Both high and low Calvinists from this Wiki say that God authorized the Fall, by which all deserve to be condemned. Me: If there is no predestination at all, both Cain and Abel will end up in hell. From this link Calvinists teach that Ephesians 2:8 declares that *faith is given to the elect only.* Now, Hebrews 11:4 says: > By *faith* Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. ([NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A4&version=NIV) , italics added) Me: because there is predestination, Abel will end up in heaven while Cain will still end up in hell. But [Genesis 4:7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+4%3A7&version=NIV) says: > 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. (NIV) My question: If God alone before the creation had already decreed that Cain would end up in hell, and that's why He will never give Cain faith, why did God say what He did to Cain in Genesis 4:7?

In chapter 4 of the Book of Genesis, Cain is written to have killed his brother Abel out of jealousy over the difference in their offerings to God. Cain was bestowed the role of a tiller of the ground, while Abel was a keeper of sheep. *"In the course of time, Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell."* At this time in the creation story, there were only about four people on earth who did also not have a bible or societal customs for sacrifice or any sort of offerings. Adam and Eve were also aware that they had to make sacrifices for the sake of God, but why? God is never mentioned to have instructed them to make offerings to him (which doesn't make very much sense to me anyway), but they still do. Was it something already instinctual in them as people? Is it an inherent human desire to make sacrifices to God?

When God cursed Cain for killing Abel, did that curse extend to Cain's offspring, to Cain alone, or to everyone? God tells Cain: > "And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Genesis 4:11-12 ESV Later in Genesis, when tracing the genealogy of Cain's younger brother Seth, this next verse seems to indicate that the ground was cursed for everyone, not just Cain or his direct descendants? >"When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Genesis 5:28-29

Since some biblical characters, like Kings David and Solomon did exist, but others didn't ( I am assuming that Noah didn't,for instance, although some people think he really lived a lot of years ago) I was wondering ... Did Cain really exist ?? Is he really buried in Kabul ?? The story goes like this : Cain travelled to the actual Iran, and somehow he found redemption for his great sin. Nowadays he is buried in a cemetery in Kabul beneath a mosque of Muslim religion. https://www.mitele.es/programas-tv/cuarto-milenio/temporada-19/top-videos/tumba-cain-kabul-40_012353011/player/

Since the restoration, the LDS Church has taught that certain dark skinned people were cursed to be cut off from the presence of the Lord: > 20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto > me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they > shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, **they > were cut off from his presence**. And that their darks skins were a sign of the curse so that they could be recognized as being cursed: > 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore > cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened > their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; > wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, > that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause > a skin of blackness to come upon them. > > 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be > loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. > > 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; > for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord > spake it, and it was done. (2 Nephi 5:21-23) Today, the official stance of the church is this: > "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that > black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects > unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are > a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are > inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally > condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (Race and the Priesthood) Does this mean that the Church is disavowing that people of African descent were ever cursed and bore the sign of the curse? Or does this mean that since the curse was lifted, and in 1978 when the Preisthood was officially offered to all worthy males, that the "sign of the curse" was no longer a sign of anything except mortal heritage, and that those spirits being born with those phenotypes today are no longer born to those lines based on premortal favour?

I have heard that people with black skin had been denied certain things in the Mormon Church until the past 30 years or so and that this has something to do with the Curse of Cain. What has been the historical teaching of the LDS Church regarding the Curse of Cain and dark-skinned people? What are the references in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon Scriptures that address this issue?

Genesis 4 has always bothered me. The story of God accepting Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's has led me to wonder: *How did they even know to sacrifice?* Was this practice started by Adam? Or did God establish more of a law than just 'Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'? If God did establish further law then what was it and when did He establish it?

After Cain kills Abel and God gives him protection, who is he being protected from? Genesis 4:14 > Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your > presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever > finds me will kill me.

God cursed Cain to be an eternal wanderer: > **Genesis 4:12** King James Version > > When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee > her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. So he went to a (probably figure-of-speech) land of wandering, the land of Nod, this much I understand. But then he builds the first city, Enoch. How is it compatible with being an eternal wanderer?

