Crazy talk? We'll Soon See

Four minutes, listen then comment. Is this crazy talk?

Sanctification Question

Here's the scenario.

A young man comes to you and confesses that he is in bondage to something addictive (whether drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography...whatever.)

He is in distress and near despair because of his lack of victory in this area.

He is a confessing Christian, and aside from this confession, has never seemed to bear the fruit of a false convert. There's nothing you've observed in his life that would've led you to suspect that he's anything other than a growing, though imperfect, sincere believer in Christ.

Now that he's laid bare his soul to you, his desire is freedom from this sin.

What is your counsel?

(The reason I ask is because I was "raised" as a baby Christian with a Pentecostal view of sanctification, and am interested in other ideas. I'm not so much interested in your theology of personal holiness as I am what your specific counsel to a man like this guy above would be. I'm interested in how the rubber meets the road in your theory of sanctification.)

So...play nice and try to keep responses to something less than thesis-length.

More Prophecy Stuff at Incrediblog

I'm starting a series on allowing the Bible to interpret itself, even on prophetic matters. I think when most of us settle on a prophetic system that seems to work for us, then that's the one we go with, and it becomes a filter through which we look at all prophecies. But what if the Bible itself demonstrates proper interpretation of prophetic dreams and visions? Hmm.

Book Recommendation: RA Torrey's "The Fundamentals"

I have a confession to make. I hate theological liberalism. Look up all the synonyms for "hatred" in your thesaurus, and if you roll them all up into one mega-hate word, and then smother that hate-word in the hottest red chili sauce known to man (y'know, the stuff you have to handle with rubber gloves), well then, that's how I feel about liberalism. And, coincidentally, most actual theological liberals get on my nerves rather quickly.

Having made that confession, I want to say that I got R.A. Torrey's two volume work, The Fundamentals, for Christmas and I am thoroughly enjoying it. It's four books, actually, and each is a collection of essays from various authors.

These books began to be collected/assembled in 1909, as an obvious frontal assault on the then-fashionable liberalism that was coming out of Germany, and beginning to infect Christianity in North America.

As with any collection of writings, some are more helpful than others, so I'm not offering a blanket endorsement here, but generally speaking these are thoughtful essays written by brilliant, well-educated Christian men who hated liberalism nearly as much as I do. (They might leave off the chili sauce.)

The first book is focused on countering the en vogue Higher Critical method, and the remaining three center around theological topics. Some of the names I recognized before I started reading: James Orr, B.B. Warfield, W.J. Erdman, Thomas Boston, H.C.G. Moule, J.C. Ryle, G. Campbell Morgan, C.T. Studd, and Philip Mauro. (I also recognized C.I. Scofield, but I was trying to list the good ones above...)

I have seen this set for sale many times before, but I have passed over it because I had a suspicion that it would be filled merely with the rantings of snake-handlers and those who believe that holiness has something to do with the length of your shirt sleeves.

I have been pleasantly surprised, and quite edified, by this collection. Did I mention how much I hate liberalism?

But here's the thing, the reason why you really ought to consider getting The Fundamentals by R.A. Torrey for yourself: The current Postmodern fad gets all of its theological legwork from the 19th and early 20th Century liberals. The pomo's haven't hit on something new. They're simply rehashing all the same junk that has destroyed Christianity in Europe and brought down all the mainline denom's here. And smarter men than you and I had 'em pegged a long, long time ago.

RA Torrey's The Fundamentals, a two volume hardcover set, can now be had for about fifteen dollars, which is 85% off the original retail cost. Talk about bang for your buck! Very highly recommended.

The Fundamentals, 2 Volumes

"With Juicy Bits"

For interested folk, I've published a post on the last third of the Revelation, with juicy bits of wild speculation at the end. Enjoy.

Why?

When asked why one chooses Christ and another does not the universal answer from the Arminian is because:




When all is said and done your salvation is up to you:



But that is fraught with:



The mystery of human love still baffles minds as unsolvable. Why? What is it that takes the heart and hurls it over a cliff headlong? How is it that such coarse a smith's hand holds a flower's stem and the cold steel voice becomes as soft as petals and as pleasing as lavender in mist?

Just because? It's up to you? We don't know what love is? Nah!

What love is this? It is a love that gives us a new heart which is spread abroad with the love of God:
So it is now my cause to show that this is exactly the same case for those being regenerated. They choose Christ because they have a new heart. I will demonstrate that the choice to believe must spring from a heart and nature that loves Christ if it is to be a faith that is pleasing to Him. Further the prophet Ezekiel said the result of giving the new heart is that is causes his people to walk in His ways. In other words, there is no heat without a fire, there is no sight without an eye; there is no hearing without an ear; and there is no believing without a new heart. Belief is what is required in the New Covenant and belief is what characterizes those who have been born again (1 John 5:1). We believe the gospel because it is now in our nature to love Christ and see his beauty and excellence. Our natural hostility has been disarmed because it was replaced by another affection. Now to all those who choose Christ do so because their new nature compels them to. A regenerate person never resists the desire to believe. He believes because he wants to and cannot do otherwise.

That's what love is.

Universalism Squeezing Arminianism

This post from Steve Hays at Triablogue presents an interesting question that I think all synergists (not merely Arminians) need to answer.  Read his post. It doesn't start out as an attack on Arminianism, but rather winds up posing some sticky questions re: "evangelical" universalism.

If you're too lazy to read the post, here's the point that is interesting. Universalism is on the rise in modern "evangelicalism" (so-called.) The Universalists use a lot of the same texts to prove their case that the Arminians use to combat Calvinism, texts focusing (supposedly) on God's great desire to save each and every individual. And, it seems, it's the Universalists who take these texts at greater "face value." This highlights the oft-made observation that many of the Arminians proof texts, if they prove Arminianism, really prove more than that: Universalism. (e.g. When the Bible tells us that Jesus is the "savior" of the whole world, on the face of it that would seem to support Universalism more naturally than it would Arminianism, especially when Arminians hold such statements up as proof against the idea of decretal election.)

Since we are graced here with the presence of some thoughtful Arminians and other synergists on occassion, I'm curious what your answer is to Hays' post. And, of course, I'd challenge you to answer him directly. I've got my popcorn ready.