Do you know Dr. Charles Stanley?

[webdog]

He teaches the errors of "Easy Believism" and "OSAS", a successful formula for attaining large congregations. :tear:

Can someone define easy believism? This gets thrown around like crazy with no concrete definition.
I don't see anything "hard" about "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". What's hard is admitting your way isn't "the" way, and surrendering your life over to him. Once this takes place, and our need for s Savior is made apparent, believing on the work of Christ is anything but hard.

 

[StefanM]

As a former Calvinist, I would say that Martin is most definitely correct in his analysis.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog; Can someone define easy believism?

HP: I can only tell you what it means to me. It is a system of thought that presents the gospel as something that can achieved by the mere ascension of belief, while practically speaking having little or no bearing on the formation of intents in line with biblical precepts. It is a dualistic concept that suggests that one can believe one way, to the end of eternal life, while my actions, the results of formed intents, can be at direct antipodes with that belief. It is if though salvation is the mere ascension of head knowledge, while the will remains unaffected. It is salvation apart from the fulfillment of the stated conditions of Scripture. It is salvation without sincere repentance and a sincere change of heart and attitude towards sin.

That is a first attempt to describe it as I see it. I sure with time and the benefit of others comments, I will do a better job of describing the concept in the future.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: the Free Grace model

HP: What do you see as the 'free grace model?'

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: =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.

HP: Smoke and mirrors. Explain to the list how his teachings do not correspond with the Calvinistic teachings of election. I for one am listening closely, and will be more than willing to change my opinion on his Calvinistic teachings if you can show otherwise. I listened to the man for several years on our local network. I am not unaware or confused as to what the man has taught. I say it has been in the past nothing short of pure unadulterated Calvinistic determination. If you believe differently, just explain to us how he differs on the points as we go through them.

Let any and all with a clear undestanding of his teachings inform the list. Even better yet, invite him personally to join our discussions to defend his teachings. That would be very informative and interesting.

 

[Martin]

Smoke and mirrors. Explain to the list how his teachings do not correspond with the Calvinistic teachings of election.

==I have heard Stanley say, on more than one occasion, that he does not believe that God chooses to save some and not others. That is not a statement that is in line with a Calvinistic understanding of election. Again this is why Calvinists (James White, etc) are critical of Stanley's positions. He is not a Calvinist. If you think he is either (a) you have a very, very poor understanding of Calvinism, or (b) you have no clue what Stanley is teaching. There is also the fact that he does not agree with the Calvinistic views on atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance. So, on all points, you are wrong. Even those on this board who do not hold to Calvinism admit you are wrong.

I for one am listening closely, and will be more than willing to change my opinion on his Calvinistic teachings if you can show otherwise. I listened to the man for several years on our local network. I am not unaware or confused as to what the man has taught.

==If you think Charles Stanley is a Calvinist then you are unaware or confused about his teachings and/or Calvinism. Maybe you listened to his sermons but you certainly have misunderstood this point. Maybe your problem here is that you don't understand Calvinism that well?

Let any and all with a clear undestanding of his teachings inform the list. Even better yet, invite him personally to join our discussions to defend his teachings. That would be very informative and interesting.

==I'm not defending Stanley's teachings. As I stated I am Calvinistic and therefore I disagree with him when he clearly contradicts those teachings.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: =He believes in unlimited atonement and not limited atonement.

HP: Again, all smoke and mirrors. If man has absolutely nothing to do with his salvation, and nothing man does has anything to do with keeping his salvation, tell me again that he does not believe in limited atonement? Maybe you can tell us why universalism is not true? What limits salvation to a specific finite number if man has nothing to do with it? Who or what determines this finite amount of men that will be saved? If the atonement was universal in its scope, and the literal payment theory is indeed correct, was the atonement not sufficient to fulfill its designed intents? Are you to tell me that man somehow can muster his finite powers to thwart the atonement’s 'unlimited' (as you claim) effectiveness?

This could prove to be an enlightening discussion indeed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: I have heard Stanley say, on more than one occasion, that he does not believe that God chooses to save some and not others.

HP: Ah the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism genders. It can say whatever reason demands at the moment, just to contradict it in the next. As the discussion progresses we most likely shall have the opportunity to see that in action, demonstrated for us on this list.

I believe it can be demonstrated to a fair mind, that indeed CS and others of like feather, are completely confused, as demonstrated by their complete inconsistencies in their statements.

An old cowboy evangelist stated it very succinctly. “The Calvinist preaches real good at times, but they have a secret agreement amongst themselves that it doesn’t mean them.”

 

[webdog]

HP: What do you see as the 'free grace model?'

www.faithalone.org

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: www.faithalone.org

HP: Can you give the list something in your own words so that we are not accused by some of gossiping about the site you mentioned? It will help facilitate the discussion between us. Thanks

 

[D28guy]

I think Charles Stanley is a fine preacher, but an even better teacher. I have some tapes of his from back in the 80's and they are still superb.

Our eternal security is imo one of the most important doctrines of them all. It is incredibly important to understand that great truth. His divorce imo should have no bearing whatsoever on his position as pastor.

I would highly reccomend Stanley.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Martin]

If man has absolutely nothing to do with his salvation, and nothing man does has anything to do with keeping his salvation, tell me again that he does not believe in limited atonement?

==Alright, you clearly are either very confused about Calvinism or you have not listened to Charles Stanley as much or as closely as you claim. Stanley has said on many occasions that he believes Christ died for all men (ie...to make salvation possible for all men). Stanley does not believe in limited or particular atonement. If you think he does then that only proves what I am saying about you being confused on this issue.

