My initial thoughts on Eternal Security by Charles Stanley

[evangelist6589]

Got Eternal Security by Stanley today and started the read. So far I have seen statements that should have been re-worded, however he clearly condemns those whom are not Lordship on p. ix. However in other parts of the book that I skimmed I saw that he does not argue his case as strong as John MacArthur in some of his books. However MacArthur's Gospel According to Jesus is a very technical read that only a few can understand, while Stanley writes for the average Christian. I will read more….
Like · · Unfollow Post · 3 minutes ago near Greenville

John Wolf Pentecostal Holiness types whom add works to the equation are FALSE CONVERTS and not disobedient believers. Stanley I believe confused me by one statement. Yet in the conclusion and other parts of the book he says those that hold to that view have attacked the very gospel itself. I will read more...

 

[Yeshua1]

Got Eternal Security by Stanley today and started the read. So far I have seen statements that should have been re-worded, however he clearly condemns those whom are not Lordship on p. ix. However in other parts of the book that I skimmed I saw that he does not argue his case as strong as John MacArthur in some of his books. However MacArthur's Gospel According to Jesus is a very technical read that only a few can understand, while Stanley writes for the average Christian. I will read more….
Like · · Unfollow Post · 3 minutes ago near Greenville

John Wolf Pentecostal Holiness types whom add works to the equation are FALSE CONVERTS and not disobedient believers. Stanley I believe confused me by one statement. Yet in the conclusion and other parts of the book he says those that hold to that view have attacked the very gospel itself. I will read more...

Have to understand that the "Lordship salvation" position as articulated by Dr MacArthur is problematicaly, as ALL christians receive the lord Jesus when born again/saved, its just that some of us allow Him to have that exercised over us quicker/easier than others!

 

[evangelist6589]

Have to understand that the "Lordship salvation" position as articulated by Dr MacArthur is problematicaly, as ALL christians receive the lord Jesus when born again/saved, its just that some of us allow Him to have that exercised over us quicker/easier than others!

I listened to a 50M podcast of John MacArthur from 1988 today. What he believes is what I believe and also what Stanley believes. MacArthurs problem is that he wrote that book at too deep of a academic level that most people cannot understand it. The book is written for graduate students, not for laymen.
Stanley does not emphasize Lordship as well as he could have so far in my reading of his book. However his book is written at a level any christian can understand.

 

[Deacon]

Evangelist, I think you misunderstand the term "Lordship salvation".

MacArthur is perhaps the keynote speaker for "Lordship salvation" today.

I may be wrong but I think Charles Stanley is closer alligned to the "free grace" side of the argument.

Both believe in eternal security but have a different understanding of whom this term applies to.

I'd be interested to read some of the quotes you believe Charles Stanley makes that put him in the "Lordship salvation" camp. Post them if you will.

Rob

 

[evangelist6589]

Evangelist, I think you misunderstand the term "Lordship salvation".

MacArthur is perhaps the keynote speaker for "Lordship salvation" today.

I may be wrong but I think Charles Stanley is closer alligned to the "free grace" side of the argument.

Both believe in eternal security but have a different understanding of whom this term applies to.

I'd be interested to read some of the quotes you believe Charles Stanley makes that put him in the "Lordship salvation" camp. Post them if you will.

Rob

I heard MacArthur speak on Lordship yesterday and unless I am mistaken I have not misunderstood him.

http://www.theologue.org/LordshipSalvationControversy.html

Opposition
Some evangelicals such as Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, Zane Hodges, and Bill Bright have denied the doctrine, teaching instead a doctrine they call free grace that posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life. Because this gift is bestowed irrespective of the deeds of the individual (as even advocates of Lordship salvation believe), they believe the receiver of the gift cannot do anything to undo what God has done, even by sinning flagrantly and habitually without repentance. Thus, the gift of salvation in this understanding results in a form of eternal security apart from any change in behavior.

This is false and not what Stanley teaches.

http://www.intouch.org/magazine/content?topic=salvation_and_lordship#.UCzsr44wnGI

http://www.oneplace.com/devotionals/in-touch-with-charles-stanley/in-touch-jan-30-2012-11644812.html

Okay here are some quotes from the book.

But my view was strengthened by the carnal lifestyles of many with whom I debated, men who claimed to be saved, and yet whose actions gave no indication of their having a relationship with Christ

Stanley is speaking of his former position in the Holiness church which taught him a Fall from Grace theology. He says that one cant be saved and yet live as if no conversion occurred for if we are saved there will be fruit (2 Cor 5:17).