The patrilineal lineage of Noah is, according to Genesis, descendant from Seth. However, Genesis doesn't mention anything about the wives of those fathers, nor does it mention anything about the lineage of Noah's wife and his sons' wives. According to Genesis, Cain is the forefather of tent-dwelling pastoralists (nomadic herders?), lyre/pipe players and bronze and iron smiths. Some also say that the descendants of Cain account for the sin and evil found in humanity. However, for this to have been passed along, some of Cain's descendants must have survived the flood. According to my understanding of the scripture, the only breathing survivors of the flood were those present on the Ark. So, does this mean that Noah and/or his family had some level of descendance from Cain? Or, did descendants from Cain possibly survive the flood somehow, without being saved by the Ark? Something that may be relevant to this is the fact that there are two pairs of name-brothers in Cain and Seth's lineages; Enoch and Lamech.

Genesis 4:8 > Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.”* When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. \* [4:8] Let us go out in the field: to avoid detection. The verse presumes a sizeable population which Genesis does not otherwise explain. My question is *how* did Cain kill Abel? I was wondering if there is a commonly accepted method of murder, or if a religion, such as Catholicism, has a tradition about how he was killed. I have read that he used a rock. I think the more believable guess is a spear. (Based off of the meaning of the name Cain.)

Were there other people outside of Eden before Adam and Eve had to leave?

This question is following the question before, where Calvin said : > We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does > not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to > God, but **he begins with the person of the offerer**; by which he > signifies, that God will regard no works with favor except those the > doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him The bold sentence from Calvin's quotation above, lead to a conclusion that :
1. God elect Abel before the foundation of the world.
2. He regenerate Abel in time and give him faith, don't know when but before the offering event.
3. Those 2 points above causing Abel do a correct offering.
4. Now God has a reason to look with favor on Abel + his offering.
5. and now God can give him approval as righteous through his offering.
So, *"God begins with the person of the offerer"* as in this case is number 1 and number 2. The logical conclusion about Cain is :
Because God did not elect Cain and God did not regenerate Cain in time and give Cain faith then Cain offering is not accepted by God. *He had no regard for Cain and his offering* as mentioned in Gen 4:5. My question : (according to the Calvinist)
1. What is the cause of Cain's offering is not accepted by God ?
2. Has God regenerated Cain and gave him faith by the time God speak to Cain as read in verse 6 and 7 ?

In an article by Ben Heath titled [_Sex Affair in the Garden of Eden_](http://christianovercomers.com/blog/2011/06/03/sex-affair-in-the-garden-of-eden/) , he claims that the sin for which God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden was sexual intercourse with the serpent. Heath goes on to say that Cain and his descendants are literally physical descendants of the serpent, who he interprets as Satan. The doctrine seems to hold a central place in his other teachings. Consider [2 Corinthians 11:2-3:](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11) >For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Heath claims that when Paul uses words translated to _deceived_ and _beguiled_ in this and other verses, a better translation is the word _seduced_, in the sense of tempting to sexual immorality. In addition, [this website](http://www.serpent-seed.com) offers an apology of the doctrine, which it calls the _serpent seed doctrine_, saying: >You see, those who denounce the Serpent seed teaching as heresy not only deny the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they also miss out on the first prophecy of the entire Bible. According to mainstream Evangelical Protestant denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Assemblies of God, the Presbyterian Church, and the Episcopalian Church, is the serpent seed doctrine a valid interpretation of Genesis 3 and subsequent verses in the New Testament about Eve and the serpent?

This question is a bit related to this other question , which is asking about the curse of Cain. One of the answers in this other question refers to the "Book of Moses" (part of Book of Mormon), chapter 7, verse 22 which states: > And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of > Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the > seed of Cain, **for the seed of Cain were black**, and had not place > among them. I can also see that the same chapter in "Book of Moses", verse 8 , says about Canaanites: > For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the > barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; **and there was a blackness > came upon all the children of Canaan**, that they were despised among > all people. And in 2 Nephi chapter 5, verse 21 it says: > And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore > cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened > their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; > wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, > **that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them**. **Based on these statements, I wanted to ask:** 1. Is it a belief of the Mormon church that a curse from God is the **initial origin** of all dark skin among humankind today? 2. Did God choose black skin in order to make the cursed people unappealing (as it seems to say in 2 Nephi 5:21)?

