Do you know Dr. Charles Stanley?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: I would seek to understand their position and then try to convince them that their position is incorrect.

HP: That is what I am doing, although obviously not seen as such through your perspective. I hope you will judge my efforts, and my ability to understand the real positions of others at stake, differently , at some point in time.

 

[EdSutton]

HP: What you are suggesting is that if one does not have God’s absolute knowledge of who is saved and who is not, no one can be assured of their salvation. That is simply not the case. We indeed do, BY FAITH, stand assured of our standing before God now, and stand assured of our final abode with Him yet to be revealed. What we do not have is a sure confidence of either our standing before God now or our final abode while in a state of an evil conscience. God has not so designed our assurance of salvation to testify of our rest in Him while in possession of an evil conscience.

Herein is one deception of OSAS. It ‘presumes’ upon the grace of God to cover for sins that have not been repented of and forsaken. “Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins!”

1Jo 1:7 BUT IF we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Sorry, I suggested no such thing, since I am the one being responded to here. But I did "suggest" (actually more than 'suggest', but why quibble?) that one cannot be assured that one's salvation is 'assured' when that salvation is based, even in part, on one's 'works', since one can never be sure that his or her works meet that 'undefined' level, that is necessary, to either attain (or 'keep') one's salvation or eternal life, depending on which wording one wants to use. However, since I Jo. 5:8-13 says we indeed may know that we have eternal life, I, unlike you, believe that is possible, and that is said to be based on believe/faith. I've believed that promise, and I do "know". And I see nothing in the verses about a 'qualifier' of the condition of my conscience, nor anything in Scripture, that another can even evaluate the condition of such.

"Page 2"

Since the phrase "repent of/from (one's) sins" is never found in the Scriptures, at all, as I have mentioned at least six to eight times on the pages of the BB, maybe the "'presumes'" has to do with this theology, as opposed to "upon the grace of God to cover for sins...". And I find very little in Scripture tying 'forsake' with "sin(s)", although I agree that that is a good idea. I do find a few dozen verses that speak of 'forsaking God', however. I sugest if "we walk in the light", sin is not as big a problem as when we "walk in darkness". But we are never completely free from the old nature, as it is part and parcel of all of us, this side of the resurrection, hence we all can and do still sin. Read the next few verses in I John. Even the denial that we don't sin, is said to be self-deception. And I suspect that one cannot "confess" a sin that is unknown to that individual, even though one can commit a sin in ignorance.

Ed

 

[BobRyan]

Do I agree with him on everything? No! However he is generally a good preacher.

I agree with you - and I am neither Baptist nor Calvinist.

Martin

How does he differ from TULIP:

=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.

Are you "sure" he does not support perseverance??

(BTW - I find a lot of Arminians trying to hold on to OSAS so I don't know that it is "Calvinist" but I agree it makes the mose sense in a Calvinist construct).

So he is, at best, a one and a half point Calvinist. I hardly call that a Calvinist. He leans more in the Arminian camp than Calvinist.

How does an Arminian reject Perseverance?

Ok - never mind - I do know some confused enough to do that.

If we refer back to some older terms in history Stanley would be a general Baptist and not a particular Baptist. This is why Calvinists are so critical of his book on eternal security.

Why would they object to his stand on OSAS - because he rejects perseverance??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Martin: //=He promotes once saved, always saved and not perseverance.//

BobRyan: //Are you "sure" he does not support perseverance??//

Tee Hee

If a person is once saved, always saved (OSAS) then
they (he or she) will perservere.

OSAS is about the FIDELITY OF GOD
not HUMAN PERFIDY.

 

[BobRyan]

You are taking a "kind of OSAS" definition that would be consistently held in a 3point or 5 point Calvinist world - but all the 4 point Calvinists that hold to OSAS would dispute your argument that by definition OSAS means you must persevere.

I guess it depends on which camp of OSAS believers is defining the term.

BTW as an Arimian I fully understand how the various Calvinist groups are easily promoting OSAS within the framework of their doctrinal positions in Calvinism. Just because I am not Calvinist does not mean I don't know what they are trying to say and why (even though many Calvinists think this is a "secret" to anyone that is not Calvinist:BangHead: :laugh: ) . Having said that - I have no clue how Arminians simply "claim it anyway" no matter how it conflicts with the basics of the Arminian position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Charles Stanley is within the range of acceptable preachers. He is quite OK, IMO.

As for the personal matter, the Local church should decide.

 

[webdog]

If a person is once saved, always saved (OSAS) then
they (he or she) will perservere.

Was that the case with Lot?

 

[EdSutton]

Was that the case with Lot?

No, but he is still the Biblical "saint of saints", wot?

Ed

 

[Martin]

Are you "sure" he does not support perseverance??

==Yes. Charles Stanley believes in "once saved, always saved" and not the final perseverance of the saints. The former allows for the idea that someone can "get saved", walk away from their faith and Jesus, and still be saved. The latter rejects that idea saying that such people were not truly saved.

How does an Arminian reject Perseverance?

==Arminians generally believe in some form of conditional security or conditional perseverance. This differs from the perseverance of the saints in that it teaches that a true believer can lose his/her salvation while the perseverance of the saints doctrine teaches that a true believer cannot lose his/her salvation.

