystery for me. Why did God create the world and mankind knowing that some would never make it to heaven. That is where my faith comes into play and I must say that God’s ways are higher than our ways."
You [Dawn] also wrote: "There is NO conundrum."
Conundrum, mystery -- tomayto, tomahto.
There is a VAST difference between your conundrum and mine. In your scenario, people have no choice in the matter of salvation. NONE WHATSOEVER! In my scenario (which I believe is what the bible teaches), WE AT LEAST HAVE A CHOICE! Apples and oranges.
As for your fine point of exegesis on Genesis 4:7, I see that the NIV renders it as you have stated: i.e., God is speaking of sin and not Abel. Either way, God is trying to PERSUADE and REASON with Cain to do well. Your exegesis, whether right or wrong, doesn’t change the facts of what God was showing us with Cain and salvation. It still shows that Cain has a choice for salvation.
Dr. Davy: “If we do not look elsewhere for the explanation of God's workings with Cain -- that is, if we confine our exegesis to these verses -- then God is preaching works righteousness to Cain. All God says is that if Cain does well God will accept him. God doesn't call for repentance or faith, only works. And we all agree that there is no salvation in works.
My point is, in order to understand the full meaning of God's ultimatum to Cain, we have to appeal to our understanding of salvation as we understand it from other Scriptures.
When God exhorts Cain to rule over sin, the only way that can be done is for Cain to turn to God in faith, looking forward to the atonement in Christ.”
Exactly, and I already stated that when I said:
“The scriptures teach salvation through belief in a coming Savior. Part of that belief was following the Law which points to the Savior. Cain was not properly following the Law; therefore he was rejecting the provision God had made for salvation.”
Hebrews 11:4 states the same thing.
Hebrews 11:4 “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.”
Dr. Davy: “You [Dawn] wrote: "BUT the bible does not teach that God chooses to enable only certain people to believe the gospel!"
Sure it does! I have listed several verses (and Nathan has offered several on your site), but you do not accept them.
(I would encourage readers to check out the discussion on Dawn's site, starting with "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth." Sorry, I'm not computer savvy enough to be able to put a link in my message.)”
[I tried to create a link, but they must be working on the system because I keep getting an error message. I'll try it again later.]
The verses you (and Nathan) have listed do not teach that God chooses to enable only certain people to believe the gospel.
Funny you should mention Nathan’s post. I’ve been thinking lately that it’s probably time I respond to his comments on that thread. I’ve only ever read his comments once (though I did “scan” it at a later time to lift a quote of Nathan’s for someone else) and just did not have the stomach or brain to deal with it at the time. Now I think I’m spiritually and emotionally ready to tackle it. I think I’ve been away from Nathan’s venom long enough to where I can allow it to just roll off my back when I read it. I’m thinking I’ll do it in installments.
By
Dawn, at August 18, 2006 7:30 PM
Dawn,
Regarding Nathan's tone in his posts, there is an unfortunate tendency I've seen among Calvinist apologists to be combative rather than winsome. Please try to ignore his tone and consider his arguments; I thought his logic and use of Scripture was good.
Ah! Would that Christians were all kind and gentle, generous and pleasant! Oh, that there were no hypocrites and back-stabbers! Of course, when you have a club made up of confessed sinners, there's going to be some problems.
My point with the tomayto-tomahto thing was: I said there is a conundrum. You said there was no conundrum, but there is a mystery. I am saying that there is no difference between a conundrum and a mystery. Both have to do with a part of a theory that remains unsettled. I was not saying that we both have the same part unsettled.
Dr Davy
By
Anonymous, at August 22, 2006 7:31 AM
dr davy,
Did you check out Nathan's responses to the Cain question on Dawn's blog? I agree that Nathan can 'parrot' the hybrid or extreme Calvinist position about as well as any of the other mouthpieces, but I do think his explanations regarding Cain and Cornelius for that matter were sorely inadequate -- just my opinion...
Interested in your thoughts.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at August 22, 2006 9:17 AM
Dr. Davy,
OK, well I guess we're using the word "conundrum"to mean different things. When I use or read the word conundrum I mean there is a problem more than there is a mystery.
Am I using the word incorrectly when I use it to mean that I see there is a problem? I'm serious. You're much better at english than I am.
Sorry, Eye, I don't mean to go so off topic with the english lesson.
Even so, I don't see a conundrum (in the mystery sense) with God's plan for salvation. I think it makes perfect sense. And I think the Calvinist's version causes the conundrum.
By
Dawn, at August 22, 2006 12:57 PM
Dr. Davy: "Regarding Nathan's tone in his posts, there is an unfortunate tendency I've seen among Calvinist apologists to be combative rather than winsome. Please try to ignore his tone and consider his arguments; I thought his logic and use of Scripture was good."
I read several pages (there are 37 pages!) of Nathan's comments the other night. I do appreciate that he took the time to respond. That was a LOT of work. And he did give me some things to think about with regard to being "blind" and what God means when He uses the term "light." Those were things I recognized during the first read. I haven't allowed myself to think, study or meditate on those specific terms yet; however, something else I noticed was that while his logic and use of scripture "seemed" good he made parallels between scripture that I don't think God ever intended to be paralleled.
Dr. Davy: "Ah! Would that Christians were all kind and gentle, generous and pleasant! Oh, that there were no hypocrites and back-stabbers! Of course, when you have a club made up of confessed sinners, there's going to be some problems."
I agree, but this shouldn't be! And I know I'm guilty of being reactive, at times, so I don't have a lot of room to talk. But these people believe they are RIGHT in acting this way! That's too scary!
I will focus on Nathan's words and not his attitude. :-) I really do love Nathan and I forgive him. It helps to stay away from his blog. :-) I think he is very bright.
By
Dawn, at August 22, 2006 1:33 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at March 06, 2007 4:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home