> [Genesis 4:4–5](http://biblehub.com/bsb/genesis/4.htm) [Berean Study Bible] > (4) The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering > (5) but He had no regard for Cain and his offering I'm in the middle of conversation with a Calvinist in a Christian Forum (in our language). First I ask that how come while both of them were totally depraved, but one of them (who is Abel) favored by God. After some back and forth respondings, to my surprise finally he said that it's because Abel is the elected one. And he gave me Hebrew 11:4 > **By faith** Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain's. > Through this he received approval as righteous, God himself giving > approval to his gifts; he died, but through his faith he still speaks. ([NRSV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A4&version=NRSV)) He give the chronology like this :
1. God elect Abel before the foundation of the world.
2. He regenerate Abel in time and give him faith, don't know when but before the offering event
3. Those 2 points above causing Abel do a correct offering.
4. Now God has a reason to look with favor on Abel + his offering
5. and now God can give him approval as righteous through his offering. When I asked him if he has any reference from any Reformed Church's father, he said he would ask his Church about it. But so far he hasn't followed up. My question here is the same : *Is there any reference from any Reformed Church's father indicating that Abel was regenerated before the offering ?*

Does Calvinism (and those who believe in Unconditional Election) teach that Cain was elected to Salvation? This is my source for defining Unconditional Election. >Unconditional Election: God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21). Source: https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm My question is sincere, as I struggle with many of the doctrines of the Protestant Revolt, and find countless objections to the new teachings of especially Calvin. How do you resolve the issue of Cain in Gen 4:6-7? >“The Lord said to Cain, “why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? ***If you do well***, will you not be accepted? And if you ***do not do well***, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” In my understanding of Protestant doctrine of Election, God would have created Cain for destruction, or else he would have created him for Salvation. God says that if Cain does well he will be accepted and if he does not well he will be consumed by sin? If God created Cain for destruction, would not he have said, “I have molded you for destruction, it is not in your power to do well, rather, I have made you this way for my Glory.” or something to that effect? It seems rather that the dispensation of Cain resides entirely on his own free will, at least on the surface. Why would God offer to him something directly opposite to the purpose for which God created him, making it sound as if he could do otherwise than what he has done. If the tradition of Unconditional Election is Truth, then Cain must have been a member of the Elect of God. Otherwise, God would not have told him that he would be accepted if he did well. I struggle with these Protestant doctrines because they seem to go against the grain in every case, like a jigsaw puzzle piece jammed into the wrong space. When I hear sermons or teachings by the likes of James White or R.C. Sproul I hear what they are saying and unlike onlookers who nod in agreement having what appears to be a shared understanding that they too are fortunate to be part of the arbitrarily chosen elect, unlike myself destined for eternal damnation. Which leaves me, if I was somehow convinced of Unconditional Election, to be the only person who accepts the Doctrine with the understanding that I’m not one of those elect! Please explain how Cain might not be the Elect of God if his acceptance is subject to what he does.

In Genesis,..when it reads she(Eve) bore again,is that referring to that Able being born 1st was actually Adam son-but then she gave birth again(implying right after Ables birth,...meaning they were twins of some sort but Cain not being Adams son,...instead implying that Cain was Lucifers actual biological son?

**Adam and Eve had only three sons (Cain, Abel, and Seth)**, but no daughters: how did the world get populated?

This question is about speculations that might have taken place in Christianity on the matter of Cain's destiny - whether he will be in the kingdom of God (which means that he is saved) or he will go into eternal perdition. Have there been any speculations on this matter in Roman Catholic, Orthodox or main-stream protestant Christianity (by main-stream protestant Christianity I mean those who believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God - the same God as God the Father is - but don't consider themselves to be a part of Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy)? If yes, can you, please, share them here. Cain was the first murderer in the human history. The following verse speaks not in favor of Cain: > From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished > between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be > required of this generation (Luke 11 :51) However, I don't see any verse in the Bible pronouncing clearly that Cain will go into the eternal perdition. Or, perhaps, I am reading the New Testament in to the Old one here?