God's Encouragement to Cain in Genesis 4:6-7

[0isez]

I for one am firm in Calvin's soterology concerning predestination but I would love to hear from you as to why God gave Cain a pep talk in Genesis 4:6-7 encouraging him to repent if there wasn't a chance of salvation? And, if there was, does this mean that the Arminians are right...free choice? And the pharisees?...Follow the law? In short, If Cain's salvation was in his hands and all he had to do was work the law and change his attitude and all would be right then Ordo Salutis would be in question. Would love to hear from you all.

 

[Polanus1561]

Every fallen man must repent as an image of God. God was laying down a principle for all fallen mankind. It does not assume the gift of the ability to do so. All as sheep have gone astray and are obliged to return to God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I for one am firm in Calvin's soterology concerning predestination but I would love to hear from you as to why God gave Cain a pep talk in Genesis 4:6-7 encouraging him to repent if there wasn't a chance of salvation? And, if there was, does this mean that the Arminians are right...free choice? And the pharisees?...Follow the law? In short, If Cain's salvation was in his hands and all he had to do was work the law and change his attitude and all would be right then Ordo Salutis would be in question. Would love to hear from you all.

One of the sins that condemns, if not the principal one, is pride and a refusal of divine mercy. God stooped to Cain and offered him grace--which he was under no obligation to provide. It was kindness to supply a reminder of Cain's duty, both to love his brother and love God. We only know Cain's rejection of God, his mercy, and of his own brother's love in the aftermath and consequences of that rejection.

And did God record this incident for any reason higher than its salutary warning for the rest of mankind? We are under no obligation to infer from the fact that God approached Cain to urge his repentance and to teach him again the law of God, that Cain had within his own spirit the power overcome his own reluctance and bitterness. As complete as our theology is, given the whole body of revelation, we ought rather to conclude that Cain was in the power of the wicked one, 1Jn.3:12, and both could not and would not overcome.

The warning Cain presents every succeeding generation is that hate (and every other sin) begins in the heart, well before it reveals itself in deeds. Only, deal with it in accordance with the mercy of God that is opposed to it and has paved a path clear of it and its doom. For if it is not dealt with, sin and more sin will be born of its attraction, withdrawing from the way of mercy and hope further and faster, until there is nothing left but death (Jas.1:15).

God's purpose in election will not fail, because there are those who are predestined to the correct response to God's warning. All others like Cain are left to themselves and despise the path of life, their free choice indeed but also the only option their nature permits. Does God "fool" Cain into supposing he had a second, contrary inclination to his sinful purpose? That idea seems to presuppose that by virtue of his reminder God also reset Cain's inclination to some sort of "neutral" stance, so he was no more inclined to one way or the other, to the good or the bad, but had the "reason" with which to choose (or overcome) his past course. Why should we imagine such a thing?

From Cain's personal standpoint, he heard the warning and the encouragement. From within the historical moment and the capacity (such as it is) of his will--not constrained by external force--he chose to refuse the word of mercy, but to risk or challenge the threat of judgment, or believed in his strength to sustain the punishment meted. God's secret decree was not already known to Cain, and was no part of his own desire or will or deed when he consummated his hatred in murder. Nor is there any sign he bewailed his brother or his ultimate destiny, but only his temporal inconvenience and loss of prestige.

What objection could be brought against God's sovereignty in salvation by the facts known by anyone, before or after Cain's life, work, and death? The issues that are actually front-and-center are all about anthropology, the doctrine of man and his nature, his inclinations, his capabilities, especially as they are conditioned by the fall. The Arminian seems to deny a strong (let alone decisive and irreversible) inclination of human nature to sin, but only in a few persons (due to severity of sin or to age) is there a point of no return; instead, a man is constantly renewed by "grace" of a non-salvific character to an undetermined condition where his own strength could conceivably turn him to God given sufficient reason or internal cause.

Plainly, there is nothing in the word of God to Cain necessarily implying such a philosophical anthropology; nor does that kind of assessment come forth from anywhere or altogether in Scripture. The idea of salvation from death to life (1Jn.3:14) presupposes an impossible situation from the human standpoint. The command of God to "choose life" or to "live" is no more conditioned by man's possible internal reaction, than Jesus' summons of Lazarus from the tomb was conditioned by whether his ears could still hear as acutely as before he died. Any suggestion that Lazarus was first brought somewhere between life and death, and he chose to obey and come forth when he might equally have refused, is risible. The lively condition (new life) into which salvation brings one of God's elect is attended by all the ability to positively respond, including repentance and faith.

What many find offensive is the idea that God only provides a new nature with the requisite powers of response to some, and not all. Did God owe Cain a new nature, or even reining-in of his old nature to a recovery of his "rational choice," thus allowing him to choose his own reversal? If God provides the new nature to one, is he obliged to provide it to all? Or if he does not provide it to one, is he prevented by some moral limit from repeating his warnings and offers of mercy to that one? These are questions for the Arminian, the Pelagian, for anyone who rejects a theological anthropology derived from the Bible.

Finally, all the dictates of the Bible that point to the law (such as Jesus' address to Pharisees or the rich young ruler) are intended to expose the fruitlessness and inevitable failure of salvation by works, and to drive men to the mercy of God if they would be saved. Any who are not so driven are left to themselves, either embracing the pleasures of sin for a season until death takes them; or else in pride determined to do so fine a work as to compel God's approval, and failing that to stand out ahead of the average works-offering that (if God be reasonable and willing to save anyone) he must be saved for his superior merit. Among all the teachers in the Bible, none does more than St.Paul to explode that myth, though he is not alone teaching justification by faith apart from works.

What should Cain have done in reply to God's warning? Turned from his evil works, of course, and imitated his brother's righteous--which would have required humility. Lacking humility, he might have asked God for the gift, but that request too required humility. Abel had humility, and before that he had saving faith (Heb.11:4) which manifested in humility before God and even love for his brother. Abel had the gift of a new nature, which is a product not of will or individual spirit, but is born again of the divine Spirit, a sovereign Spirit who blows where he wills. Still, we pray that God would answer our prayers and make them means that move him to accomplish salvation's ends in those for whom we intercede--proving both means and ends were his works all along.

Whate'er my God ordains is right.