Dr. Charles Stanley

[Gershom]

First of all, Dr. Bob, I concur, I don't get it either! Has everyone on this thread lost their ability to reason?

I absolutely used absurdity - by my own admission and intent - as I have previously stated - to point out the absurdity being posted by others. Now shall I add venomous spewing?

I stated from the get go that it was NOT my intent to hijack the thread. EVERYONE else has contributed to that as much as - no, more than, I have.

I also stated the relevance to the OP being that the concern ought to be spiritual, more than physical.

I also pointed out that Dr. Stanley can still be considered "a good man." It is not the end of the world for a preacher to step down from preaching. I wish no ill will or physical harm to Dr. Stanley - I too hope that his health improves.

For everyone else to act like the fact that a pastor is divorced from his "1" wife is not a bad thing, a big deal, a concern, a difference maker, at least a potential changing of qualifications for the office is - ABSURD. It is ridiculous to treat it as business as usual, and to not at least allow for the interpretation that I have set forth in a prior post in this thread.

The issues I have set forth have only been addressed by one other person in this thread, and that not very well.

To set forth a man as perhaps not being qualified as pastor due to some very questionable situation in his life, in a debate forum, is not slinging mud.

I was going from memory in my initial post, and clearly stated "I think" he was remarried. I was not sure - ergo the "I think" part. That fact has been refuted in this thread, and I have no problem with it.

The following quote is the second part of my very brief initial post:

"This subject has probably been around a thread or two, but what about that? Does it not fly in the face of (IOW) violate the clear criterion which qualify a man for Pastoral service?"

Once again, no mudslinging, a simple question. The responses tho are quite instructive.

"Me thinketh thou dost protest too much."

You just don't get it, do you? Even after being told. Keep to the subject or start another thread. This thread is to discuss Charles Stanley's physical ailment, not whether he is qualified to be pastor.

I do hope it is nothing serious, but realize he is up in years.

 

[Salty]

For what it is worth, Andy, the son of Charles, was sitting when he was preaching today! :tear:

He is preacing a series called "Why Worry"

So are you worried about Andy or Charles sitting?

 

[saturneptune]

Eagle Join date Jul 2004

saturneptune Join date Jan 2006

...hmmm....

Besides the obvious of your genius, have you even bothered to actually read my posts in this thread or consider them, before you spewed?

I read them twice, and draw the same conclusion, you have no idea what the qualifications for pastor are. A date for joining makes no difference. Your interaction with others does.

 

[annsni]

For what it is worth, Andy, the son of Charles, was sitting when he was preaching today! :tear:

He is preacing a series called "Why Worry"

So are you worried about Andy or Charles sitting?

Well, you KNOW that because his son was sitting, he is following in the sins of his father and is a heretic. Besides, I hear he likes Lipton Tea rather than Red Rose. That's enough to condemn him, you know.

 

[saturneptune]

Well, you KNOW that because his son was sitting, he is following in the sins of his father and is a heretic. Besides, I hear he likes Lipton Tea rather than Red Rose. That's enough to condemn him, you know.

Another sign that Charles Stanley is living in sin is his waist size. It is obvious from his thin appearance that he has not met his quota of pot lucks.

 

[SaggyWoman]

Well, you KNOW that because his son was sitting, he is following in the sins of his father and is a heretic. Besides, I hear he likes Lipton Tea rather than Red Rose. That's enough to condemn him, you know.

If Andy were a godly man, he would be drinking green tea.

 

[Eagle]

Another sign that Charles Stanley is living in sin is his waist size. It is obvious from his thin appearance that he has not met his quota of pot lucks.

Finally! Something I can agree with! :laugh:

 

[Eagle]

An attempt at scriptural debate.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Pro 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

If we consider these verses in view of the fact that there is still individual will, and that God is not going to force an individual to believe in Him, then we would have to say that these verses are generally true - but there is no guarantee.

As parents, we do our best to follow God's Word in raising our kids - sometimes they don't turn out like we want or hope. For instance, hypothetically, if I understand these verses (and all other pertinent ones of course) and do my best to apply them, and my son (child) does not turn out "right" - can I truly be considered a pastoral candidate - or would I be disqualified - whether before or after the ordination?