Maybe you can tell us why universalism is not true? What limits salvation to a specific finite number if man has nothing to do with it? Who or what determines this finite amount of men that will be saved? If the atonement was universal in its scope, and the literal payment theory is indeed correct, was the atonement not sufficient to fulfill its designed intents? Are you to tell me that man somehow can muster his finite powers to thwart the atonement’s 'unlimited' (as you claim) effectiveness?

==I'm not going to change the subject. We are talking about Charles Stanley and, as I have said, my view of atonement and election is slightly different from Stanley. Charles Stanley DOES NOT believe in unconditional election (as Calvinists do), Charles Stanley DOES NOT believe in particular atonement or irrisistable grace, nor does Charles Stanley believe in the perseverance of the saints. So please, Heavenly Pilgrim, explain to me how you can label a man a Calvinist who does not hold four of the five points of Calvinism. Please explain to me how you can call someone a Calvinist when that person clearly does not accept the basic points of Calvinism.

 

[Martin]

Ah the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism genders.

==The only one confused here is you. Others on this board who do not agree with Calvinism have said you are wrong. Charles Stanley is not a Calvinist.

 

[DQuixote]

Dr. Stanley is more of a teacher than a preacher. His speaking style reminds me more of a college general psychology or sociology professor than a pastor. However, the message content is unchanging and true to God's Word. Persons who desire to listen in a simple, everday English, teaching mode, rather than to hear glowing spiritual expository, should enjoy listening to him periodically. I do not rely upon him as a sole source for spiritual insights. I'll look for that on Sunday morning, then visit with Stanley during the week for an hour.

 

[DQuixote]

It is a dualistic concept that suggests that one can believe one way, to the end of eternal life, while my actions, the results of formed intents, can be at direct antipodes with that belief.

I have never met anyone with that belief. It is certainly not a belief held by the OSAS group. It is ridiculous to assert that it is. No one, having received Christ as Savior, desires (or forms the intent) to continue in sin. On the contrary, one calls upon our Lord daily for an overcoming spirit. Each new day is dedicated to Him and His Glory.

 

[webdog]

HP: Can you give the list something in your own words so that we are not accused by some of gossiping about the site you mentioned? It will help facilitate the discussion between us. Thanks

You asked what the free grace model was, and I gave you the link to the organization. I don't know why hearing it from me would make any difference since the source was given. Look through it and you will see not only is that position NOT calvinism, but this is the same position Stanley holds to.

 

[Martin]

:jesus:

You asked what the free grace model was, and I gave you the link to the organization. I don't know why hearing it from me would make any difference since the source was given. Look through it and you will see not only is that position NOT calvinism, but this is the same position Stanley holds to.

==Yes and it should be noted that the Grace Evangelical Society sells a book by Laurence Vance called "The Other Side of Calvinism" which is a anti-Calvinist book. For years GES also sold Charles Stanley's book on eternal security and Stanley wrote the preface to Zane Hodges' book "Grace In Eclipse" (1987) which I have in my library. In fact I have several of Zane Hodges books in my library. His teachings, which heavily influenced Charles Stanley, are certain not Calvinistic. GES has just released "Grace In Eclipse". "Grace In Eclipse" by Zane Hodges, and "Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure" by Charles Stanley, are tragic examples of the dangers of easy believism. Both go so far as to state that a true believer can walk away from Christ (ie..final apostasy) and remain saved. This is certainly NOT the Calvinistic teaching of perseverance. The view promoted by Zane Hodges in his books "Grace In Eclipse", "Absolutely Free", and "The Gospel Under Siege", and by Charles Stanley in his book "Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure", and by other teachers such as Tony Evans, and Bob Wilkin, etc, is nothing but antinomianism.

 

[drfuss]

In response to HP, Martin writes:

"==I'm not going to change the subject. We are talking about Charles Stanley and, as I have said, my view of atonement and election is slightly different from Stanley. Charles Stanley DOES NOT believe in unconditional election (as Calvinists do), Charles Stanley DOES NOT believe in particular atonement or irrisistable grace, nor does Charles Stanley believe in the perseverance of the saints. So please, Heavenly Pilgrim, explain to me how you can label a man a Calvinist who does not hold four of the five points of Calvinism. Please explain to me how you can call someone a Calvinist when that person clearly does not accept the basic points of Calvinism."


Perhaps HP"s misunderstanding comes from the fact that many Christians who believe in eternat security and not in unconditional election/irrestible grace still call themselves Calvinists. This stems from the notion that either you are Calvinist or Arminian. To me, you are only a Calvinists if you believe in at least 4 points. BTW, I do not consider myself a Calvinist or an Arminian.

Dividing Christians into either Calvinist or Arminian has led to many misunderstandings and false statements about what other Christians believe. For instamce, there are many different/distinct beliefs that Calvinist consider to be Arminian. Yet, many Calvinists pick a part of one belief that is easy to criticize, and broad brush it to apply to all "Arminians".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin, let me take this a step at a time, and see if in fact you can follow the logic. Would you agree with me that CS teaches that man has absolutely nothing to do with his salvation or remaining saved?

I am not limiting my question simply to Martin. Everyone or anyone on the list that claims to reject limited atonement needs to ask themselves the questions as we go along. Do you reject limited atonement but also believe that man has nothing to do with their salvation? If so, we need to hear from you as well.

 

[Rev. Lowery]

Yes!

I have never heard him preach anything unbiblical so he's ok in my book!

Armenian or Calvinism who cares whats the point!

If it contradicts the Bible in anyway its wrong period!

Are Armenian's going to heaven?

Are Calvinist going to heaven?

Religion never sends you to heaven!

Below are a few scriptures please read them!

John 14:6 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain



6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain



8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Romans 8:28-33 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain



28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.






I know we all know these verse's but be careful you may know them but not listen to them, take the time to listen to what the Holy Spirit says to your heart!