Cain, Sin, & the Will of God: A Plea

When I was about nine years old, a neighbor invited my family to church. My life has never been the same since then. Although I never knew it then, God was working things out to draw me to Him, to redeem me from my sins.

 

Through that church I was taught to “let go and let God.” The best way to be fully sanctified was full submission to God’s will. Does He call you to Africa, then submit. Does He move you to marriage, then marry. Thus, I strove through my teen-age years to fully comprehend God’s will for my life and submit to that will. Part of that was avoiding sin, and the other part was finding my place in this world, to submit to God's will.

 

It was not until I was a Calvinist did I understand the meaning of submit. Reading such comforting passages as Romans 8:28: “And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose,” I finally realized that all meant all. It used to mean mostly or only the “good stuff”. It was not until I submitted to the truth of God’s sovereignty that the passage became alive. It grabbed me, forcing me to acknowledge the truth of God’s providence and care over me. As an infant depends upon the Father for protection, food and care, so I was totally dependent upon God—whether I admitted it or not.

A flood of passages opened up to me:

"But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife." But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? "Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this."

And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. “ (Gen. 20:3ff.)

 

"But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. (Gen. 50:20)

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom… Then the heads of the fathers' houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, with all whose spirits God had moved, arose to go up and build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem. (Ruth 1:1, 5)

 

The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.
(Proverbs 16:1, 4, 9, 33)

 

There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand
(Proverbs 19:21

 

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes. (Prov. 21:1)

 

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know -- "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” (Acts. 2:22ff.)

 

Thus, we see something that offends human nature. God is clearly shown to be in charge. God’s power moves peoples and events according to His inscrutable plans (Eph. 1:3ff.). God’s sovereignty is an awesome doctrine indeed!

 

Yet, if this were all, then fatalism would be a Biblical doctrine: the ends happen regardless of the means. This is what Islam believes. However, this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches that the means do affect the ends; that what one does impacts those around him. That responsibility is placed in man’s hands although sustained by God’s plans. This is the doctrine of secondary causes. God’s plan validates man’s responsibilities. Again, once God’s absolute sovereignty over His creation is accepted by faith, a plethora of verses will open up:

 

The horse is prepared for the day of battle, But deliverance is of the LORD. (Prov. 21:31)

 

Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain. (Psalms 127:1ff)

 

Then Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. And the LORD said, 'Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?' So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, 'I will persuade him.' The LORD said to him, 'In what way?' So he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And the LORD said, 'You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.' Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you." (1 Kings 20:19ff).

 

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.(Phil. 2:12ff.)

 

From the Old Testament into the new, the Bible consistently declares that we are responsible, that we are given means to accomplish ends—but only insofar as it is part of God’s plan. These truths are humbling. I ask: why? how? But the human mind cannot fathom it. I just know that I must not be a petulant child, deriding my Father, claiming that I do not need Him.

 

Such a doctrine can change the world. It did during Augustine’s time. It toppled Rome during the Reformation. And it brought about the greatest revivals in America.

 

I could quote a host of Protestant fathers on this topic, but I think one of our political fathers said it best:

 

"Duty is ours; results are God's" John Quincy Adams

Amen.

Cain, Sin, & the Will of God, Part 2

The question of God deceiving Cain was brought forward last posting:

Gen 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.

The question of what ‘if’ actually entails was answered. Now, another related question arises:

“I don't see how God can plead with all mankind to come to Him, full knowing that he's determined that some would not come to him. The problem I have with your theology is that it forces us to see God as a deceiver.”

 

This is a fair question. It is a common question. Unfortunately, it is not a simple question. God & His ways are not simple nor always amendable to so-called ‘common-sense’. Romans 11:32ff: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 "For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?" Or Isaiah 55:8: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

 

Why is this important? I am explaining that my upfront commitment is to the Word of God. When a passage speaks beyond my comprehension, I should submit to it. Of course, I should study it first within the context of the interpretive community of the church (for no man is an island) and because sin can darken my interpretation of verses. The Bible is my touchstone and logic is her handmaiden. Logic should not dictate what is possible or impossible before I approach the text.

