Charles Stanley and Calvinism

[EdSutton]

What's a bably?

I have come to the conclusion I don't like any moniker attached to my name except "Child of God" (and "non cal" ). I agree with much of FG's soteriology, btw. I believe, like calvinism, if it's not taken as a whole...one cannot be called one.

Thanks for noticing the typo I missed.

My indirect point is that the GES ( www.faithalone.org ) does not have any monopoly on the 'grace' teachings of Scripture, or their understanding of them, for that matter, by any stretch. The Wiki article has some good links at the bottom of that article, as well, generally speaking, which show that there is not one "catch-all" group that hold to these views, as well. And I happen to be a long-time associate member of the GES, myself, even while saying this. I also have some long time associations with some individuals associated with or in the other groups mentioned as well, for over 35 years, in some cases.

I was privileged to attend a conference last summer in Chicago, along with at least one other BB member, whom I got to meet there, that had several hundred attendees. There was a very strong statement and position there on grace, and the conference had no affiliation with the GES in any way, although some attendees were also GES members, as I am.

BTW, I kinda' like the moniker of Christian, myself.

Ed

 

[pinoybaptist]

www.faithalone.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_grace

I agree with much of the soteriology (by faith...not two salvations), but none of the eschatology.

I don't.
Because now they have put a condition on what is unconditional - everlasting life, or eternal life.

Christ died for His people. He was God's gift to His people, and they were God's gift to Him.

Nothing is conditional to eternal life, it is purely and absolutely OF the Lord, TO His elect, FOR heaven (not as condition to their living a blessed life here on earth).

A happy blessed kingdom life here on earth, in the gospel church, now, that is pre-conditioned with faith, and obedience.

am not trying to pick a fight with you, web.
just pointing out why I don't believe.

 

[Martin]

I believe there were a few posters on these boards who were determined in their assertion that Charles Stanley is a Calvinist. Well folks, I now have solid proof that he is not a Calvinist. I knew he was not a Calvinist because of his teachings but now, as if to confirm that he is not a Calvinist, Dr. Stanley has signed up to do a conference at FBC-Jacksonville with Dr. Jerry Vines called "3:16". This conference is described as "a biblical and theological assessment of 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for preachers as well as lay people". The speakers include Drs. Stanley, Vines, Patterson, Land, and others. Sort of a "whos who" of general Baptists (ie...not Calvinist). Dr. Stanley will be preaching a sermon titled "John 3:16 to the entire world". I hope this lays to rest the silly assertion that Charles Stanley is a Calvinist. Stanley is a fine man of God and a wonderful preacher. However he is not, I repeat, not a Calvinist.

I guess nobody is perfect :laugh:

LINK

Speaking of nobody being perfect, the conference is at FBC Woodstock not Jacksonville. Sorry.

 

[Rippon]

I believe there were a few posters on these boards who were determined in their assertion that Charles Stanley is a Calvinist. Well folks, I now have solid proof that he is not a Calvinist. I knew he was not a Calvinist because of his teachings but now, as if to confirm that he is not a Calvinist, Dr. Stanley has signed up to do a conference at FBC-Woodstock with Dr. Jerry Vines called "3:16". This conference is described as "a biblical and theological assessment of 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for preachers as well as lay people". The speakers include Drs. Stanley, Vines, Patterson, Land, and others. Sort of a "whos who" of general Baptists (ie...not Calvinist). Dr. Stanley will be preaching a sermon titled "John 3:16 to the entire world". I hope this lays to rest the silly assertion that Charles Stanley is a Calvinist. Stanley is a fine man of God and a wonderful preacher. However he is not, I repeat, not a Calvinist.

I guess nobody is perfect :laugh:

LINK

There was a recent thread that has been closed. In it some have offered that Charles Stanley was not an Arminian. That John 3:16 conference was certainly as Arminian as it gets --and Stanley was a part of it. Besides,he denies 4 of the 5 points of T.U.L.I.P. Even his "P" is not that Calvinistic.

 

[humblethinker]

That John 3:16 conference was certainly as Arminian as it gets --and Stanley was a part of it. Besides,he denies 4 of the 5 points of T.U.L.I.P. Even his "P" is not that Calvinistic.

What, did they promote the ability to lose salvation? That would be a surprise from what I've heard from Charles Stanley.

 

[mandym]

What, did they promote the ability to lose salvation? That would be a surprise from what I've heard from Charles Stanley.

Neither Stanley nor Vines are Arminians.

 

[Rippon]

Neither Stanley nor Vines are Arminians.

I've pretty well establised that Stanley is an Arminian.

William W. Birch has a website called The Arminian he says:"First,there are many in the Arminian camp which adhere to eternal security."

Roger Olson, of Arminian fame, says the authors of Whosoever Will : A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five Point Calvinism are classical Arminians. He said he didn't know why Vines and the others have run from the label."

 

[sag38]

Newsflash: Dr. Charles Stanley can't sleep at night because Rippon has labeled him to be an Arminian.