Why would they object to his stand on OSAS - because he rejects perseverance??

==Yep. If you want to contrast the two views read Charles Stanley's book "Eternal Security Can You Be Sure" and compare it to John MacArthur's "Saved Without A Doubt". You will see a major difference between the two positions.

 

[webdog]

No, but he is still the Biblical "saint of saints", wot?

Ed

Amen :thumbs:

Lot single handedly disproves perseverance of the Saints. Since the theology is systematic in nature, if one falls they all fall. Bye-bye :wavey:

 

[EdSutton]

Amen :thumbs:

Lot single handedly disproves perseverance of the Saints. Since the theology is systematic in nature, if one falls they all fall. Bye-bye :wavey:

I have said before, that the problem with most "theological systems" is they really have no place for a "righteous Lot", even if paying lip service to such. And I am dead serious about Lot being known as the Biblical "saint of saints". Two individuals apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, in Scripture are identified as "righteous" or "just" three times. Those two are Abel and Lot.

And Lot is the only individual in Scripture specifically identified as being one of "the godly".

That's good enough for me!

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: That's good enough for me!

HP: You sure get satisfied quickly. For starters, what about David? He said that the Lord rewarded him according to his righteousness. Was he deceived?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: Yes. Charles Stanley believes in "once saved, always saved" and not the final perseverance of the saints. The former allows for the idea that someone can "get saved", walk away from their faith and Jesus, and still be saved. The latter rejects that idea saying that such people were not truly saved.

HP: Pray tell us what real difference does this all make? Neither believes one has anything to do with their salvation, and cannot do anything to keep their salvation, and can do nothing to lose their salvation. Either they were chosen to salvation or they were not. I would think that if they were not chosen that they would not have been saved in any place, let alone in the first place. That does not have to be deduced by a rocket scientist for sure.

What earthly good would it matter in eternity if one thought he was saved by was not chosen, or one did not think he was saved and was not chosen?

If they were chosen it would be impossible to fall, so the issue of their actions doing anything to create the fallen state they are in is mute. All import of their seeming differences dissipate in the light of honest evaluation and melt into one harmonious fatalistic necessitated end.

The problem is with both views is that they BOTH eliminate man from the picture as a cause of their choosing. Both are as fatalistic as the other. If there was ever wasted effort, it would be for these two Calvinistic views such as presented to think and argue that they somehow oppose each other in any meaningful way.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Lot single handedly disproves perseverance of the Saints. Since the theology is systematic in nature, if one falls they all fall.

HP: I do not follow the logic. How is Lot seen as an example of one that did not persevere?

 

[Martin]

HP: Pray tell us what real difference does this all make? Neither believes one has anything to do with their salvation, and cannot do anything to keep their salvation, and can do nothing to lose their salvation. Either they were chosen to salvation or they were not. I would think that if they were not chosen that they would not have been saved in any place, let alone in the first place. That does not have to be deduced by a rocket scientist for sure.

What earthly good would it matter in eternity if one thought he was saved by was not chosen, or one did not think he was saved and was not chosen?

If they were chosen it would be impossible to fall, so the issue of their actions doing anything to create the fallen state they are in is mute. All import of their seeming differences dissipate in the light of honest evaluation and melt into one harmonious fatalistic necessitated end.

The problem is with both views is that they BOTH eliminate man from the picture as a cause of their choosing. Both are as fatalistic as the other. If there was ever wasted effort, it would be for these two Calvinistic views such as presented to think and argue that they somehow oppose each other in any meaningful way.

==I thought about responding to this then I thought better of it. Until you show some indication that you know the difference between historical Calvinism and the type of teaching that is presented by Charles Stanley I am not going to bother to discuss this issue with you. :wavey:

 

[Jarthur001]

I happen to buy about any and all books on salvation I know of. Good of bad, I buy them. If I agree with them or not..still I buy them.

I think this thread is kinda funny....having read most of it.
I would like to ask this..

Who said this in a well known book.....

"if God could not and did not elect, none would be saved"?

 

[Jarthur001]

I have another one for you...

Who wrote this...

"If Almighty God could not have retreated into His sovereignty to choose a people He would bring to glory, then no one could ever hope to be save"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: I thought about responding to this then I thought better of it. Until you show some indication that you know the difference between historical Calvinism and the type of teaching that is presented by Charles Stanley I am not going to bother to discuss this issue with you.

HP: You exhibit a total lack of understanding the end of Charles Stanley's positions. The problem is that there is no significant difference between the logical ends of his Calvinistic views and those of any other Calvinist when the smoke and mirrors of manufactured non-existent distinctions are exposed to the light of day with simple logic. The truth is that Charles Stanley is just as fatalistic as any Calvinist ever was or will be.

You need to consider the potter’s pots. I would like to hear your response concerning the OP of that thread.

 

[Jarthur001]

one more..and i'll go back to my hole..

Who said...

"I guess you could say I have a form of Calvinism"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JA 001: "If Almighty God could not have retreated into His sovereignty to choose a people He would bring to glory, then no one could ever hope to be save"?

HP: The question is not whether or not God chose a people that would bring glory to His name, or if any man could be saved apart from that plan, but rather by what means did He choose to bring that plan to fruition?