I don't consider one an Arminian if they don't hold to all points any more than I consider one to be a Calvinist that doesn't hold to all petals of the TULIP.
I agree with Dr. Stanley's theology, but I am NOT an Arminian.
I would be one of those who have a "nameless theology".
:laugh:
But I'm in very good company with the likes of Charles Stanley, Adrian Rogers, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer......
One can still be considered an Arminian even if they inconsistently hold to "eternal security" which is a watered-down form of the Calvinistic 5th point.
The Remonstrants weren't very decisive on their fifth point.
Stanley is as Arminian as Norman Geisler.
Both strong Arminians.
I would classify Swindoll and David Jeremiah as wavering Calvinists.
By definition, Arminians believe that one may lose his salvation.
So Billy Graham and Dr. Stanley are not Arminians.
They are a kind of hybrid.
We need to come up with a better label than "no-name," though, for people like Amy G and other non-Cals.
How about "Swindler?" Nah.
Okay "Swindollite?"
Nah.
"Swindollist?"
Possible.
Amen. I've lost interest in Swindoll, Rogers, and Stanley.
Swindoll denied the Omniscience of God in a message saying basically "God knows everything? Come on! Don't go there." and the context supported God doesn't know all things. No wonder I lost interest in him years ago.
Rogers? I can't listen to him any longer. I used to, at first saved, loved listening to him. But I can't get into him any longer. To me there is no depth there. Lot's of quips, rhyming points, illustrations, philosophies, poems, quaint sayings, but little, and I mean very little exposition.
He really said it, I was listening to bottradionetwork, here on 7:30 a.m. and he definitely said it. It was a while back. I literally could not believe it, but that is almost word for word what he said.
That is plainly false teaching. It was the context of God Almighty, not in the context of Jesus saying things are reserved only for Gods knowledge while Christ was on earth.
Exactly.
And just like any other human, Stanley is not perfect, but I've been listening to him and reading his books for years and they don't come any more solid in their theology than him.
I'm not calling you a liar. :)
But what you've quoted was certainly not containing any context.
I can do the same with any reformed theologian as well.