 

Now, the complexity of this question about Cain, sin & the Will of God first manifests itself with the idea of “will”. What is God’s will? Typically, Christians distinguish between God’s secret will & His revealed will. I was reared on such a distinction even though I was not a Calvinist at the time. Classically, it is rooted in Deuteronomy 29:29: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Thus God has His own unrevealed reasons for allowing sin, cursing David through the mouth of Shimei (2 Sam. 16:10,11), of not miraculously feeding the starving children in Africa, etc.

 

However, it has always been understood that God has one will. It only appears as two wills to man’s finite understanding because of the differing objects with which God relates. Speaking more theologically, the will of God is normally expressed in conservative Reformed systematic theologies as the decretive will and the perceptive will. The decretive will is “that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter [prescriptive] what he wills that we should do.” [Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, p.220.] Thus there are two different objects in view: Himself & ourselves.

We could make a similar distinction with a father and a rebellious son. Sometimes teen-agers have to learn things the hard way. So, the father gives the son permission to drive the car with the knowledge that the son will most likely speed. The rebellious son is jailed for one night for reckless driving. The father knew as much and let the son “sweat it out” overnight. The father’s prescriptive will is: Do not speed. The father’s decretive will is: I will permit you to drive. I will permit you to be in prison. We do not say the father is schizophrenic. Nor would we say he has two “wills”. And we would not accuse him of deception. Likewise, there is no deception in God; he is speaking the truth (see the first posting).

 

This illustration naturally dovetails into the original question about Cain’s sin & God’s will. Man’s default position is sin. All have fallen in Adam (Rom. 5:12ff.). All are born children of wrath (Eph. 2:1ff.). Yet this does not change the Law of God. Men are not to murder, steal, lie, etc. Nevertheless, God permits such evil. In fact, the question of the morality of God predestinating all things (the basic question) is a question unavoidable to any person who takes the Bible seriously. If I were to see a man chase a woman but I did nothing about it—I “allowed” it. Would I not be guilty? Yes! If I find my enemies ox astray, but do not help it, I am in violation of the law of love (Ex. 23:4). How much more am I in violation if a woman is in need? Yet, if God “allowed” things (as most Arminians admit) the morality of the situation is the same.

Yet, in a real sense there is a difference: man, being born in sin, deserves nothing. God is not morally bound to rescue him from his physical plight let alone man’s spiritual plight.

 

In fact, with respect to Cain, God was under no obligation to rescue Cain from sin. So, when God reminds Cain that if he would have done the right instead of the wrong, God is only bringing Him under greater condemnation. When that rebellious child is in prison overnight, he missed his part-time job at Wendy’s. He does not get paid. In fact, he gets fired. He complains to his dad. The father rightly replies: If you were not in prison, you would have kept your job. The father is not saying: you could have broken out of prison, and kept your job. Rather, he is chiding the child. Men have cut themselves off from any good work—any movement toward God—through their own fault. Any punishment for sin will occur.

 

In fact, the question of God being “deceiving” is a very real question for any Christian who takes God’s foreknowledge seriously. If he knew ahead of time that Cain was not to chose the good over the evil, why not say to Cain: “I knew you’d do that! In fact, since I know you are not going to change at all I am no longer interested in talking with you or giving you the mark to protect your life (since your life will be protected anyway).” But God did not do that, so the Christian (not only the Calvinist) is asked by the unbeliever: is your god playing games with Cain? Why the deception?

 

It is very much related to the question of fatalism: if all is predestined, then why bother doing anything? Rejecting God’s eternal plan (Eph. 1:3ff.) but retaining God’s prescience does not solve the problem. To know the future means the future is “set in stone”. Arminians simply believe something (or someone?) else set the course of history. But the problem of foreknowledge and action is still the same.

