Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Mar 30, 2007.
Is he good?
I like him. I attended his church several times back in the 80s when I was going to school in Atlanta. I like him a lot. He is divorced which has been an issue.
If I remember this right when his divorce became final he submitted his resignation to First Baptist but they voted to keep him as senior pastor. As long as he does not remarry I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it.
Yes, Charles Stanley is a good preacher.
HP: It has been awile, but as I recall he stated he 'would' step down if his divorce became final, and he did not. I for one do not feel he has any right in his present state to lead the flock of God. If that is the best the congregation can do for a moral leader, they are in sad shape.
As for the doctrines he teaches, I believe him to be in great Calvinistic error. We shall all soon see.
He teaches the errors of "Easy Believism" and "OSAS", a successful formula for attaining large congregations. :tear:
HP: Now here is a discriminating listener. I can think of no other teachings more inclined within the Church to error and deception than those you mentioned. I believe that millions are deceived by such teachings. Again, it will not be long and we shall all indeed have the opportunity to see the effects of such teaching, if one has not already witnessed it in their spirit.
What would not be the "errors", here? Maybe "Hard Believism" and "MSNS" (Maybe saved; Never sure!)?? Of course we would never say such, would we, but the implication is there. The 200 some verses in the NT do not really mean that one is saved by believe/faith, but require some (undefined, of course) works standard to be met as well. And one can never be assured that his or her eternal salvation is assured or even attained, either. That is not the kind of faith the Bible teaches, as I read it.
xdisciplex, I would not agree with everything anyone else proclaims, without searching the Scriptures, as did the Bereans. But on these two points, at least, Dr. Stanley is Biblically right on target.
I'll also add that the divorce of Dr. Charles and Mrs. Anna Stanley was and is another matter, entirely. Because his own father did not step aside, after stating he would, if his divorce occurred, Andy Stanley resigned from First Baptist as the Associate Pastor, and 'Senior Pastor' of a 'satellite church' of several thousand members, and started another congregation, over the very issue of integrity.
But let's not confuse and confute the two issues.
Amen Brother EdSutton -- Preach it! :thumbs:
- Ed Edwards,
Saved for 55 years now*
and looking for the pretribulation rapture
*actually the first week in April
==If you think Charles Stanley is a Calvinist then you have a very, very poor understanding of Calvinism (to say the least). Charles Stanley is far from a Calvinist.
As for his divorce that does not disqualify him from leadership in the church. He has not remarried, he has remained single, so he can stay in leadership. As for why he did not step down after saying he would, his church asked him to stay. I would have done the same thing. Our pastor recently had heart trouble and said that he would be willing to step down if we believed he could no longer fulfill his duties. It was a 100% vote for him to stay.
As for Andy Stanley, well, he preaches for his father at First Baptist Atlanta at times and he preaches on the In Touch cruises. In Touch also sells Andy Stanley's books. I am sure the divorce was tough on Andy Stanley and his sister. However he still loves both of his parents and, like most of us who are the children of divorced parents, he moves on with his life and his relationship with them.
I think all of this gossip about Stanley's divorce is shameful.
HP: What you are suggesting is that if one does not have God’s absolute knowledge of who is saved and who is not, no one can be assured of their salvation. That is simply not the case. We indeed do, BY FAITH, stand assured of our standing before God now, and stand assured of our final abode with Him yet to be revealed. What we do not have is a sure confidence of either our standing before God now or our final abode while in a state of an evil conscience. God has not so designed our assurance of salvation to testify of our rest in Him while in possession of an evil conscience.
Herein is one deception of OSAS. It ‘presumes’ upon the grace of God to cover for sins that have not been repented of and forsaken. “Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins!”
1Jo 1:7 BUT IF we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
==While I disagree with Stanley's "once saved, always saved" doctrine I do believe that he has distanced himself from people like Zane Hodges in the past few years. I have heard him make statements that sound a lot more in line with Lordship salvation than easy believism. I also don't believe that he holds certain doctrines simply to grow his church. He held many of these positions long before he became a popular pastor.
HP: I am listening. Tell us how he differs from the ‘tulip’ model we are all familiar with.
==Well if you listened to Charles Stanley and if you understood Calvinism you would know the answers to this already. However you seem very willing to be critical of his teachings without having a firm knowledge of his teachings. I have listened/watched/read Stanley for more than 12 years. Do I agree with him on everything? No! However he is generally a good preacher.
How does he differ from TULIP:
=He does not hold to the Calvinistic understanding of election.
=He believes in unlimited atonement and not limited atonement.
=I have never heard him promote irresistible grace (as it is called).
=He promotes once saved, always saved and not perseverance.
So he is, at best, a one and a half point Calvinist. I hardly call that a Calvinist. He leans more in the Arminian camp than Calvinist. If we refer back to some older terms in history Stanley would be a general Baptist and not a particular Baptist. This is why Calvinists are so critical of his book on eternal security.
I struggle greatly with Dr. Stanley's ministry. His handling of his personal issues has exposed his ministry to great criticism and had unfortunate results. But having said that, his teaching and preaching are pretty good. It is interesting that one of our posters criticised Dr. Stanley for being too Calvinist. He is far from that.
First Baptist Atlanta was very kind to the North Georgia Extension center of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary last year and I am greatly appreciative of the help that they gave.
So in answer to the OP's question: "Is he good?"
I have reached the point that I can listen to him again. But sometimes it is a struggle.
HP: Common knowledge is not gossip IMO. He is a very public figure. The facts are clear. He did say he would step down, did he not? He did follow through with his divorce, did he not? He is still the pastor, is he not? It would appear to me, from the facts made available to the public, that he did not keep his word.
Scripture indeed does have something to say about anyone in the pulpit. I believe CS is living in direct antipodes to the teaching of Scripture as to who is and who is not fit to fulfill the pastoral position of the church.
I believe that again, if this is the best the church can do for moral leadership, it is shamefully destitute of moral leadership.
HP: It would appear that if Calvinism was a fly on your nose you could not discern its nature.
==Of course you left out two important facts.
1. His church asked him to remain.
2. Therefore he changed his mind and remained.
Having a change of mind, in response to a request from others, is not sinful. Maybe you have forgotten that. There is also the Biblical requirement of forgiveness, grace, and mercy. Are you displaying that by continuing to drag up this issue years after the fact? I think not. Let it go. Judge Stanley's ministry by his teachings and not something that happened in his family life years ago.
I would also question you on your statement that he "did follow through with his divorce". However I'm not really wanting to get further into this cest pool of gossip then I already am.
If you wish to discuss Stanley's doctrines then fine but I see no purpose in continuing the gossip about his divorce. O, and yes, that is exactly what it is = GOSSIP. Sure people always try to explain away the sin of gossip by calling it "sharing information" (etc) but that is nothing but excusing sin and a unChrist-like attitude.
==I am a Calvinist so I know what a Calvinist is. Again if you think Charles Stanley is a Calvinist then either (a) you have a very poor understanding of Calvinism, or (b) you have no clue what Charles Stanley teaches on these things. Either way you are wrong.
Stanley's teachings conflict with historical Calvinism on point after point after point. Anyone who knows anything about Calvinism and the teachings of Stanley will know that.
I agree with Martin, and I'm not a calvinist. Charles Stanley fits the Free Grace model 100%, including his eschatology (Millenial exclusion, two salvations). While I don't agree with that, I agree with most of his soteriology, though.