Question for my Calvinist friends regarding Gen 4

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Allan, Oct 31, 2006.

  1. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have an honest question I was wishing to discuss and it deals with Gen chapter 4 though most specifically with Cain.

    I am in confusion as to how this plays into the Calvinistic view.

    1. Cain was the first person born into sin and therefore a sinner by nature.
    2. He was not of the Elect.
    3. We have no free-choice to do contrary to our nature.

    verses

    1. All in sin are spiritually dead and unless regenerate they can not hear God or understand spiritual things. Yet Cain heard, spoke to, and was give choice by God to repent and Cain understood exactly what God ment.
    2. He was Not of the Elect but God reasoned if not made a plea to him to change his way or attitude.
    3. God showed Cain he had a choice in his fallen nature.

    Cain killing his brother made the choice to rebel in light of revealed truth, and by rejecting the truth he remained and brought forth the Judgment of God. But God was still merciful to him and honored Cains plea about God judgment being to much to bear as others would surely kill him.

    This is not so much for a debate - per say - but also a clearer understanding of some things
     
  2. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said he was not elect? God spoke to Cain directly, why would he need to hear spiritually? Do you think that God was not in control when Cain made a choice? Are any choices we make free in the libertarian free will sense? Do you make amoral choices?
     
  3. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Questions.

    Why is it so important to you to have free-choice?

    Do you deny that all people are in slavery?
     
  4. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    For real Martin! The only way i'm truly free is to know that God is sovereign and in absolute control of His creation and creatures. I know that personally I would do nothing but mess things up. I'm glad to know and have confidence in knowing, that God causes all things to happen for the good of those who love HIm. I'm so glad that He causes all things providentially for our good.
     
  5. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amazing when a question that is asked by a non calvinist cannot be answered truthfully, the question is always thrown back at them "why is it important for you"?
     
  6. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I am sad to see that, once again, the self-proclaimed non-Calvinists start the mud slinging. :tear:

    The two questions I asked go to the heart of the question that was asked. In other words I am hitting at the very heart of the issue. Most people like to play around with "what ifs" and various theoretical issues. I like to go straight to the heart of the matter. That is what my questions are designed to do. The issue of moral/spiritual slavery, and what a person thinks about that, is vitally important in this discussion. No ground can be gained, on either side, if this is not addressed first.
     
  7. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't worry about it Martin. That is about all webdog has, other than just logic without scripture.
     
  8. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Allan's questions are very simple and straight forward. I don't see that the "very heart of the issue" is that difficult.
     
  9. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...and I see the self proclaimed "doctrines of grace" crowd begins the true mud slinging...

    Reformed, what is worse...correct logic instilled by God...or Scripture taken out of context to support flawed logic? I would guess you will state the first, because you do the second quite often.
     
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Once again, you have totally missed the point. To get to an agreed upon answer about the question (Genesis 4) one must first deal with the issue of moral/spiritual slavery. It goes to the very heart of the question.
     
  11. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I believe it was "you" that first accused us of not being "truthful" in our answers.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to the topic rather than the personal stuff, what exactly is the question? The OP said it had an "honest question," but then apparently did not ask it, at least that I can see. It appeared to be just a collection of statements.

    So what exactly is the question?
     
  13. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry about not being specific about the questioning.

    It was a conglomeration of the three points that (at least to me) clashed with some things taught in Calvinism. So I was wondering how this was accurately shown to to be in harmony with that system of theology.

    The question was about if these three are correct how come these three opposites are shown to be happening.

     
  14. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Many have heard and yet not heard. See Mark 4:12.
    2. How do you know he was not elect? Anyway, God commands all men everywhere to repent, and He means it. Whether they can or not, and why they cannot, is a topic for another thread.
    3. It is not that we don't have a free choice to do contrary to our nature. It is that we will never exercise a free choice that is contrary to our nature. See 2 Peter 2:22.
     
  15. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok..I was hoping for a little more so I will simply ask you to clarify somethings.

    First, this is a verse refering to the Jews in direct relation to God judgment on their unbelief in Him. This was also so the Word could go to the gentiles as fulfiment of prophesy. This technically has nothing to do with what I asked...However, to use the verse you quoted I underlined somethings I specifically stated in my question of #1. They could not understand or percieve but it is clear the God made sure Cain DID understand and percieve what rejection entailed.

    Secondly, IF he was one of the 'elect' why was he cursed and went out from the presense of the Lord, does God curse His 'elect' and send them away. And no this is not in relation to an elect people group for God with an elect within the elect.
    Third and finally, If Cain would not choose to do contrary to his nature, then why did or would God reason with him, gave him understanding with regard to it (rebelions) consequence, and encourage Cain to do what is right that he may be accepted??
    All three issues discribed in my third point DO NOT OCCURE in the Calvinistic paradigm with regard to the unsaved or non-elect.