 

However, following the Bible’s categories of primary and secondary causes (for lack of better names), one reads 2 Sam. 24:1 & the parallel account of 1 Chron. 21:1ff. with a sense of understanding: God predestinates the means as well as the ends. In fact, without God’s all-controlling plan and power, the ends would never be accomplished. That is the subject of the next installment.

 

SDG

Cain, Sin, & the Will of God, Part 1

At MyChurch.org, I was given a challenge: what do Calvinists do with verses such as this?

Gen 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.

The question asked by the writer is: Why did God say to Cain that “if he did what was right he would be accepted, if there were no chance of his ever being accepted at all anyhow?” "Why is it that you believe that God was being so deceptive with him? I don't think there can possibly be an explanation to this.”

The answer is: Because it was true: IF Cain obeyed, God would accept him. And IF pigs had wings, they could fly. That is not a snide remark—it is true---IF the qualifications are fulfilled. Moreover, it is the nature of language to have multiple meanings for a word or a combination of words. What readers seek is a particular meaning. The questioner takes the “if” as an ‘if’ of actuality, the indicative of what Cain can do. I, however, agreeing with Luther, take it to mean an ‘if’ of possibility, the imperative of what Cain should do:

“Here is the matter in a nutshell: As I said, by statements of this sort, man is shown, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. Cain is therefore told that he ought to rule over his sin…But this he neither did nor could do, for the rule of another, Satan, already bore heavily upon him. It is well known that the Hebrews often use the future indicative [the imperfect, ed.] for the imperative, as in Exodus 20: ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’…and there are countless such cases. If these words were taken indicatively [as stating that the listeners can & will not commit adultery], as they stand, they would be promises of God; and, since He cannot lie, the result would be that no man would sin…”

[Luther, Bondage of the Will, p. 157]

Or to speak more plainly: taking the understanding of ‘if’ as implying the ability of the person in question, then the questioner is actually endorsing the ability of man to obey God. In this case, it would be Cain who could obey God. In the case of the Ten Commandments, if ought (or should) implies ability, then Israel could obey God. Then grace is meaningless & Christ did not need to come. The same holds for the New Testament: Christ calls men to obedience to His Law: if you love Him you will keep His commandments. But from the Biblical doctrine of the depravity of man and the salvific necessity of grace, such verses do no imply ability at all. They only indicate the duty not the ability.

From a grammatical point of view, the imperative or subjunctive is not the same as the indicative (the present actual state of things). Thus, again, Luther aptly points out: “…nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative [commands] mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by verbs in the indicative.” [ibid, p.159]

Then why does God use such language? Again, I will let the spiritual forefather of Protestantism speak:

“As for its being absurd that (according to the analogy introduced by Erasmus) a man whose right arm was bound should be ordered to stretch forth his hand to the right, when he could only reach out to his left—is it absurd, pray, that a man who has both arms bound, but who proudly maintains or ignorantly assumes that he is wholly competent in either direction, should be commanded to stretch forth his hand in one direction or the other, not in order to make fun of his captivity, but to disprove his false assumption of freedom and power, and to make him realize his ignorance of his own captivity and miser?” [ibid, p. 161]

Biblically, one of the functions of the law is to condemn man and show his spiritual inability to do any good: “by the law is knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Thus, what one understands about sin and ability is intimately tied with this question of Cain, sin & the will of God.

Why did God say this to Cain? 1) To show his guilt; 2) To show his inability. From God’s ultimate perspective, He spoke to Cain for His own glory (Rom. 9:23). There is no deception on God’s part (see especially the next posting) only on man’s: he hears a command of God and assumes that man himself can obey. There is no problem if one understands how language works and what is God’s purpose of the Law.

The real question that all Christians (who believe in God’s foreknowledge) should ask is: Why would God say anything given that the events will occur anyway?

But I suspect this will not fully answer the question behind the question. There are deeper questions of sovereignty & free-will inexorably bound with this surface question. The question of God’s will and intention are also bound up in this. These will be answered in the next installment.

Soli Deo Gloria

Part 2
Part 3