Life at Cedar Creek Lake (October 1999 to 2010)

My Life’s Journey of Faith-Part 7-Cedar Creek

My years so far at Cedar Creek are as much as anything a testament to the truth that you never have to stop growing or learning spiritually. Through inspiring early morning quiet times, teaching adult Sunday School for eight years, and examining some of the controversial Christian issues of our time there is a lot I have learned and want to share. I’m not sure of the best way to cover it all – I guess I’ll do it chronologically. During our move from Houston to Cedar Creek including our six months in Corsicana, we didn’t attend church much. I visited a few times at Northside Baptist in Corsicana and after we got to Cedar Creek visited First Baptist of Athens and of Malakoff. Eventually Ivan Rash, I believe, invited me to visit First Baptist Gun Barrel City, and the friendliness of the folks there immediately won me over, and I started attending there regularly in September 2000. Radene and I joined around the end of 2000.

Coming Face to Face with the Fact and Controversy of Election

In August 2001 a new youth minister was hired at 1st Baptist Gun Barrel – Denny Gorena. As an ordained minister Denny started providing fill for the pastor when he was away, and one Sunday night he preached on election. He presented a very Calvinistic view that God chose who would be saved and did not at all try to offset that or reconcile that to the universal offer of John 3:16. After the sermon, I went up to him and asked why he didn’t reconcile election to John 3:16. His reply was astonishing – he said it could not be reconciled. I told him that was a cop-out. Intuitively I knew there had to be a reconciliation, and I went home with a mission to search the scriptures myself to reconcile it. After studying the issue I wrote Denny a letter with my reconciliation of election and John 3:16.

Denny responded to me a couple of months later in a letter, and I responded to his letter a few months later after considerable evaluation and research of his points. Denny didn’t respond in writing to my second letter, but he later acknowledged that it impacted his thinking, and he invited me to present my view of the Doctrine of Salvation in the Christian Maturity Study he was leading at 1st Church Gun Barrel. I subsequently made the presentation, which I will include in a subsequent blog. A week later Denny gave his Calvinistic view of salvation, which I will include in the subsequent blog. In his introductory comments, Denny’s acknowledged that our exchange helped him rethink his view of salvation and change some of his conclusions.

What was my conclusion or explanation of election? In my understanding of God, the notion that He would choose unconditionally to save some and not save others is profoundly offensive to His character. If God did choose unconditionally to save people, He would save everyone for He does not wish anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Election is in the Bible, but the Bible repeatedly gives the condition for being elected – belief/faith in Jesus Christ. Contrary to what some suggest, this is not the same as God waiting to see who believes and then choosing them. God effectively chose them when He established the means of salvation – by God’s grace through one’s faith in the person and work of Christ on Calvary. God took the action (establishing the means) and we the reaction (personally satisfying the requirements of the means) – not the other way around.

In researching election and Denny’s Calvinistic view of it, I read Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion – specifically the sections on election. Calvin made no bones about the implication of unconditional election. He pointed out that not electing some was, in effect, “reprobating” them although he said that was simply the result of God letting them receive justice – the condemnation due them because they were sinners. The difference between Calvin’s view and mine is that I believe they are reprobated because they refuse to believe – which would be a just reprobation because belief is something God gives all men the capability to do. On the other hand, because man is born into the world with a propensity to sin, it is impossible for him to live a sin-free life. Therefore, for God to reprobate someone because he didn’t do something it was impossible for him to do would violate God’s just nature. It would also give man the perfect excuse – being sinless was not within his capability and therefore was impossible to do. Therefore, how could he be held accountable? The apostle Paul clarified this issue when he said that men are “without excuse” because God has revealed Himself to them and made Himself evident to them (enlightened and drew them), yet they suppressed this truth and believed not. (From Rom 1:17-20)

Here is another way to look at it – it’s the opposite side of the coin where God says, “the just shall live by faith.” The unjust shall die because of a lack of faith – unbelief! This is the meaning of John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe is judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

I am not saying that sin is not bad or that sinners don’t deserve punishment. The wages of sin is death, punishment, and destruction of the soul, and that is what all men receive – what they deserve – if they reject God’s mercy, God’s pardon by not believing. I also read James Arminius’ works refuting the Calvin view. Arminius was very difficult to follow and I had to translate his explanation of Romans 9 into current English before I could understand and use it. That translation is incorporated in my second letter to Denny, and I have included it below. Arminius’ view was a conditional election based on faith, and he helped me form my view. However, I differ from him in his view that you can be saved and then lose your salvation.

