I for one trust Charles Stanley and his son. We share the same beliefs but I haven't even seen his study Bible. I'm sure what Comes from pastor Stanley is top quality. Many in this forum are of the Calvinist persuasion. not the same doctrine as Pastor Stanley.
MB
There ARE some areas of Calvinism that Stanley and son do ascribe.
Often what some "preach against" is the "hyper-calvinist" thinking in which is NOT that of the typical Baptist calvinist.
Now I am painting with a broad brush, but it is so that inclusivity is seen and not exclusivity.
One is the Baptist view of Total depravity. The typical non-hyper calvinist recognizes it as the complete inability with a progressively evil nature to engage in ever desperately evil depravity. This is why even the Arminian thinking folks must have some "preceding" or "prevenient" grace to lift the depravity to the point of enlightenment so one can engage their "free will."
Another is that of preservation and perseverance of the saints. The typical non-hyper calvinists rejects the thinking of the liberal SB who claims that a mere "profession of faith" is a guarantee of eternal security, but do not reject that OSAS as properly taught IS the perseverance and preservation of the saints.
Another is Unconditional Election. This is that there is NOTHING in a person anything that would oblige God to grant salvation. That a person is saved because of God's unmerited favor and for His own useful purpose.
The Stanleys do not particularly agree with the typical presentation of limited atonement (neither do I), nor do they agree with the thinking of irresistible grace (which I do). Upon that irresistible grace, the typical calvinist does not think that God's grace is insufficient, but that it can for a period of time be resisted (as seen by Saul/Paul) and that such resistance actually fits the purpose of God in conforming that person to the purpose intended (again shown in the life of Paul).
I do not ascribe to the limit being the blood, but the limit being the power to believe.
I think that follows much closer the presentation of John 1 and the writing of Paul.
The blood was shed for all, but the death and resurrection benefit only the believer.
The typical presentation fo hyper calvinist proclamation as some elected to salvation and others elected to be condemned is deep error.
One does not have to be "elected to be lost." The lost are "condemned already" for there is NONE righteous.
Election then is one who is lost, chosen by Him to be in Him that one day we will be with Him.
Sometimes folks are so bent in opposition to a certain title, they have neglected to really think through all that they are rejecting in which they actually do support.
