Do you know Dr. Charles Stanley?

==Charles Stanley believes that a person cannot work to earn, or to keep, his/her salvation. However most Arminians believe that so it does not prove Stanley is a Calvinist.

==I don't reject limited (particular) atonement so I have no clue what you are talking about. After all I have already stated, in this very thread, that I hold to the doctrines commonly known as Calvinism.

Either way Charles Stanley does reject limited (particular) atonement.

 

==Maybe. However I would point out that accepting only one or two points does not make one a Calvinist. I would even question whether or not eternal security, as defined by Stanley, is even Calvinistic at all.

==Everyone "leans" in one direction or the other. While Stanley is certainly not a full blown Arminian he certainly tends to lean in that general direction. As do many popular preachers today.

==Sadly that is seen on both sides of the theological fence.

 

HP: That was not my question in the least. I asked you a straight forward question that had nothing to do with ‘earning’ anything. I asked you if man has anything to do with gaining his salvation or keeping his salvation. This question demands a yes or a no answer. You are evading the question with your answer. Try it one more time.

 

==You are trying to change the subject. The OP was about Charles Stanley. You asserted that Stanley was a Calvinist. I, and others, have stated clearly based on facts that you are wrong. You clearly either don't understand Calvinism or you are not well versed in the teachings of Charles Stanley. You keep asserting Stanley is a Calvinist when everyone who knows anything about Calvinism will tell you he is not.

Now, with that in mind, you said:
"Would you agree with me that CS teaches that man has absolutely nothing to do with his salvation or remaining saved? "

Please note my response:
"Charles Stanley believes that a person cannot work to earn, or to keep, his/her salvation. However most Arminians believe that so it does not prove Stanley is a Calvinist."

So my response answered your question. Charles Stanley does not believe people can take credit for their salvation (ie. it can't be earned or kept via man's efforts).

However I would like to point out that your question does not prove Stanley is a Calvinist. Maybe your question reveals a great deal about your clear confusion on the issue of Calvinism.

 

HP: You have shown the list nothing apart from your refusal to openly and honestly examine the issues at hand. I am completely focused on the issue surrounding the teachings of CS. It is you that refuses to fairly examine his teachings or your own for that matter. If you cannot muster enough dedication to the fair examination of His beliefs or Calvinists just like him, by answering a simple but direct question, don’t fool yourself into believing the truth is your object in this discussion. Your responses serve nothing but the obviscation of any semblance of truth by your refusal to face the question squarely. Such games will never allow the truth the light of day.

 

Is there by chance an honest seeker of truth on this list that would like to be engaged in a real truth seeking adventure surrounding the teachings of CS or other Calvinists of like feather that would be open and honest enough to answer the question I posed? I simply asked if in fact man has anything to do with their salvation or keeping saved. This question bears directly upon the truth of whether a man believes in a limited atonement, or if in fact one does not. Any takers?

 

Xdisciplex: Charles Stanley is a WONDERFUL preacher.

Take that from a Christian who is not Baptist.

Let me get what I disagree with out of the way. I am reading from his Life Principles Bible. First of all, he makes some biblically unsupported statements about giving, and also about minding others' business, which he calls "accountability." He also assumes that God speaks to us directly and that we can tell when He is, a tenet I am uncertain of -- I believe over-reliance on these subjective things causes Christians to make bad decisions.

A matter of what I call `harmless disagreement' is that I suspect His view of Eternal Security is too strong. He may accept the possibility that a Christian can stop serving the Lord and still be saved. I believe in Eternal Security as well, but it is my position that a Christian does not, yea, cannot stop serving the Lord -- 1 John 2:19, 2 Corinthians 5:17, John 8:31, and others. Titus 2:14 says converts should be "zealous" (ASV) to do good things for the Lord, so it should not take fear of losing salvation to motivate lifelong Christian service.

Now that the above is out of the way --

Here is what I enjoy about him, especially for you. First of all, he preaches most on the positive aspects of being a Christian. He makes you happy that you are a Christian. From glancing at your posts over the last few months, this seems to be something that would greatly benefit you.

It seems the Christian life presents challenges to you that we are not accustomed to over in the United States. This does not surprise me; from what I know of Germany, I doubt being a Christian in Germany is easy. There is a much lower portion of Christians, and licentiousness is more `in-your-face' than it is here. By being a faithful Christian in Germany, you do something that would challenge all of us.