I owe Denny a debt of gratitude for forcing me to confront the question of election. I am now aware of the historical dialogue around it, and am satisfied with the reconciliation I found between it and the free offer of salvation to all.

An Explanation of Romans 9:1-23

By Dennis Christian

(Based in part on James Arminius’ commentary on Romans 9)

Romans 9-11 deals with Israel’s plight in light of the new covenant. Though many Jews had believed in Christ when Paul wrote Romans, e.g. the day of Pentecost, the Jewish religious establishment and the vast majority of Jews were rejecting Christ as the Messiah. Paul is heartbroken over this development, offering to give his life if it would change things (Romans 9:3). Moreover, the Jewish religious establishment is strongly contesting Paul’s preaching (Acts 21:28, 24:5) that all mankind – including Jews – is justified by faith in Christ and not by keeping the law. The Jews contest it also because it implies they have been left behind, abandoned by God as the vessel for reconciling the world to Himself.

Paul acknowledges that the Law, the covenants, the promises, and Christ Himself are from the Jews, and then says it is not as if the word (the promises) of God has failed regarding Israel because they are rejecting the gospel of Christ. Paul spends the rest of chapters 9-11 explaining why God’s word has not failed. He does so to (1) help Christians understand where Israel now fits in and (2) answer his Jewish critics that his gospel ignores Israel’s special status as God’s chosen people and ignores all of the as-yet unfulfilled promises made to them by God.

Paul begins his explanation in vs. 6 by saying the word of God “has not failed.” Then he proceeds with a long argument as to why. He states, “They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” By this, he means that not all who are descendants by birth are part of the Israel about which God’s word speaks and makes promises.

He gives two examples. The first is that the promises were not made to all of Abraham’s descendants but only those through Sarah and Isaac. God’s initial promise was to Abraham, but to that, He added a second – that Sarah will bear a son through whom God will fulfill His promise to Abraham. So the first promise was clarified by a second promise. This left out the children born to Hagar. They are Abraham’s flesh and blood – children of the flesh – but are not the “children of the promise.” Paul then says just because one is a child of the flesh does not mean he is a “child of God.” Note that Paul switches allegorically here from Abraham to God. In saying next that the children of the promise are the real descendants, he is meaning this – that to be a child of God is more than just being born (in the flesh) – it means you conform to the conditions of the promise of God. For example, under the new covenant or promise, the children of the promise and thus children of God are those who have conformed to the new promise’s condition or requirement – that they have believed in Christ.

The same allegorical explanation is given in Galatians 4:24-31. There, Paul says that Abraham’s seed through Hagar, the bondservant, and her son Ishmael are children of the flesh only and correspond to the disbelieving Jews of Paul’s day. He says that Abraham’s seed through Sarah, the free woman, and her son Isaac are children of the promise and, as such, children of the Spirit, and correspond to those, Jew and Gentile, of Paul’s day who do believe.

The second example Paul gives to show that they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel is that of God’s promise regarding the children of Isaac. Here, God made further clarification of who was included – He told Rebecca, Isaac’s wife, that the older would serve the younger – this before the twin boys were born. The children of the promise are thus now clarified as the descendants of Jacob – the younger, not Esau -the older. Here again, Paul next makes an allegorical comparison. Just as Jacob was not chosen because of any good or works he had done (for he was not yet born), so one is not saved by works but by God who calls people to repentance and faith in Christ (vs. 11).

In both examples, Paul shows two things – one literal and one allegorical. The literal is that not all the descendants of Abraham or Isaac were children of the promise and yet God’s word did not fail – the twelve tribes of Israel were indeed produced – but through Jacob. The allegorical is that (1) not all who are born of the flesh are children of God but those who meet the condition of the promise – belief in Christ and (2) salvation is not of human effort or works but of God who calls men to repentance and faith.

Next, Paul asks, “What shall we say then?” Paul usually does this to reflect on the subject just discussed. It could be specific to God choosing Jacob and not Esau or that He “loved Jacob” and “hated Esau.” But it is more likely the broader subject – that God shows mercy to the children of promise and counts them as His children but condemns the children of the flesh. Paul continues “There is no injustice with God, is there?” He answers – in no way – for God said to Moses “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Paul asks and answers this question to point out what the Jews knew to be true – that God was sovereign in His choices regarding Israel’s unfolding history, namely His choices of Isaac and Jacob as opposed to Ishmael and Esau. Likewise, God is sovereign in establishing a new covenant based on mercy in which the children of the promise are now all those, Jew or Gentile, who believe in Jesus – for as Paul says in the next verse (vs. 16) “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” It is God, not man, who defines the plan for reconciling mankind to Himself. It is not man willing the terms to be such as would suit him or by man working to earn salvation. Just as it always really was, God’s plan is based on His mercy and grace.

