Calvinists' Dilemma

[Derf]

Jumping in for a moment to simply add a bit of perspective, not trying to run interference, though it is after a fashion

It is also a wee long, so only if it helps...

This is a harder passage because not many details spell it out plainly. I worked over this passage pretty well a few times. What I came away from was this: 1)Abel gave an animal whereas Cain gave vegetables and fruit of the land. I guess that either he had withheld the choicer produce for a thank offering, or it was unsuitable for a sin offering. Cain, not raising livestock, would have had to buy/trade with his brother. Because God rejected his offering, I think all that is said to Cain is specifically about offering rightly, a sin offering.

So, for me, to answer your question, I believe God wasn't giving Cain a prescription about not ever sinning again, but specifically how to take care of sin the right way and as a picture of Christ. In a nutshell, I see the difference between Cain and Abel a lot like we see today. Some people think Jesus is an example to follow, especially cults and works-oriented denominations. They are offering their best fruits to God. Abel, conversely, is a picture of those who trust in the work of Jesus Christ alone. The story of Mary and Martha is similar: One was 'working to please' which can easily lend to pride and an elevated picture of what we can offer God. Cain's offering was, I think, a pride thing like this as well. It is giving to God, not what He demands because of our sin, but rather what we think wrongly, will please Him, and usually with a bit of arrogance and self-importance. "No one comes to the Father by Me." We have to trust, and this is what we do to do it right. Otherwise sin, with pride at the forefront, is crouching at our door.

Hi Lon,
2 thoughts:
1. I appreciate your comment about the lack of information in the passage and that there are a couple ways of looking at it, as you outlined (maybe more, but at least 2).
2. I agree God was giving a prescription for taking care of sin the right way, and I would say "with Christ's sacrifice in mind" instead of "as a picture of Christ". Just as the sacrifices of animals didn't really take away the Israelites' sins, neither would Cain's OR Abel's, if that was what was intended. But on the other hand, the offering of those sacrifices did take away the Israelites' sins, after a fashion (Leviticus 4:20–35). What is that fashion? The offerer of the sacrifice is doing so in the faith that God will take away his sins, because God told him that He would (not that "it" would). But the offerer is acting in faith BY doing what God commanded. The action doesn't do the trick, but the faith is still in the Lord to take away the sins. How that happens is revealed later (Hebrews 10:4–11). The faith is genuine, and the actions don't do the job; we are not saved by our works, it is by faith, but our works show our faith.

In the same way "if you do right" seems to mean that if Cain would do what he was supposed to do in that passage, he would be accepted--not on the basis of his works, but on the basis of his faith that is evidenced in his works--that he has repented of doing his own thing, and is willing to do what God requires.

But if we from the outset say that whatever Cain does is evil (including following God's instructions!), the evidence is withheld; it is not allowed to show the faith.

Cain obviously wasn't doing the right thing--it might have been a heart condition (seems likely), but it was evidenced in his sacrifice. But it was possible for him to be accepted, unless God was speaking speciously, by starting to do the right thing ("repenting", showing faith that God really is in charge).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Hi AMR,
Sorry it took so long to respond.
You didn't answer my question about Cain (as far as I could tell). The reason I asked that is because God didn't go into those kind of details with him that you have here. Cain's sin was a direct act toward God that was unacceptable to God. And God didn't tell him he needed to repent of the sins of mankind or of his "nature" or of a whole mass. God's message was fairly simple to Cain--"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." You would have God say to Cain, "Even if you do what is right, you will not be accepted, because what you do is evil, even if what you do is good."

I ignored it because I saw it for what it was...unrelated to the topic at hand.

The rhetorical question put to Cain has the same purpose as the exhortation of the later prophets: “Learn to do right!” (Isaiah 1:17; Amos 5:14). God reproves the impious Cain, charging Him with ingratitude from his contempt towards his status as first-born son. Cain had the wrong view of offering sacrifice to God from faith, a will-worship attitude, along the lines of "God ought to accept from the labor of my hands that which I deem worthwhile." Cain was prideful of what he had done "So, why shouldn't God accept that which I have wrested from this ground? I have submitted to this curse, broken my back for this curse; I think God owes me to receive from my work."

