What is the problem for Adrian Rogers?

BTW, Rogers hasn't been stating "non-evangelistic Calvinism", just merely "Calvinism."

 

Please study your church and Baptist histories before making such unfounded comments. In case you don't remember, such famous soul-winners and missionaries as:


Where is that yawn icon when you need it?

Every time someone speaks of non-evangelistic Calvinists, the same worn-out dated list of those who maintained the balance is retrieved.

I was simply saying Rogers, et. al. are most often attacking a brand of Calvinism (call it a straw man if you want) that diminishes human responsibility. Like it or not (and I am placing myself in this category), Calvinism naturally leads to a perspective that sacrifices human choice in the name of divine sovereignty.

I would argue that is why there are so few major evangelical churches that are growing rapidly who are led by staunch Calvinists. The fiasco at Dauphin Way BC in Mobile, AL is case and point. Unbalanced Calvinism does not generate growth.

 

I don't know any details at all about Charles Stanley's personal situation. But unless someone here does know something I don't know, I'm somewhat shocked that people would want him to step down because he ended up divorced. What if his wife left him and got the divorce through no-fault (is no-fault a law in GA?) Stanley could not stop that kind of divorce even if he wanted to. What if Stanley's wife forced him to make a choice about his loyalties? Didn't Jesus say that if you're not prepared to hate your father, mother, wife, children, etc., you cannot be His disciple?

Like I said, I don't know anything about the details. Perhaps none of the above applies and Stanley had a wild scandalous affair and I'm just not "in touch" enough to know this. But that's why I'm disappointed that people would jump to conclusions and expect him to step down.

 

I think the issue for most people in the Stanley situation was his insistence prior to the divorce that if his marriage failed, he would resign his church. However in the process, he changed his mind. There is also the consideration that Stanley is in a high-profile church and TV ministry. As a result, he is in a brighter spotlight than most. It troubles some that a man in this spotlight did not step down in an effort to a) preserve his marriage at all costs or b) protect the "above reproach" principles of the pastor.

I cast no judgment toward Stanley. He is a man God has used in a tremendous manner. The gory details of the divorce will never surface, so perhaps it is best to contain our opinion about Stanley himself (but not necessarily our views on divorce/remarriage/ministry) and simply pray for him.

 

Maybe so. But here's a completely ignorant take on that (ignorant in that I don't have any idea if this concept applies in Stanley's case).

About a year ago, my sister was telling me about how she was angry at God because of her situation. My situation was pretty bad at the time, too, but I simply couldn't identify with the feeling that I would be angry at God because of it. And I told her so. As hard as I tried not to think this, I couldn't help but feel almost as if I was a little better than she was because I didn't have that attitude.

Well, lately I've been pretty angry at God. My knowledge is the same - I know perfectly well that God is working all things together for good. But my emotions have slipped. IMO, God put me in this place to teach me that I'm not above such things.

So here's a possibility to consider: Perhaps Stanley made his statement based on the illusion that he was good enough or faithful enough to see any problem in his marriage through. Perhaps God taught him differently, and along the way taught him that there are two ways to set a bad example: Willfully do something outrageous such as have an affair, and then set a worse example by insisting you should still be in the ministry -- or do nothing outrageous, be a victim of what happens in your marriage even though you HAVE been above reproach, and then set a bad example by stepping down as if there's some legalistic reason why you should.

Again, this is ALL just pure speculation, based on NO information whatsoever. But IMO it is presumptuous for us to say what he should do either way (stick with it or step down), especially without any such information.

 

np: I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with other's assessment of the situation or with the validity of Stanley's change of heart. I was simply offering a suggestion as to why some have been less supportive of Stanley's decision to remain as pastor of FBCA.

Whether I agree or disagree with him, I respect his decision and recognize one cannot be absolutely dogmatic on this issue.

 

No prob. I was just blabbing about what I think about the situation - I didn't interpret your post to mean you were passing judgement one way or another. Sorry if it came off that way.

 

Like I said before, I have no idea the details of the situation. But, it is at least a blemish.

I, in no way, want to diminish the impact he has had. But, you can't look the other way when something bad is done just because someone has racked up enough "points" over the years.

I think it should have been dealt with by the church, but they did nothing.