Hebrews 10:24-5 says

"“and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, |not giving up| our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (NASB|TNIV|NASB).​

If Charles Stanley's preaching does not fit that bill, nothing does. He makes you so glad to be the Lord's that you want to do good things for Him.

Listen to him preach. Enjoy.

 

Martin writes:
"==Charles Stanley believes that a person cannot work to earn, or to keep, his/her salvation. However most Arminians believe that so it does not prove Stanley is a Calvinist. "

The above is a good example of what I previously posted below. Most Christians called Arminians by Calvinists do not believe a person can work to earn, or to keep, his/her salvation. Suggest you check the statement of faith of the various denominations and see what they believe rather that continue to believe what you have been told by other Calvinists or OSAS believers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drfuss
Dividing Christians into either Calvinist or Arminian has led to many misunderstandings and false statements about what other Christians believe. For instamce, there are many different/distinct beliefs that Calvinist consider to be Arminian. Yet, many Calvinists pick a part of one belief that is easy to criticize, and broad brush it to apply to all "Arminians".

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I have enjoyed Charles Stanley's books and televison ministry for the last 10 years. I love the Life Principles Bible. Having come out of the sacramental system of the Catholic Church, I find Dr. Stanley to be like a breath of fresh air.

PA

 

==Since you continue to claim that Stanley is a Calvinist please show me where he believes the Calvinistic doctrines of...Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, Limited (particular) atonement, and the final persevance of the saints. I have stated that he does not hold those doctrines and I have shown that, in fact, he contradicts them. For example his book "Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure" is a clear contradiction of the perseverance of the saints as defined by historical calvinism. His continued statements supporting a general or unlimited atonement prove he does not believe in limited/particular atonement, and he has directly said in several sermons that he does not believe that God choose to save some and not others. That is a clear contradiction with the Calvinist understanding of election.

You may continue to refer to Stanley as a Calvinist if you wish but everyone who has spent anytime looking into the teachings of Stanley and comparing his teachings to Calvinism will know you are wrong.

 

==I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was not saying that Arminians believe in a works based salvation or security. I was saying that most Arminians agree with Stanley that salvation cannot be earned or kept by works. As for statements of faith I am very familiar with them. As a student of history and theology I spend a lot of time with the original sources (etc). I do not simply accept what various teachers (etc) claim. This is why I totally reject the notion that Charles Stanley is a Calvinist.

 

==This would be interesting indeed. I wonder what other men, who deny most or all of the points of Calvinism, you are going to claim are Calvinists? Maybe Jacob Arminius? How about John Wesley? Or Ergun Caner? What about Jerry Falwell? Maybe Jerry Vines? There is Paige Patterson as well.

 

Charles Ryrie is much in the same situation. Nobody has control over what a spouse does.

People would be amazed at how many men have experienced broken engagements and marriages shortly after seminary simply because the wife does not want to be a pastor's wife.

 

Its kind of weird isnt it?...

"Oh my. Our wonderful pastor...great preacher, bible teacher, and counselor...his wife just left him, so he has now lost all of his "wonderfulness" and is now unfit to be our pastor"

???????????????????????????????????

Huh???

Doesnt make an ounce of sense.

So if his wife comes back does he then regain his ability to preach, teach, and counsel? :laugh:

Mike

 

Heavenly Pilgrim

Well, Heavenly Pilgrim, I've thought up some more men, although they deny the basic points of Calvinism, you can accuse of being Calvinists as well...Adrian Rodgers, Elmer Towns, William MacDonald, Dave Hunt, Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice, Harold Wilmington, Emir Caner, Norman Giesler, Dan Corner, etc, etc... Need I continue with this list? My point here is simply to show how unrealistic your claim about Charles Stanley is. You claim he is a Calvinist yet you continue to ignore the fact that he does not agree with, at least, four of the five points of Calvinism.

So instead of starting a new thread, and attempting to change the subject, why don't you attempt to prove that Charles Stanley holds to the four points of Calvinism that he does not hold to. Or, maybe, you could just admit that you were wrong.

 

I would like to clarify something concerning a statement I made concerning Charles Stanley. Just because I feel that according to God’s Word that ones actions disqualifies him from the office of a spiritual leader within the assembly, and the issue is a moral one, I AM NOT HIS FINAL JUDGE.