Abel was a diligent worshipper of God, Cain worshipped perfunctorily, and God rightfully magnifies Cain's sin for not even trying to at least imitate Abel, whom Cain should have surpassed a the first-born son should do from the honor and dignity of the position. The "dominion" in Genesis 4 is not about dominion of sin, but about Cain's right as firstborn over his brother, Abel. It is about who receives the blessing and serves as priest of the family. When God had respect to Abel and his offering, the younger was chosen over the elder. So Cain became angry and unhappy. Cain was instructed that if he did well he would retain his dominion. Even afterwards, having done wrongly, there was a sin-offering at hand which he could sacrifice. Now if Cain made this sacrifice, the order of the family would be restored by Abel submitting to Cain and then Cain would retain his priority as first-born son. Yet, Cain refused the sin-offering, choosing to take matters into his own hands by killing his competitor. Cain is thus cast out of the family altogether, which gives rise to two families, in fulfilment of the curse of Gen. 3:15 concerning two seeds.

Nothing in the passage contains the warrant of possession of inherent ability you are seeking for defending salvific repentance is possible by the unregenerate.

But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross.

I am going to stop now, Derf. Under the guise of seeking to actually understand apparently lies mocking disdain towards anything sincerely offered up.

AMR

 

[Samie]

I am going to stop now, Derf.

It is understandable that one has to stop when one's way is blocked. And obviously the dilemmas of Calvinism presented in this thread blocked the Calvinists' way.

Seems Crucible has not stopped. He did not stop running away, I guess. Or did he hide? For the sake of new thread readers, here's my last interaction with Crucible:

:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.

To which I responded:

Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.

And since then, Crucible, the competent one, seemed to have chosen to run away. Or did he hide?

Still waiting, Crucible. 4 days and counting. Show your competence, brother. I have asked AMR to help you. But I guess he preferred not to. He knows a winning proposition when he sees one.

 

[Derf]

I am going to stop now, Derf. Under the guise of seeking to actually understand apparently lies mocking disdain towards anything sincerely offered up.

AMR

Mocking disdain if the concept it speaks against is decidedly true, but that's what the discussion part of this forum is all about, is it not? To discern the truth, as best we can? If so, then it isn't mocking disdain to ask the question, is it? If not, then we can just all presume that our view is correct, get incensed when someone questions it, and just disband to our separate corners.

But I'll apologize for the form of the question, if that offends you.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION]
I have painstakingly provided you with clear explanations and rationale in answer to your questions. Yet, at the end of the day, your response is to hold me to ridicule with mockery:

But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross. Why have the cross at all--God should have just given the special sauce to the ones He wanted to save in the first place.

If you can point to a single instance where anything I have written can be taken to mean the active and passive obedience of Our Lord is unnecessary for one's salvation, I would be happy to beg apologies for my poor communication skills. On this point, I remain confident that cannot be done for I am not given to infelicitous speech on such a sacred topic, especially since not a few lie in wait to pounce upon my words and contort them into implying something never communicated.

Your previous appeal to discussion forums for hammering out details and differences is appropriate. What is not appropriate is to assume that when one is pointed to more and weighty explanations of things explained such that effective discussion my proceed, you derisively dismiss your interlocutor behind mockery purporting to summarize all of my responses as but an appeal that negates the works of Our Lord. It was unsavory of you to do such a thing. I took you to be more willing to consider that your current views are subject to revision when presented with more thoroughgoing rebuttals. I was mistaken. Shame on me. I won't make the same mistake again.

You have your answers. God was calling upon Cain to repent of his anger and resentment such that he could regain his rightful status as first-born son and personal dominion thereof. Nothing in the account relates to salvific repentance, a repentance no man possesses the ability to perform prior to God acting first.

AMR

 

[Samie]

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

6 days and counting, yet no rebuttal from Calvinists.

 

[Samie]

God was calling upon Cain to repent of his anger and resentment such that he could regain his rightful status as first-born son and personal dominion thereof. Nothing in the account relates to salvific repentance, a repentance no man possesses the ability to perform prior to God acting first.

AMR

God already acted first. He predestined all of us to adoption as children in Christ, and that includes Cain. In the garden, that same day Adam fell into sin, instead of man dying, another died in his place. That first death in Eden pointed forward to the death of the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. No wonder Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

That's God acting first. Does that satisfy your requirement for salvific repentance?

 

[Derf]

[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION]
I have painstakingly provided you with clear explanations and rationale in answer to your questions. Yet, at the end of the day, your response is to hold me to ridicule with mockery:

But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross. Why have the cross at all--God should have just given the special sauce to the ones He wanted to save in the first place.