 

SBCbyGRACE:

1) If the Great Awakening, the Evangelical Awakening, the Modern Missions Movement, the Second Great Awakening and the Prayer Awakening are part of a "worn out" list, then why do so many Christians speak about them so often? Are they not important? Are they not some of the most significant historical events in our Christian history? Should I just start naming those on the "worn out" list of the SBC founders?

2) "Unbalanced Calvinism" is an unhealthy Calvinism. That does not make "Calvinism" erroneous. If your measurement for "health" or "success" is numerical growth, then the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses must be in really great shape.

3) There are a lot of churches in the SBC, and in other denominations, that are growing but they are not healthy. The people are not fed on the milk and meat of the Word, but on other things.

4) Charles Stanley has a "big" church, but how healthy can a church be when their senior pastor is disqualified from being an elder?

 

For what it is worth, I've been a Baptist all my life. I've got a minor in religion from a Baptist college (Samford University) and am fairly well-read in religious things. And I've never heard of the Great Awakening, the Evangelical Awakening, the Modern Missions Movement, the Second Great Awakening and the Prayer Awakening. I would imagine that they are "big" in certain circles. Most regular Baptists have never heard of them... They probably don't even care.

Personally, I'd rather be more focused in how to most effectively reach the post-modern world out there.

SEC

 

JGreyhound & Rev. G,

Jesus reminds us all as Christians, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged {by God} and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.'

The degree that we judge our brothers, is the exact way the Lord will judge us at the Judgment Seat of Christ. [II Corinthians 5:10-11] Let's not forget the holiness and 'terror of the Lord.' We will all get out time of standing before Him in giving account of what we have done in this life.

I, personally, try not to evaluate other pastors who have been used of the Lord in a greater way than myself. Am I wrong?

 

Ah yes, I was waiting for someone to throw out that verse. That verse has nothing to do with calling sin what it is. It does not mean we have no right to judge anything at all.

We definitely SHOULD judge if something is error.

I am nor questioning his salvation. But, those in the office of pastor are held to a higher standard.

 

We need to hold the actions of all people claiming the name of Christ up to the light of Scripture. If they don't match up...then we have every right to claim that as sinful or wrong.


Ray, if you hold to a view that we should not judge people at all, how can you attack Calvin the way you have??

 

What? Baptists have never heard of how God used Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey, etc., etc., etc.? If they don't care, that is indeed sad.

 

I'm not the one who has set standards for those serving as pastors/elders. God has. Take a look at the pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus).

 

G: I've responded to most of these points in the other thread, so I will refer you there.

My only point is that every time Calvinists are accused of being non-evangelistic, they start throwing out the names of Carey, Spurgeon, Edwards, etc. I am simply asking us to move into the modern era and evaluate Calvinism of today. Just because those guys were passionate about souls does not mean it is happening now.

BTW, Carey was reacting to a form of Calvinism that did diminish evangelism.

A form of Calvinism that diminishes evangelism is erroneous. You can respond by saying that is not true Calvinism, but those who identify themselves as Calvinists are most often referring to a theological system that has little to do with practical ministry. That is reality.

The Mormons/JWs argument is faulty in its presuppositions. There is no need to try and employ it in a valid discussion.

But Calvinism has little or nothing to do with the health barometer.

Either you know a lot more about the situation than has been disclosed or you are making a very legalistic assumption.

 

It may not be that they care - it is just that there are more important things to focus on: for example, how to share the love of Christ with people who are in a culture that is so radically different from Edwards and Carey.

The only history that is transcendent is the Word. It is wonderful what those guys did, but aren't there more important things to do than wax poetically about past days?

 

So are women allowed to fill those shoes? What about single men who have never been married? What about widowers?

All three of these groups are excluded from serving as elders or pastors in a church.

 

Jgreyhound,

Our esteemed brother in Atlanta didn't commit any sin yet;[Matt. 13:28d-30] on the other hand, Calvinistic doctrine has nearly shut down the 'atonement' by saying that it is only for 'their chosen few.' This is the difference.

Philippians 1:7, 17 tells especially pastors, theologians and all of God's people to make a 'defense of the true faith.' We are to be a ' . . . defence and confirmation of the Gospel' and in 17 Paul says, 'we are to be set for the defense of the Gospel.'

 

Rev.G,

Select your verses from the Pastoral Epistles; let's look at them.