mwc is wanting to talk about Cain and God, so I started a thread here....
Hi Brother Sovereign and RevMwc,
Many who believe in free will and general atonement often like to use the verse in Genesis 4:7 where God said to Cain, "
If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted?" to support their doctrines
I think John Gill in his The Cause of God and Truth answered these objections put forth in this verse much better than I ever could or for that matter anyone else whom I have read on the topic, thus I will provide a few quotes from him regarding this verse. The full article
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 1/section_01.htm, but I have posted what I feel are his main arguments below. A bit long, but well worth the read! I would challenge any after reading it to try to refute it on this thread. I find myself often going to the The Cause of God and Truth for commentary on so called "Arminian proof texts" and more often than not Gill's exegesis Biblically buries them.
BELOW IS FROM JOHN GILL CAUSE OF GOD AND TRUTH ON GENESIS 4:7
"3. Is there any foundation for such a proposition in these words, which are hypothetically expressed, and therefore nothing absolutely to be concluded from them; that is to say, we are not to argue from God's saying to Cain,
If thou dost well, therefore Cain had a power to do well, or to do that which is spiritually good, well; much less should we infer from hence, as one does, that "God could not have proposed the doing of good as a condition, if he had not given Cain sufficient strength whereby he was capable to do good."
[1] Since God could not only have proposed the doing of good, but have required it according to his law, without being under obligation to give sufficient strength to obey; for though man by his sin has lost his power to obey the will of God in a right manner, yet God has not lost his authority to command; which he may use without obliging himself to find man sufficient strength to act in obedience to it. Besides,
4. These words regard doing well, not in a moral, but in a ceremonial sense. Cain and Abel were very early taught the necessity, manner, and use of sacrifices; and in process of time they brought their offerings to the Lord, each according to his different calling and employment; the one brought of the fruit of the ground, the other of the firstlings of his flock. Now to Abel and his offering the Lord had respect, that is, he accepted him and his offering; but to Cain and his offering he had not respect; which made Cain very wroth, and his countenance fell; upon which the Lord expostulates with him after this manner,
Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou dost well,ean orqwV prosenegkhV ,
If thou hadst offered rightly,as the Septuagint renders the words which though it is not a proper literal translation of them, yet agreeable enough to their sense,
shouldst thou not be accepted? Cain failed either in the matter or manner of his sacrifice; probably in the latter; since the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews observes, that by
faith,
Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.(Heb. 11:4) Cain offered his sacrifice without faith, without any view to the sacrifice of Christ: he performed this his sacrifice hypocritically, in show and appearance only; he acted from no right principle, nor to any right end; and therefore his works, whatever show of righteousness they might have, are, by the apostle John, (1 John 3:12) rightly called evil; as are also all the works of wicked and unregenerate men. I proceed,
II. To consider whether man's acceptance with God is on the account of his good works.
1. There is a difference between the acceptance of men's works, and of their persons for them: there are many actions done by men, which are acceptable and well-pleasing to God, when they themselves are not accepted by him, on account of them. Besides, no man's works are accepted by him whose person is not previously accepted: God first had respect to the person of Abel, and then to his offering; which shows that his was not accepted for the sake of his offering. The best works of the saints are imperfect and attended with sin, and are only acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, in whom, and in whom only, who is the beloved, their persons are accepted and well-pleasing to God. No man can be justified or saved by his works, and therefore no man can be accepted with God on that account; which is the current doctrine of the sacred writings: this will help us to understand the true sense of such passages, as Acts 10:35, Romans 19:18, 2 Corinthians 5:9, compared with Ephesians 1:6, and 1 Peter 2:5.
2. Nor do these words suppose that man's acceptance with God stands upon the foot of works. The Hebrew word >tas, for there is but one word in the original text, which our translators render,
shalt thou not be accepted? signifies either excellency, as in Psalm 62:4, and may design the dignity of primogeniture, or honor of birth-right, as it does in Genesis 49:3, and so be rendered,
shalt thou not have the excellency? that is, shall not the right of primogeniture continue with thee? shall not the honor and privilege of being the first-born abide with thee? thou needest not be afraid that this shall be taken from thee, and given to thy younger brother, who is willing to be subject to thee, and ready to serve thee; which well agrees with the latter part of the text,
and unto thee shall be his desire,
and thou shall rule over him;or the word signifies an
elevation,or
lifting up;and is to be understood as Aben Ezra
[2] observes of Mygp tas, a lifting up of the countenance, which was fallen, verses 5, 6, and then the sense is, if thou hadst done well, when thou broughtest thine offering, thou mightest have
lift up thy face without spot,and doubtless thou wouldst have done so; but inasmuch as thou hast sinned and done evil, and which is to be seen in thy fallen countenance, sin lies at the door of thy conscience; which, when once opened, it will enter in, and make dreadful work; as it did a little after; which made him say,
My punishment is greater than I can bear.But admitting that the word signifies acceptance, and be rendered,
shall there not be an acceptance? it is to be understood, not of an acceptance of his person, but of his sacrifices and services.
1. There is no acceptance of any man's person, but as he is considered in Christ the Mediator. Now as there is no reason to believe that ever Cain, who was of the wicked one, the devil, was ever in Christ, or ever considered in him; so there is no reason to conclude, that he either was, or that it was possible for him to be, accepted with God.
2. The text does not speak of his doing well in a moral or spiritual, but in a ceremonial way; and not at all of the acceptance of his person, on the foot of so doing; but at most, only of the acceptance of his sacrifice and ceremonious services, supposing them rightly performed."