If you can point to a single instance where anything I have written can be taken to mean the active and passive obedience of Our Lord is unnecessary for one's salvation, I would be happy to beg apologies for my poor communication skills. On this point, I remain confident that cannot be done for I am not given to infelicitous speech on such a sacred topic, especially since not a few lie in wait to pounce upon my words and contort them into implying something never communicated.

Thanks for bearing with me in this. I'm quite sure I'm as equally guilty of poor communication and likely more so.

If someone needs to be good before they can be saved, we are all without hope. Yet that seems to be what Calvinism says--that we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ. If we are regenerated anyway (by definition "a new creation"), of what purpose is the blood of Christ? I know you didn't try to say anything to suggest Christ's obedience is not required, nor do I think you would say/write that--ever. But if we are saved by something besides Christ's blood sacrifice, such as being regenerated by something God does to get us to the point where we can accept the sacrifice of Christ (or "special sauce" in my less than respectful words), why didn't God just give us that something without needing to sacrifice His only son? If instead Christ's blood saves us, and while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, then is that something extra superfluous to the gospel? This is a legitimate question, as I hope you will agree.

Your previous appeal to discussion forums for hammering out details and differences is appropriate. What is not appropriate is to assume that when one is pointed to more and weighty explanations of things explained such that effective discussion my proceed, you derisively dismiss your interlocutor behind mockery purporting to summarize all of my responses as but an appeal that negates the works of Our Lord. It was unsavory of you to do such a thing. I took you to be more willing to consider that your current views are subject to revision when presented with more thoroughgoing rebuttals. I was mistaken. Shame on me. I won't make the same mistake again.

I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to here. Is it your explanation of Cain's required repentance? If so, I'll respond to that below. If not, I've apparently lost your point. I'm certainly willing to consider revision to my views, but I'm a bit of a stubborn rebuttee, and prefer to work through the meanings, intended and otherwise, before changing, or perhaps solidifying, my views.

You have your answers. God was calling upon Cain to repent of his anger and resentment such that he could regain his rightful status as first-born son and personal dominion thereof. Nothing in the account relates to salvific repentance, a repentance no man possesses the ability to perform prior to God acting first.

AMR

I appreciate this explanation--it seems like a good one to me, and I hadn't heard it explained that way before. But, I'd have to say that it seems to fall a little flat when compared to Esau's situation. Esau was under a similar condemnation for rejecting his birthright (a dominion mandate), and being unable to repent, "though he sought for it with tears". And Esau is regularly used to show our helplessness to come to faith without the irresistible "effectual call" to the elect in Calvinism (or the "prevenient grace" in Arminianism. Both of these seem to point to something extra--and perhaps say that Christ's blood, if that's not what is being talked about, is not enough to save us.)

So if we apply that to Cain in the same way it is applied to Esau, we see that God's proposed acceptance of Cain ("if you do right, you will be accepted" rephrased in the positive sense from Gen 4:7) was more than just an appeal to Cain to continue to pursue his inherited dominion-taking task. Or if it wasn't more than that, then Esau's lack of repentance was merely in earthly matters rather than spiritual matters--as you stated it, "God reproves the impious Cain, charging Him with ingratitude from his contempt towards his status as first-born son." That statement of yours seems to fit Esau's case like a glove, don't you think? And therefore, even earthly repentance must somehow be restricted ("though he sought for it with tears"), or perhaps spiritual repentance need not be ("if you do right, you will be accepted").

I don't disagree with God acting first. "While we were still weak [totally unable?], at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." (Rom 5:6). But does He act twice first? Once when Christ died, and again to do something else--something extra?

 

[Samie]

One thing admirable of some Calvinists: they keep quiet when they know theirs is a losing proposition.

 

[Samie]

I need to bubble this thread up.

It's been 18 days and counting, and still no rebuttal from the Calvinists. Again:

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

 

[chrysostom]

One thing admirable of some Calvinists: they keep quiet when they know theirs is a losing proposition.

they never change their position
-they just change the meaning of words
-makes dialogue very difficult

 

[Lon]

Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.

Really simple imho: You missed the previous verses that SPECIFICALLY say who He is talking about:

Mat 8:6 "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly."
Mat 8:7 And he said to him, "I will come and heal him."
Mat 8:8 But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.
Mat 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.