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

The answer is, even if you knew me, and knew how loving, and disciplining, and patient and etc., that I have been with my son; and even if you knew what a self-willed, ingrate, bad-seed my son was (or even if you thought he was basically 'good' but just making some really lousy decisions) - the answer is I AM BIBLICALLY DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING THE OFFICE. GOD SAYS SO. GOD'S STANDARDS APPLY NOT MAN'S.

Two aspects of this 'list' of qualifications apply. First of all, we may want to look at it as a cohesive standard - not individual 'litmus tests' if that helps. The two aspects are:

1) Blamelessness (NOT sinlessness - there seems to be some confusion here)
2) Having a good report of them which are without

Here is what Wuest says about blameless:

"1Ti 3:2 (3:2) The word "blameless" is anepilambanō, made up of lambanō, "to take," and epi, "upon"; thus, the compound means "to lay hold upon," and all this is stated in the negative by having prefixed to it the letter, Alpha, making the entire word mean, "one who cannot be laid hold upon." That is, a bishop must be of such a spotless character that no one can lay hold upon anything in his life which would be of such a nature as to cast reproach upon the cause of the Lord Jesus. He presents to the world at large such a Christian life that he furnishes no grounds for accusation. Expositors says: "It is not enough for him to be not criminal; he must be one against whom it is impossible to bring any charge of wrong doing such as could stand impartial examination. He must be without reproach (R.V.), irreprehensible (Trench).""

Wuest again on having a good report:

"1Ti 3:7 (3:7) The words, "good report," are marturian kalēn, "an excellent testimony." "Those without" refers to the non-Christian world in the midst of which the saints live. Expositors says: "In the passage before us, indeed, St. Paul may be understood to imply that the opinion of 'those without' might usefully balance or correct that of the Church. There is something blameworthy in a man's character if the consensus of outside opinion be unfavorable to him; no matter how much he may be admired and respected by his own party. . . . One cannot safely assume, when we are in antagonism to it, that, because we are Christians, we are absolutely in the right and the world wholly wrong. Thus to defy public opinion in a superior spirit may not only bring discredit (reproach) on one's self and on the Church, but also catch us in the devil's snare, namely, a supposition that because the world condemns a certain course of action, the action is therefore right and the world's verdict may be safely set aside."
Translation: Moreover, it is a necessity in the nature of the case for him to be having an excellent testimony from those on the outside, lest he fall into reproach and into the snare of the devil."

The point being, can I truly be considered blameless, in the pastoral qualifying sense, if I tried really hard to do right, and you know I tried really hard to do right?

Will those that are without, whom know full well how my son is have a good report of me, in the pastoral qualifying sense?

-- Due to length, I will continue on another post --

 

[Salty]

Well, you KNOW that because his son was sitting, he is following in the sins of his father and is a heretic. Besides, I hear he likes Lipton Tea rather than Red Rose. That's enough to condemn him, you know.

Well, I didn't want to bring it up, but since you mentioned it.... Next you will be saying he used to sell AMWAY

 

[Eagle]

An attempt at scriptural debate, part 2.

Now if we apply these same principles (as stated in part 1) to divorce - do they somehow not apply? Remember to think of this as a cohesive, interdependent, standard - as Wuest seems to. These 2 'qualifications are' bookends to all that comes between and applies to all of it.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I would argue that just being divorced - no matter how well intentioned and no matter how hard someone tried to avoid it - still disqualifies one form the pastoral office. Were they (anyone) 'incompatible'? Did he choose to marry her? Does he not have good judgement on who to marry? Then how can he lead others to make good choices? Etc., etc.

However, I will consider that point as a draw. I do not concede it, and say you are right at all, I will simply concede, for the sake of argument (or agreement :thumbs, that there is not sufficent grounds on the basis "the husband of one wife" to make a strong enough case.

However, on the grounds of...

1) Blamelessness (NOT sinlessness - there seems to be some confusion here)
2) Having a good report of them which are without

...I take my stand. No matter what we as men think of another man, and no matter how hard he tried to make the marraige work, and no matter how much we know about how hard he tried to make the marriage work -- it nevertheless failed.

We as men do not know all the nuances or permutations as to how this negatively impacts the image and message of Christ - but God does. We as men do not know how this leads us into "reproach and the snare of the devil" - but God does.

God sets the standard - we abide by it. There is something very honorable in a man in that position to step down for the Lord's namesake - and something all together different when he won't.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Closed at request of Martin who started the thread - why some have to try to divert this from the op is beyond me.