God calls upon men to make decisions in regards to the character of men within the church as well as our society, even though we know full well we are finite and our decisions are bound to be a mix of right and wrong to a degree. Judging a person as not being ‘above reproach,’ (above reproach being a qualification of a spiritual leader within the church,) is a judgment that does not necessarily mean that God will necessarily impute sin or guilt to them at the judgment. God knows the beginning from the end, and all the circumstances of every case. We simply do not. Just the same, that is no indication that God does not require us, in this present world, to judge situations and act accordingly to the best of our God-given abilities.

I cannot help but believe that the church is not so destitute of those who have not fallen into the traps of the divorce and or re-marriage, that we cannot find leadership above reproach in this area that could serve as far better examples of the marriage commitment.

I am sure there are those in disagreement with me. We shall all stand and give an account for every word and deed done in the flesh. May God have mercy upon our souls, and upon the judgments He calls upon us to make in this world within and outside of the church.

 

==What "actions" has Stanley done that you believe "disqulifies him from the office of a spiritual leader"? Please provide Scriptural support. Also I am interested to hear your defense of your claim that Stanley is a Calvinist. Don't forget that I have requested that you prove that Charles Stanley holds to the four points of Calvinism that he does not hold to. I am requesting this because you continue to claim that Stanley is a Calvinist even though it has been shown that he does not hold to at least four of the five points of Calvinism.

 

HP: You have shown by any stretch of the imagination that CS does not hold to four of the five points of Calvinism. All you have shown, and I have personally witnessed, is that CS can stand in a pulpit and make contradictory statements.

The thread on ‘limited atonement and cause and effect’ is not a diversion of the questions surrounding his theology ad the theology of many like him. It is an honest attempt to look at the very root of the problem that drives his misguided opinions. Join in as you find time.

As for CS, enough has been said IMO to set forth the truth. I am far more interested in getting us to fairly examine the issues behind the doctrines and to begin thinking right about religion again than to spend time in the crucifixtion any one individuals misguided opinions.

As for CS's disqualifications, I will say only this. God hates divorce. Entering into a matter that God hates and then remaining in a position that even he obviously understood at least some point in time as a matter that should demand his resignation, leaves him in a position, that IMO as a believer, below that of being above reproach. I believe there are thousands of believers that hold the same basic opinion of the matter. I am certainly not alone.

His church and himself had made the decisions they have made, and that is that. Eternity will prove whether or not they were right. I for one would not feel one bit comfortable with the decisions they have made in his regard. Just the same, if I am asked what I believe as to the man and his message, I would not hesitate to say that many of the doctrines he teaches are in biblical and logical error, and those that are deceived thereby are not wise.

 

HP, don't confuse the man's eschatology with his soteriology. Sotereiology is what defines calvinism/arminianism, not eschatology.

I agree with your notion that his eschatology teachings are contradictory and in biblical error. He is still not a calvinist, though, as his soteriological stance is far from it.

 

==Since Stanley is a preacher we must determine his stance from what he says. His writings tend not to be organized by theological topic. From what he says in his sermons it is clear that he is not a Calvinist (unless you are asserting that he says things in his sermons he does not really believe)

==Right, he is not a Calvinist.

==Behind what doctrines? Behind Stanley's? Well that's not historical Calvinism then.

==Yes, God hates divorce but God also hates all sin. A man should not be kicked out of the ministry simply because he is divorced. This is because the New Testament does not say that a divorced man cannot be in the ministry. Keep in mind that God forgives divorce. All of that, of course, assumes that the divorce was not caused by his actions (adultery, abuse, etc). If a man is guilty of adultery (etc) and that was the cause of the divorce then clearly such a man is immoral and should not be in the ministry. Stanley does not fall into that group.

==So those who disagree with you, and agree with Stanley, are not wise? That's strong language coming from someone who does not seem to know how to define and identify historical Calvinism. Your language is even more amazing when one considers the fact that many of the disagreements you have with Stanley are probably on non-essential matters (ie...areas where Christians honestly disagree). I don't always agree with Stanley on doctrinal issues. However I would normally not accuse those who do agree with him on those doctrines unwise. Rather I would seek to understand their position and then try to convince them that their position is incorrect.