So, seated with Abraham and Co. will be some Jews, but among them would be some like the centurion (gentiles).
It was a prophecy concerning Christ's work and the eventual addition of gentiles, as far as most of us would understand that passage.

Were the Jews a 'chosen' people? Yes but Paul told us in Romans that not all Israel was Israel by heart. They were just born within the community. God has ALWAYS chosen people one at a time. My kids were born into a Christian home. They were NOT born Christians. Every Calvinist must be born again. Simply being 'Calvinist' doesn't save a Calvinist or Arminian, an Arminian (which of course is a given).

 

[Samie]

Really simple imho: You missed the previous verses that SPECIFICALLY say who He is talking about:

So, seated with Abraham and Co. will be some Jews, but among them would be some like the centurion (gentiles).
It was a prophecy concerning Christ's work and the eventual addition of gentiles, as far as most of us would understand that passage.

Were the Jews a 'chosen' people? Yes but Paul told us in Romans that not all Israel was Israel by heart. They were just born within the community. God has ALWAYS chosen people one at a time. My kids were born into a Christian home. They were NOT born Christians. Every Calvinist must be born again. Simply being 'Calvinist' doesn't save a Calvinist or Arminian, an Arminian (which of course is a given).

Let's take the phrase "subjects of the kingdom" who will be thrown outside into outer darkness.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?

If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?

 

[Lon]

Let's take the phrase "subjects of the kingdom" who will be thrown outside into outer darkness.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?

If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?

The analogy had those not of the kingdom welcomed and those in the kingdom by some association, thrown out.

Inductive theology has this differentiation between Jews and gentiles. Deductive theology would be to take the principles given here and apply them liberally toward other circumstances. Again, I think the only deductive message is that of a prophetic nature. Liberally, you can apply that to just about anything, but deductive theology doesn't carry the strength beyond inductive meaning.

 

[Samie]

The analogy had those not of the kingdom welcomed and those in the kingdom by some association, thrown out.

Yes, and that looks like against Calvinism. So you really need to directly address my question.

Why evade answering the question, Lon? I just want to know what your answer is. Again:

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?

If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?

 

[Lon]

Yes, and that looks like against Calvinism. So you really need to directly address my question.

Why evade answering the question, Lon? I just want to know what your answer is. Again:

Incorrect, I answered.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?

In this example? No. Why? Because even the gentiles are not the subjects of the kingdom, yet they are the ones included. Such would then make them subjects? Or just those who can stay?

If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?

Correct, we are the gentile subjects of this analogy/prophecy.

 

[Samie]

Incorrect, I answered.

In this example? No. Why? Because even the gentiles are not the subjects of the kingdom, yet they are the ones included. Such would then make them subjects? Or just those who can stay?


Correct, we are the gentile subjects of this analogy/prophecy.

Thanks Lon.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect? You answered "No".

That's precisely the reason, if you are correctly representing Calvinism, why it really looks like Calvinism is teaching against what Christ Himself taught.

For Calvinism, what Jesus called subjects of the kingdom of God, are not among Calvinism's elect; while those not among the "subjects of the kingdom", Calvinism considers as the elect.

 

[Lon]

Thanks Lon.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect? You answered "No".

That's precisely the reason, if you are correctly representing Calvinism, why it really looks like Calvinism is teaching against what Christ Himself taught.

Again, He was talking to Jews at this point so we certainly are not teaching against Him. I remind you I told you that this was 'deduced' (deductive). Inductive comes from the text directly. Deductive is what we 'think' applies from the text but what we are logicking away from it. For future reference, whatever is not agreed upon and not explicit from scripture, cannot be used in argument.

For Calvinism, what Jesus called subjects of the kingdom of God, are not among Calvinism's elect; while those not among the "subjects of the kingdom", Calvinism considers as the elect.

You aren't seeing what is applied on the time-line and when it changes, imho. It is my estimation that this is ONLY applicable to Jews in this point of time. A change-over doesn't automatically mean we extrapolate from earlier directives. There was a dramatic change from the Law to the gospel. Paul, for example, preached against Judaizing in Galatians.

 

[Samie]

For Calvinism, what Jesus called subjects of the kingdom of God, are not among Calvinism's elect; while those not among the "subjects of the kingdom", Calvinism considers as the elect.

Seems NOT unlike calling good evil, and evil good.

NKJ Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[Lon]

Seems NOT unlike calling good evil, and evil good.

NKJ Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Looks more like stabbing blindly with bias, in the dark...