Eye Sight

8 October 2017

Dear Phyllis,

Gomen nasai (I'm sorry), this is the kind of letter I really would prefer not to write. It is more enjoyable to eat apple pie than to talk about it. It is an exhilarating experience to fly a jet aircraft and I would rather fly one than talk about it. I would rather lift up Jesus and have everyone gaze upon that lovely One than talk about eye sight. But today I am constrained to talk about eye sight.

Apart from God sending His Son here to live among us and give His life for us, the next greatest gift that God has given us is His Word. Words are an inestimable treasure because it is by the means of words that we communicate something that is inside of us to others. And it is by His Word that God imparts much of Himself to us. It is highly significant that the first words that came out of the mouth of the devil was “Hath God said?”. It was an attack on the Word of God. And this has been the central battle for humanity ever since that early moment in the Garden.

In the transmission of words there are two aspects – one the giving and the other the reception. During the Cold War radio was one of the fields of battle. America was beaming the Voice of America into Russia and eastern Europe, and the Russians were doing their best to jam it. The Lord has given us His Word in many ways and the devil is doing his best to jam it. This battle is not being fought in the air waves but in the mind of the listener.

It is not my purpose today to challenge liberalism - although I think it is the most vile and wicked argument satan has ever set forth - but to discuss the battle fought in the minds of conservative, born-again, Christians.

Paul explained something to us in 1 Cor. 2:14 that should be obvious to any sincere follower of Christ after he has been walking with the Lord for three months or more; that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for the are foolish unto him, neither can he know them”. To put it another way; we cannot measure God with mans yard stick. For us to try comprehend spiritual truth with our intellect is as foolish as a child going to the top of a hill and hold up a stick to see how far it is to a star. And yet that is exactly what theologians do. Millions upon millions of dedicated Christians fiercely argue that they understand spiritual truth with their intellect; and they indisputably prove that with heated arguments over controversial theological issues. Perhaps the most common one is over Calvinism and Armenianism.

I have come to a very satisfying position on this issue. I am a Calvinist. The conflict over the sovereignty of God and the free will of man is one of the most obvious contradiction found in scripture. By mans intellect they both can't be true. It must be one or the other. It is impossible for man to have a free will if everything is pre-wired before he is born.. And if man has a total, unrestricted, free will, to choose or reject what he wills, then it is Impossible that God is totally sovereign.

Since the days of Aristotle physicists have pondered over the nature of light. Is light a wave or a particle? In the past 100 years physicists have proven, repeatedly, by the double slit experiment that light is a wave. In every experiment light always behaves as a wave. And yet more recently quantum physicists have proven that light is corpuscular. Light is photon particles. By the laws of nature it is impossible for anything to be both a wave and a particle, but that is exactly what light is. All physicists have come to accept that things that are impossible do exists in nature, but theologians are reluctant to come to that conclusion. Mans intellect is held as king which closes the door to spiritual understanding. And the heated controversy continues.

The Old Covenant was a very good one. The covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai was unspeakable grace. Never before in history had God made a covenant with a nation to be His chosen people. The covenant was basically the same as the marriage vow, that they would be His people and He would be their God. That put Israel in a unique category as the most blessed people on earth. God promised to remove sickness, to bless the fruit of their bodies, to bless the fruit of their fields, and to deliver them from enemies. You can't get better than that. All He was asking of them was that they be decent. It is impossible for the people of God to be disgusting and decadent and still be His people. The marriage vow reasonably requires that both side be faithful. Infidelity breaks the covenant and dissolves the marriage. God specified that they keep ten items, and Jesus summed it all up into two – that they love God and their neighbor. There is nothing wrong with that. But the Old Covenant proved to be fatally flawed. Israel couldn't keep their side of the bargain; thereby making it necessary to make a New Covenant. But if the New Covenant was to be better than the first one, it was necessary to fix the flaw of the Old one. God kept His side of the deal but Israel couldn't keep their side. To fix that God had to come up with a plan that that would guarantee both partners were faithful. To do that God wrote a New Covenant guaranteeing fidelity by, Himself, signing both sides of the deal. To do this God would fix the problem two ways. First He would write His law in our hearts (Heb. 8:10; 10:16). That is; He would give us a new nature that instinctively would keep His commandments. He would clear the slate and put the old man out of business by the death of His Son. And secondly He would make His Son to be the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6; 9:15). That is; Jesus would be the co-signor of the Covenant. In a contract where there are two signers, if the first signer fails to comply, by law, the co-signer must step forward to fulfill the agreement. I can't live the Christian life. Jesus must live it in me. This is the fundamental difference between the Old Covenant and the New. In the Old Covenant the weight of the responsibility to keep the deal rested upon Israel. This is Armenian. In the New Covenant the responsibility to preserve the agreement rests entirely upon the faithfulness of God's Son. This is Calvin. Jesus said to the Father “All that Thou gavest Me I have kept” (Jn. 17:12), and I don't believe Jesus has lost any since then. The clear declaration that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant makes this argument indisputable. Samuel Rutherford frequently said, “Grace is the only garland worn in heaven”. I believe it can also be said there are no Armenians in heaven. By that; I mean, there will be no one there thumping their chest saying “I got here on the strength of my own free will, that I held out to the end”. The most adamant defender of the Armenian position will have to hang his head and admit the only reason he is in heaven is entirely the grace of God.

This being true, what can we say about the overwhelming testimony in scripture irrefutably establishing the responsibility of mans free will? At the great White Throne Judgment Seat of Christ, there will be no one there protesting, “This isn't fair! You predestined me to go to hell”. The Lord will honestly be able to reply, “No, I did everything possible to save you. It was never my will that anyone should perish (2 Pet. 3:9). Jesus shed His Blood for you as well as for those who are in heaven (1Jn. 2:2). The only reason you are going to hell is because you stubbornly refused my offer of salvation. Your fate is entirely your own doing.” To anyone who wants to forward the most convincing Armenian argument, I will reply, “You are correct. That is exactly what the scripture teaches”. All men have a free will.

I have come to the conclusion that with our human intellect we cannot sit in judgment on the Word of God and be selective of scripture to support our own theological position. We must accept ALL the Bible exactly as it says. Am I wrong?

                                           bill