Featured Charles Stanley

As I said before, I think Stanley has a solid ministry and that he has a pretty solid track record. As far as M.E., one preacher said "We all have a little bit of heretic in us," lol. No one person is likely to either be doctrinally flawless, or, satisfy everyone that they are, so while even if it were true of Stanley, that does not negate his consistent teaching concerning salvation and Eternal Security. So it makes me question the charge against him, and I doubt it is something he has actually developed. I have never seen it reflected in the teaching I have heard of him. That doesn't mean I am not missing something, that's possible, but in large part I see him ministering to a particular group, even as other ministers do, and am thankful for whatever is accomplished through him that has eternal value.

That is not Millennial Exclusion, so I am not sure exactly what you mean by this.

God bless.

 

Actually that is ME


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

This...

...is not Millennial Exclusion, at least to my understanding of the topic. It is simply believers, while maintaining their salvation, being excluded from the Millennial Kingdom. Of course it has been a few years since I have looked at that issue, but there arises a distinct conflict with trying to charge Stanley with doctrinal views that stand in direct opposition to what he teaches on a normal basis. He is solid in his teaching on Eternal Security (at least what I have heard) so it makes little sense to imply a "second salvation" into his views.

Secondly...

...if they make it into the Millennial Kingdom, that kind of destroys the entire concept, doesn't it?

Now it may be that his teaching warns of exclusion, that I won't argue, but ME is precisely what it states...exclusion. They are not earning a second salvation, but as I said earlier it is a purgatorial state I see being introduced, which is absurd, of course, but not precisely "earning" a second salvation. This would conflict with the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security itself.

So I still hold reservations about how Stanley's view is presented, and this largely because of the conflict that arises from it in light of what he teaches on a regular basis.


God bless.

 

Not a secondary or additional salvation, but a completion of the one salvation.

Salvation is at least three elements: from, to, and toward

From - damnation, condemnation, separation from God, destruction, etc
this is accessed by faith in the work of Christ

To - heaven, the new earth, eternally in the presence of God

Toward - Eternal rewards, inheritance, glory, honor. We will "see" God
this is not earned, but determined by one's obedience, continuing in the faith, etc


Heaven should never be the goal of a believer, but that we should hear "Well done, good and faithful servant"

Those believers who fall away or deny Him will never hear this. Those believers who do not pick up their cross and follow Christ's example of suffering will never hear this. yet they will ever be with God

 

Do you understand that pushing this heresy will get you banned from this board.

 

Me thinks we have at least two ME's on this board currently.

 

I think any rational thinker can see through your libelous accusation
I'm not pushing anything, merely explaining what the view is not.

I've already stated that there were/are many faces of what could possibly be called Millennial Exclusion. However, they aren't labeled as such. But not one of them speaks any notion of "secondary salvation". That was a misrepresentation which needed cleared up.

Furthermore, I've also stated, about that teaching which is known around here as Millennial Exclusion, that it is a heinous teaching akin to Purgatory.


How about you simply address the content of my post, rather than try to play internet hall monitor.


.

 

Well, I was going to ask why it had been banned but will let it go out of respect for the Owners/Staff and their views concerning this doctrine. Just as a suggestion, though, on some forums they have sections for one on one debate, where perhaps certain doctrines you may not want discussed could be handled and in that way there is still the chance to shoot down damnable doctrines such as these. Have you ever considered a one on one section?

And for the record, I reject this doctrine, and the only reason it came up is it seems to cast a shadow on Charles Stanley, and the only thing I know of that might affect his reputation as a minister of the Word.


God bless.

 

No tv preacher puts me to sleep like Charles Stanley.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

In the Nashville TN market, he doesn't come on at times that are convenient for my normal schedule.

OTOH, I do listen to his radio broadcasts via the Bott Radio Network from time to time. Granted, he's not the most exciting radio preacher I've ever heard, and I don't think he's much on expository preaching on a particular book of the Bible, but I've certainly heard or seen worse preachers than he is.

The only thing that bugs me is his almost constant use of the word "LISTEN!!"

It seems as if he just uses that word as a filler rather than a direct command to his audience.

After about the tenth time he shouts out "LISTEN!!" I'm about to turn my radio off! :BangHead:

 

that would be problematic though, for if he went thru a biblical divorce, that his wife was the one that deserted and lift him, them he would still be able to function in that role, assuming that he stays unmarried...

 

Why would he have to remain unmarried?

This conflicts with Paul's teaching that, to sum it up, most are in need of a spouse:



1 Corinthians 7

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


Nothing in Scripture that states you only have one shot at this.


God bless.

 

that would be true, but would say that thal teaching seems to be that if the other party, even in a "biblical divorce', decided to stay unmarried, then both parties should chose that option, and seek to see if God will bring about a reconcilation!

if a pastor has a biblcal divorce though, and his ex decided to remarry, then freed up to remarry another in the Lord...

 

True, but as in Dr Stanleys example, staying unmarried seems to be prudent thing to do!

 

The teaching I think you refer to...


Romans 7

King James Version (KJV)

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.


...is an example given within the framework of the Law to ironically enough...point out we are no longer bound to the Law.

That does not mean the general principles in the Law or any of God's will expressed prior to the establishment of Law is made void, as we still maintain the Law from a Christian advantage of having the Spirit of God within us to keep His statutes and to walk in His judgments.

And we balance this with the Biblical Grounds for divorce given by the Lord and Paul, meaning, if a spouse desert, cheat, or die, one can remarry.

The next question we would impose into this discussion would be...should they?

If a spouse cheat, would we not at least entertain the notion of, dare I say it...forgiveness?

If a spouse desert or die, one can just as easily decide to dedicate themselves to the Lord's work.

He is, though the spouse would not be.

I don't know what that refers to and please...don't tell me. lol

I don't have a problem with Stanley and I am grateful for everyone that follows his ministry rather than a Benny Hinn or Joel Olsteen.


God bless.

 

Now listen.
Now listen.
Now listen.
Now listen.
Now listen.