Easy-Believism, cheap grace, or true Repentance?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, May 12, 2013.

  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    105
    Some say that Charles Stanley believes repentance is a change of mind and not a change of lifestyle. However listening to him on podcast recently this is not what he believes and has stated clearly that those whom say a prayer but live in sin are not true Christians. He said the prayer does not save anyone as only the blood does that. I have heard Stanley in other podcasts state clearly that true believers have fruit. He also has stated that Biblical evangelism is telling people God loves them, but ALSO God judges sin, and sinners will spend eternity in Hell. He is not in favor of those that preach only condemnation, nor is he in favor of those that preach only "God loves you" such as Joel Osteen and others.

    I am confused on where the confusion is with him, and why many in the Paul Washer, MacArthur, and Reformed camps claim he teaches "easy-believism." He does not according to the podcasts I have heard. Perhaps he has in some books, but he is human.
     
  2. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    Unless proper guidance is received following being saved, it is easy to "fall back" into the ego-directed/self-directed life.
    How many times have you heard of someone being discipled in how to walk the Spirit-filled/Spirit-directed life? I doubt many have heard.
    It is all too easy to "fall back" to what you are used to (ego), what you are familiar with (self), and avoid that "small still voice" of direction of the H.S.
    And so, the saved sinner either becomes "pious" (pharisaical), or completely falls away from any fellowship.
     
  3. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Two cents:

    My dad went through a pretty bad experience with a "Baptist" church that was actually charismatic, and for this reason did not go to church for years. However, in that time and even now he listened to Charles Stanley. Stanley has, I believe, an audience that is unique, and he "puts the cookie jar down where the kiddies can get to it," if I may say (lol).

    If you ever get the chance to listen to older Charles Stanley sermons, I highly recommend them.

    Not all believers are going to be blessed by the same preachers, and among the preachers I think we could categorize different levels of audiences. Those less in-depth in their study and knowledge may prefer Stanley (and this is not a slam on Stanley, I have respect for the man and his ministry), whereas MacArthur or Sproul may appeal to those further along.

    The only thing questionable I have ever heard about Stanley is the suggestion he adheres to a Millennial Exclusion theology, which personally I doubt very much.

    Here is the other cent: we should be careful about what we say about anyone, really, as it may be that in someone's life certain preachers may be acceptable, such as Stanley was for my dad, despite being bitter about his experience with this particular church...and that may be the only source that person receives the word of God. It may be that by seeking to discredit one teacher over another, you may burn the last bridge that individual has that spans the great gulf between them and God. If we are going to ridicule or pick apart someone's teaching, keep in mind that not everyone is going to benefit from a theological breakdown of doctrine, and that the level they are on has only in view the basics, which I think it is safe to say Stanley is quite capable of getting across. Usually when people try to elevate one teacher above another, one person above another, the result is that the person they seek to impress despises both. This is true in personal relationships as well as regarding teachers.

    For years I wanted to tell my dad, "Dad, there are better preachers to listen to." What I believe now is that I was wrong, for the time then, Charles Stanley was the best one he could listen to, because...he would listen.

    We all have our favorite teachers, and of course, since God is leading every one of us, our teachers are the right ones to listen to, right? If we remember that we are all at different stages in our growth and that while I am blessed by the teachers I have viewed to be sound, my brother or sister may not be. They may learn better from someone else.

    The bottom line would be glorifying the Lord, rather than a/the teacher.


    God bless.
     
  4. nodak

    nodak
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    15
    Quick comment: I don't think Sproul and MacArthur are more indepth, just teaching a different belief system.

    Stanley hold well to true salvation being by grace alone through faith alone. He gets accused of easy believism because all that is necessary for salvation is to agree with God about your sin being sin, (change of mind) and also to trust Jesus for salvation, not your works (change of mind.)

    But of course after that works should come if you truly got saved. More from some than others, just like some seed in the parable produced more than other seed.

    He doesn't teach just a "get out of jail free" card theology. Just a difference as to when God cleans up a person's life.

    And correct me if wrong, but I think all of them teach God does it, not us.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    "change of mind" is not a work.
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47

    He does teach a message that says that one is saved fully/totally by grace alone/faith alone, but also as an arminanian in theology, he does state that one can even walk away from their faith and quit on god, but that person would still be saved, as there is OSAS...

    THAT aspect of his theology reformed/calvinists have a problem with, as almost seems to be saying there no need really to evidence/have a changed life in order to be really saved!
     

Share This Page

Loading...