Reinterpreting Cain and Abel: A Disturbing Satire

If Calvinism is true and God "influences the desires and decisions of people,"¹ as Wayne Grudem and most Calvinists insist, then let us interpret Scripture accordingly.
Fair enough. Let us interpret the Bible strictly as claimed by Wayne Grudem and most Calvinists insist. Nothing more or nothing less. According to the writer, this will lead to a disturbing satire (I assume that this is what he means by these somewhat ambiguous words.)

Adam and his wife, Eve, bore two sons: Cain was the elder and Abel was the younger. Scripture notes: "When they grew up, Abel became a shepherd, while Cain cultivated the ground" (Gen. 4:2 NLT and henceforth).
Without being picky here, the NLT would not the Bible version of my choice, but a small point overall in the grand scheme of things here.

During the harvest season, Cain "presented some of his crops as a gift to the LORD" (Gen. 4:3). What the Bible means is that God influenced the desire and decision of Cain to present some of his crops unto himself. Likewise, Abel also "brought a gift ~ the best of the firstborn lambs from his flock" (Gen. 4:4). What the Bible means is that God influenced the desire and decision of Abel to offer the best of the firstborn lambs from his flock unto himself.

Is that it? No mention that Abel offered his sacrifice to the Lord by faith as the Bible clearly says? (Hebrews 11:4) If by faith, did Abel do this untaught or unaided by the Spirit of God? Surely it is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13) and "good pleasure" it was truly was, because, "unto Abel and his offering, the Lord had respect." So we can easily see how God influenced Abel in this matter. Furthermore, we learn from the Bible that we are to ask God to help us do the things that please Him. The Psalms will provide us rich pickings there. For example,David prays that God will "unite my heart to fear thy name" (86:11) and other such holy longings, recorded for our profit and admonition.

But the  contentious issue here is whether or not (or to what extent) God influenced Cain to offer his unwelcome offering. Unfortunately, Mr Birch stays clear from this particular matter which, effectively renders his exercise here, practically useless. He has got himself a single phrase from Wayne Grudem which he repeats over and over again as if it were the be and end all of the matter, when it is anything but. Since I don't have access to the original source, then I do not know if or to what extent Wayne Grudem elaborated upon it. Certainly, Mr Birch isn't giving much away on the matter, and (as said) the lack of information leaves more questions unanswered. 

From a Calvinistic point of view, we see that God did indeed "influence" the desire and decision of Cain to offer up his false and gospel denying offering. But we mean in a way far different from the way that He influenced Abel, and in a way far removed from what Mr Birch is trying to portray, as gleaned from his words "A Disturbing Satire." Cain was born a sinner with a sinful nature ("Original sin" as it commonly known to Calvinist and Arminian alike) and God, who is under no obligation to be gracious to any nor consequently gracious to all, left Cain to the relative wickedness of His own heart. Of course, God had restrained Cain's wickedness and even influenced him towards a religious bent (although falling far short of saving, Evangelical religion) but He did leave him in his sins - unless he did get saved and the Bible does not record the fact. (It would seem that he didn't.) The sin of Cain's actions belong to Cain himself. God did not author Cain's sin, nor even tempt him to sin, because God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. (James 1:13) All God did, was draw Cain's sin out of his wicked heart. Again, God did not put the sin into Cain's heart. If He did, then I would be as disturbed as any Arminian. All God did was make sure that Cain's sinful thoughts would manifest them at this particularly time. If the police arrest a suspect at a certain point in (say) a murder enquiry, ply him with honest questions regarding this crime and lead him to confess his guilt, then we do not lay any blame at the door of the police. All God did in this matter with Cain is give him opportunity to reveal the wickedness of his own heart.

Additionally, what the Bible means is that God did not accept the gift which he influenced Cain to desire and decide to give. Though, consistently, it was not genuinely Cain's gift, which sprang from his heart to offer to the LORD. For Cain could only offer that which God had influenced him to present unto himself.

This rejection of God made Cain angry. So, the LORD spoke to him: "Why do you look so dejected? You will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master" (Gen. 4:6).

This saying must have confused Cain's Calvinistic underpinnings. For he knew and believed that God is sovereign, and as such that he "influences the desires and decisions of people." But God was telling him that he would "be accepted" if he would do what is right.

Mr Birch is truly running away with himself here. He is reading into the Bible what isn't there. We are simply not told what knowledge and consequenht undersatanding Cain had of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God and the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. All we know that Cain knew that God was to be worshipped, and assuming that both he and Abel received the same teaching (which is a reasonable assumption) he knew that he was to come to God through the shed blood of the lamb. This is easily known from the history of God's dealings with Adam. In the wickedness of his heart, Cain chose to do otherwise and got angry when God rejected him. If we kept to what the Bible actually teaches instead of letting our imagination run away with ourselves, then this matter might prove itself to be more edifying and instructive. I am not a big fan of satire, partly because it tends to run out of control and render itself useless, as it is doing here.

Cain was in quite a theological pickle. Almost at his wit's end, he then realized: "How can I possibly subdue sin and be its master unless God influences my desire and decision to actually master it? God just isn't making any sense today. Usually his commands are so clear. But all of this ambiguous language and conflicting concepts are incongruous with my Calvinism."
Here the story breaks down again. Cain's thinking here, as imagined by Mr Birch, is simply not Calvinism. The disturbing satire here is not so much of the Bible but of the Calvinism that teaches man's responsibility as much as any Arminian. Let us suppose that Cain actually did think these first thoughts about subduing sin etc. If he did, then he ought to have sought the Lord for mercy. It was certainly offered to him and he simply did not want to know. Why not? To say because God left him in his sin is to give only half the scenario and to do so in such an unbalanced way as to misrepresent the whole story. The Bible puts the blame where it belongs: on the guilty, darkness loving sinner who hates the light (John 3:19) As Calvin comments on this incident of Cain, widening its application out to all hypocritical sinners: "Their impiety alone hinders God from being reconciled unto them; but they wish to bargain with God on their own terms."

But, alas, that is not what we find in the LORD's holy word. "Afterward the LORD asked Cain, 'Where is your brother? Where is Abel?' 'I don't know,' Cain responded. 'Am I my brother's guardian?' But the LORD said, 'What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground! Now you are cursed and banished from the ground, which has swallowed your brother's blood" (Gen. 4:9-11).
Not only do we not find this in God's holy word, but neither, if truth be told, do we find it in Calvinistic theology. Which effectively renders Mr Birch's whole production one great exercise in futility!  Any who believe that Mr Birch has rendered the Calvinistic interpretation of this passage should consult the Calvinistic commentators (e.g. Matthew Henry or John Calvin himself) and see how completely different the truth is to what is being pedalled here.

Cain found it very odd that the LORD asked him, "What have you done?" For Cain knew, as every good Calvinist knows, that God influences the desires and decisions of people. "What have I done?" asked Cain. "I have done that which you influenced me to do. You gave me the desire to murder my brother. You influenced my decision to end his life. What have I done? Why did you influence me to desire to murder my brother? Why did you influence me to decide to end his life? That is the question!"
Can Mr Birch show us any Calvinist commentator of note who believes that "God gave Cain the desire to murder Abel?" The desire to murder Abel came from the wickedness of Cain's heart. Read James 1:13ff for the details. What God did - to repeat myself again - is but draw out Cain's wickedness which was already there.

Thankfully, we do not need to reinterpret or re-write Scripture in order to support a Calvinistic presupposition. For nothing could be more false than to suggest that God "influences the desires and decisions of people."

1 Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 146