 

[quantumfaith]

I honestly don't think Dr. Stanley, or just about anyone frets too much over being called Arminian (non-cal) or whatever. I am pretty sure that each of these men feel confident that they (for themselves) and for those they sheperd, "rightly divide" the Word of Truth. I don't think labels bother them much at all. But of course, I could be wrong as on "rare" occasions I am.

 

[mandym]

I've pretty well establised that Stanley is an Arminian.

I am quite sure you think you have.

 

[Rippon]

I am quite sure you think you have.

Alright,do your best to make a case that Stanley is a Calvinist.

 

[J.D.]

I stopped listening to Stanley because I got tired of his arminianish/pelegian teachings. But then one day I caught him teaching on election, and he sounded like he was teaching right from either the Dagg or Boice systematic. My guess is that he relies heavily on paradox, like some others I know. But in any case, that day was the exception. The bulk of his teachings are thoroughly synergistic.

 

[JesusFan]

Here, here on the first part!

Most of what passes as Arminianism is rank Pelagianism.

(Observing as a non-Calvinist, mind you.)

Would those be the Ones who would hold that "just" hearing reading the Gospel is enough to produce faith in you to save you, that we DO NOT need either "irrestible'prevelient Grace" from God to be applied to us in order to be able to 'hear?"

 

[JesusFan]

I stopped listening to Stanley because I got tired of his arminianish/pelegian teachings. But then one day I caught him teaching on election, and he sounded like he was teaching right from either the Dagg or Boice systematic. My guess is that he relies heavily on paradox, like some others I know. But in any case, that day was the exception. The bulk of his teachings are thoroughly synergistic.

Even though do not agree/hold to his view on Sotierology, HAVE listened tio him for years, and unless you want him to be a Theologian, think that as a teacher of the Bible in practacle terms...

He is gifted and great to listen to and applythe Bible and mature the Christians...

See him as Chuck Swindoll..

Might not hold to all they do, view it same way, but as "practical" teachers expositers of how God can use Bible to train and mature us up/

Hard to beat!

 

[Ben1445]

Why is it that people don’t seem to understand or acknowledge that there are more options than Calvinist and Arminian.
There are too many possibilities of opinion and interpretation to determine everyone as one or the other or to choose one or the other (depending on your opinion )
Personally, I would not consider myself to be either one. But definitions play a role in the conversation and it is hard to settle on a good set of definitions that everyone accepts.

 

[Silverhair]

Why is it that people don’t seem to understand or acknowledge that there are more options than Calvinist and Arminian.
There are too many possibilities of opinion and interpretation to determine everyone as one or the other or to choose one or the other (depending on your opinion )
Personally, I would not consider myself to be either one. But definitions play a role in the conversation and it is hard to settle on a good set of definitions that everyone accepts.

I agree that labels are a bane on good conversation. What is wrong with just seeing our fellow Christians as brother or sisters in Christ?

 

[Charlie24]

Why is it that people don’t seem to understand or acknowledge that there are more options than Calvinist and Arminian.
There are too many possibilities of opinion and interpretation to determine everyone as one or the other or to choose one or the other (depending on your opinion )
Personally, I would not consider myself to be either one. But definitions play a role in the conversation and it is hard to settle on a good set of definitions that everyone accepts.

James told us to care for our brothers and sisters well being in the Lord. That's why I can't give the 5 points of Calvinism a free pass.

The bottom line of those 5 points is that they can't lose their salvation, no matter what happens.

That's not true, and we are warned many times about falling away from Christ through the wiles of Satan.

I'm here to remind the Sovereign Grace folks of that very thing, fulfilling my part of caring for my fellow believers.

The majority of my threads are pointing in that direction. Why? Because I want to argue?

No! I want them to guard their faith as we are told to do so many times. I want to meet them on the other side of this life.

 

[Ben1445]

Hebrews 6 says it is impossible to be saved twice.
And we do have a sure salvation
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day

We do have eternal security!!
I wholly trust Jesus Christ to do what He said He will. I don’t keep salvation by guarding it. It is still by faith!!
And I’m not a Calvinist.

 

[Charlie24]

Hebrews 6 says it is impossible to be saved twice.
And we do have a sure salvation
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day

We do have eternal security!!
I wholly trust Jesus Christ to do what He said He will. I don’t keep salvation by guarding it. It is still by faith!!
And I’m not a Calvinist.

John dedicated his 1st epistle for us to know we have eternal security.

1 John 5:13

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

The author of Hebrews said this,

Heb. 3:14

:For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"

Notice it says, IF we hold. Don't think Satan can't take that crown from you!

Christ said in Rev. 3:11,

"Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."

Don't sit on the idea you can let your guard down!

 

[Ben1445]

John dedicated his 1st epistle for us to know we have eternal security.

1 John 5:13

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

The author of Hebrews said this,

Heb. 3:14

:For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"

Notice it says, IF we hold. Don't think Satan can't take that crown from you!

Christ said in Rev. 3:11,

"Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."

Don't sit on the idea you can let your guard down!

So do you lose the Holy Spirit also?
If that is the case? Why would Paul say that their bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost since they were obviously not living in such a way that they should be able to keep their salvation according to your teachings?