is Charles Stanley still regarded as a Good Bible teacher?

is Charles Stanley still regarded as a Good Bible teacher?

No, never was. He married Moses and the Law years ago. No revelation or Godly wisdom. Just a lust for a bigger church. He is about numbers not quality.

 

What do you mean "he married Moses and the Law"?

 

Get them to say the sinners prayer, then teach them the Ten Commandments is the way to live. He does not understand Romans 6-8, or the book of Galatians. Nice church building though.

 

It's so interesting to see people make such polarizing statements about people and ministries. I guess one of the benefits of this kind of discussion is it removes our obligation to be peaceable and speak humanely of each other. So sad.

 

I would not give him that recommendation or point anyone to him today. He has changed his message in his later years and no longer believes a person has to repent to be saved. He claims repentance comes after salvation. If you listen to him now he never call people to come to Jesus as Lord. He only offers Jesus as Savior and this is part of his change from a no need repentance stance.
I am assuming his age has clouded his mind on this issue to bring the change. So to your question the answer is no.

 

I consider Charles Stanley to be a good teacher, with the exception of being a bit legalistic sometimes.

Regarding this....

I agree 100% with Stanley on this.

It is unthinkable, unimaginable, to think that a redeemed forever, born again, sealed in the Spirit child of the living God could EVER be lost. That person is is mired in a terrible frame of mind, but if they were ONCE Gods child, they are STILL Gods child.

Remember the prodigal son teaching...among so many other teachings regarding Gods faithfullness in keeping His own. It is NOT up to us to stay saved. Keeping us is Gods job, not ours. Praise the Lord!

 

You do realize you are saying that there are people who are Christians who do not believe in Jesus or trust him for their salvation.

 

Do you realize that you are saying that a Christian can lose their salvation?

 

12strings....

I know exactly what I am saying. That being that the doctrine of eternal security is Gods doctrine. It comes strait from the scriptures.There is no circumstance under the sun where a Spirit born, eternally secure child of God can be lost and go to hell.

Those ones may be SAYING they dont trust Christ anymore, or that they do not believe anymore, but they do...and in time they will come out of it.

And if a horribly wayward one were to be blaspheming God, and and behaving so wickedly that God has no other choice, he will call them home prematurely, rather then let that continue.

Eternal security means just that.

 

I am not saying that, nor do I believe it.

 

So now you are saying that it is not that a christian stops believing, but that he simply "thinks" that he has stopped believing?

I don't see anyone in scriptures described like this an called a believer.

 

12strings...

When someone is born of the Spirit, they are "sealed for the day of redemption".......

Sealed means sealed FOREVER. If someone is SEALED till they day of redemption, they can not go to hell.


This is not rocket science

 

I agree with all this, I just don't think such a person will stop believing in Christ.

 

And I have the greatest Jack Russell terrier God ever made!

 

There most certainly is, JF.

2 Tim, 2:13....

 

Ah, but you have left out the verse before it:

How do you reconcile v. 12 with v. 13?

 

Why in the world would God tell us what "Might" happen to a believer when that same thing WILL NEVER HAPPEN?

BTW, my explaination of all this is that true believers will perervere to the end and keep fighting the good fight of faith even when they feel like they are losing. They will not finally abandon their belief because, as you have said, God keeps them and he who started the work will be faithful to complete it in you. I believe the way to explain apparant Christians who abandon the faith is found in 1 John 2:19 - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.