    This is why I asked. Maybe that is a little more clear to what I am asking, I don't know, but have tried to state it as clearly as possible to get a better understanding of this within your view point.
     
  16. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Martin and Reformedbeliever:

    If you don't want to answer the questions that is fine.
    But this IS about my question concerning a better understanding of how the Calvinist answers this in relation to their view.

    So please don't infer you personal opinions into what or why I am asking concerning this thread. I just want serious and clear thoughts from the Calvinists position on this chapter of Gen. I may give some rebutal, but it is so I can better see how the position answers in clear form this part of the bible.
     
  17. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Allan,

    Sorry to be brief, but I am not into writing books. Yes, that Mark passage was specifically about the Jews but it does illustrate the two different meanings of "hear". You said "Yet Cain heard, spoke to, and was give choice by God to repent and Cain understood exactly what God ment." One could say the exact same thing of the Jews. I really don't know why you think this is a problem.

    Second, my point was that whether Cain was elect or not is irrelevant. God commands all men everywhere, elect or not, to repent. And He really means it.

    Third, you say "why did or would God reason with him, gave him understanding with regard to it (rebelions) consequence, and encourage Cain to do what is right that he may be accepted?? All three issues discribed in my third point DO NOT OCCURE in the Calvinistic paradigm with regard to the unsaved or non-elect." That simply is not true. Those things do occur in the "Calvinistic paradigm". God does reason with the lost. He has revealed the consequences of their rebellion to them. He has not only encouraged them to do what is right, he has commanded it.

    But the point is that all of this is not enough. If this were all that God did then none would be saved. More is required, because in spite of all of God's reasoning with sinful man, and in spite of all that God shows sinful man, and in spite of all that He commands and encourages sinful man to do, sinful man still rejects all of that to his own destruction. Again, see 2 Peter 2:22.
     
    #17 whatever, Nov 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2006
  18. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Allan,

    Being DEAD in sins does not only mean that they do not understand. It also means they do not see a need. The Devil believes in God, but the devil sees no need to worship God. The Devil know Christ was the choosen one, this is why the Devil tried to have Christ jump from the temple. Just believeing in the facts means nothing. Ask anyone if they want to go to hell. All will say no. Christ does not save us from hell. Yes, in the end we do not go there. But salvation is from sins. Now ask this to the same people..."Do you need Christ to save you from your sins?" Most people say no. Cain said no. Cain did not understand the need of the atonement. The Bible does not say this...but it is my guess that Cain said...why blood? Why not just a apple??? Cain knew of God, but did not see the need of a blood washing away of sins.
     
    #18 Jarthur001, Nov 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2006
  19. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    No personal opinion at all. I answered you correctly. When your questions are flawed to begin with it is hard to answer you Allen. That is the reason I was asking you questions.
     
  20. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not asking for a book, just discussion.
    However, I appreciate what have have stated herein. THough I must say you state some things that Calvinsm doesn't usaully entail, that being God reasons with sinful man (of sin and repentence) and that sinful man 'hears' Gods call to repentence.

    Now however you personally interpret your own thoughts as to my restating of your comments - my issue (with your view at least) is still on the third one I discribed which is to 'understand' as well as jsut hear. This is the problem I have - Calvinists usually state not only can the sinner not hear anything spiritual but DOES NOT understand even if they did hear it since it is spiritually discerned. So we have God pleading with those who don't understand a word He is saying. This makes absolutely no sense, in any sense. Especially in light of Cain understanding, and also the understanding of the Jewish people at the time of Christ had to be dimmed by God or else they WOULD have repented. They would have heard and understood if God had not stepped in.

    You make a similar statement to what I said when you remarked, " He has revealed the consequences of their rebellion to them." To reveal is make one understand but this understanding is a spiritual one. So God reveals to the sinner, dead in sin, his lost state and the consequences thereof and man chooses to stay there. Am I correct in this, at least thus far??

    The point of Cain being elect IS part of the point - for they WILL be saved. And therefore in the Calvinistic view God gives THEM (elect) the hearing to understand. Cain had this and yet was not of the elect. I have no problem holding to Cain not being elect as he is removed from the presence of the Lord AND is cursed, can you name any of the elect this happened to? Not to mention from his seed came a race of men most abominable and pagan.

    And 2 Pet 2:22 is in relation to apostates or those who were not actually believers but simply followers which is why they turned back. That brings up another interesting question if they do not understand spiritual things but I will save that for another time. :thumbs:
     

Share This Page

Loading...