The second part of the answer to the question above “is there injustice with God” is given in vs. 17. God is not unjust for condemning the children of the flesh “for the scripture says to Pharaoh ‘For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’” The logic here is since it was just and right that God should raise up and use the unrighteous Pharaoh for the demonstration of His might and glory, so then it is also just and right that God should demonstrate His power and glory by condemning and punishing the unrighteous children of the flesh.

Combining both parts of his answer then in vs. 18, Paul concludes, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” Does scripture give us any information on what God’s desires are regarding on whom He chooses to have mercy and whom He chooses to harden? Yes, but we will get to this later. Paul now deals with yet another potential objection in vs. 19 “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” Paul rebukes the one who would ask such a question to God’s face. Do we the created have the right to ask God the Creator “why did you make me thus?” It is like a pot asking the potter why he made him the way he did. Just as the potter can make from the same lump of clay some pots for honorable use and others for common use, so Paul asks why couldn’t God, although ready to demonstrate His wrath and power, endure “with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And God did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory?”

Here is how to understand this. First, realize that the topic is the sovereignty of God in the creation of mankind. The viewpoint is from God’s perspective regarding what He created and His sovereign will regarding how he will show justice and mercy on sinful man. Some people will experience God’s wrath and end up in hell as children of the flesh (unbelievers) and others will experience God’s mercy and end up in heaven as children of the promise (believers). Why? Why do some people have to go to hell? Why couldn’t a loving God have made man such that all could go to heaven? Because it was apparently God’s desire to not create puppets or robots who are programmed to always do right without choice, but to create a being in God’s image – that is – with not only intelligence and emotions, but also a will free to make its own choices or more to the point – a will free to do wrong. Only such a being would have the capacity to freely and genuinely respond in love to the love God would show them. The downside for this kind of being is that they would all end up as sinners, and Holy God cannot stand sin so God would need a means of dealing with the sin in such a way that mankind could be reconciled to Himself. But the problem was worse yet, in that no matter what means God created short of a blanket, unconditional pardon for all, He could not force man to accept His condition for reconciliation. That would violate man’s God-given freedom. Because of God’s justice, He couldn’t give the blanket, unconditional pardon. Therefore, it would be inevitable that some people would not be reconciled and would have to be punished.

To be acceptable to the greatest number of people possible, God foreordained to give the most He could give – Himself as Jesus at the cross of Calvary, and require but that man believe in Him. God’s desire and plan from before creation was to bestow and make known the riches of His glory on those who believe, and justly demonstrate His wrath and power on those who refuse to believe – but only after patiently giving each the opportunity to do so. So, God had to endure vessels of wrath fitted to destruction in order that He could make known the riches of His glory upon the vessels of mercy. He couldn’t have the latter without the former (vs. 22-23).

God can do as He pleases with His vessels, but we know that what He pleases must be consistent with His nature. Further, we also know what He pleases or desires where it is made evident in scripture. For example, regarding the question of whom God desires to have mercy and whom He desires to harden, we have the answer. God desires to have mercy on all people, wishing that all would repent, believe, and be reconciled to Him. But if people persist in unbelief and rejection of God’s provision in Christ, after much longsuffering, God desires to punish, to harden them as their just consequence.

In summary of Romans 9:6-23, God’s word has not failed. Sovereign God, our creator, has the power and right to determine the means for man’s reconciliation with Him, and He has clarified who the children of the promise now are. By God’s sovereign decree, the term or condition that He established for man’s salvation is his belief/faith in Christ. As Paul concludes in vs. 30-33, most of the Jews were pursuing righteousness (salvation) by works – keeping the law – a way as scripture says seems right to man – not through God’s way, which is through faith.

The Sovereignty of God

What does it mean that God is sovereign? It means there is no one above Him – He is accountable to no one. He has the right, the authority, and the power to do as He pleases. It means that no one or no thing can place a limit on God or place any condition on what He can do. However, God does have constraints and limits. For example, He is constrained by His own decrees. If He decrees that 1+1=2 is eternally true, He cannot also decree that it is eternally false. Similarly, if God promised to do something unconditionally, He is bound or limited by His promise. Likewise, He can choose to self-limit what He does without violating His sovereignty – it is His choice and will. He is also constrained by His character in that He will not do anything inconsistent with His character, some of which He has revealed to us (love, truth, justice, etc.). For more information follow Find Peace with God.

Dennis Christian