So far this is what I have but I will get more as I read more.

 

[evangelist6589]

Someone help me understand the book Eternal Security by Charles Stanley. He makes some statements in the book that are questionable. One of which is on pg 67 where he says that one can be a Christian, yet show no evidence of this, and he argues in that chapter that all one needs to do is believe, so it appears he is teaching "easy believism." However in other statements he says on pg 65 that believe means to trust which means a relationship and personal involvement." So it appears so far (up to page 71) that this book could have been better worded. David Jeremiah in one of his books argues for the Lordship of Christ. MacArthur does as well in a book.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0785264175/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Yeshua1]

Someone help me understand the book Eternal Security by Charles Stanley. He makes some statements in the book that are questionable. One of which is on pg 67 where he says that one can be a Christian, yet show no evidence of this, and he argues in that chapter that all one needs to do is believe, so it appears he is teaching "easy believism." However in other statements he says on pg 65 that believe means to trust which means a relationship and personal involvement." So it appears so far (up to page 71) that this book could have been better worded. David Jeremiah in one of his books argues for the Lordship of Christ. MacArthur does as well in a book.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0785264175/?tag=baptis04-20

lordship advocates rightly teach that a saved person neefds to be found doing 'something' as evidenced of having been saved by grace of god, but the free grace people, which i align with more, would argue that the salvation is FULLy and TOTALLy accomplished by god when saved by grace, and that one can be living for a time with little evidence of getting saved...

lordship persons tend to emphasise the changed like at times so much that they almost appear to be saying to be saved, MUST have those works, problem is how many/what kind etc?

 

[Bronconagurski]

lordship advocates rightly teach that a saved person neefds to be found doing 'something' as evidenced of having been saved by grace of god, but the free grace people, which i align with more, would argue that the salvation is FULLy and TOTALLy accomplished by god when saved by grace, and that one can be living for a time with little evidence of getting saved...

lordship persons tend to emphasise the changed like at times so much that they almost appear to be saying to be saved, MUST have those works, problem is how many/what kind etc?

I believe in the perseverance of the saints.That does not preclude one from having times of inactivity, but does mean one will not merely make a profession and never bear any fruit whatsoever.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe in the perseverance of the saints.That does not preclude one from having times of inactivity, but does mean one will not merely make a profession and never bear any fruit whatsoever.

we ALL agree with that, its just that at times, those holding to extreme Lordship views tend to come across as teaching the saved must have 'this amount" of evidence to be really saved!

 

[Revmitchell]

Stanley is not what is deemed Lordship salvation proponent. He in fact holds to a form of Millennial Exclusion. That negates any possibility of holding to the Lordship position. I was very sad to see this news.

 

[Yeshua1]

Stanley is not what is deemed Lordship salvation proponent. He in fact holds to a form of Millennial Exclusion. That negates any possibility of holding to the Lordship position. I was very sad to see this news.

yes, as that view is heretical....

 

[MorseOp]

I listened to a 50M podcast of John MacArthur from 1988 today. What he believes is what I believe and also what Stanley believes. MacArthurs problem is that he wrote that book at too deep of a academic level that most people cannot understand it. The book is written for graduate students, not for laymen.
Stanley does not emphasize Lordship as well as he could have so far in my reading of his book. However his book is written at a level any christian can understand.

The Gospel According to Jesus may be too technical for some, but I know many who had little difficulty understanding it (and they were not bible college or seminary trained). Even if the book was technical that is a good thing. Some doctrines need to be fully vetted and explained. Short cuts or "dumbing down" do not allow for a full biblical case to be made.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Gospel According to Jesus may be too technical for some, but I know many who had little difficulty understanding it (and they were not bible college or seminary trained). Even if the book was technical that is a good thing. Some doctrines need to be fully vetted and explained. Short cuts or "dumbing down" do not allow for a full biblical case to be made.

True, but the problem with that book is it did NOT prove his view of "lordship salvation!"

 

[evangelist6589]

yes, as that view is heretical....

When you make these charges you need to have evidence. I agree "Eternal Security" as been poorly worded. However his Podcasts speak otherwise.

 

[evangelist6589]

The Gospel According to Jesus may be too technical for some, but I know many who had little difficulty understanding it (and they were not bible college or seminary trained). Even if the book was technical that is a good thing. Some doctrines need to be fully vetted and explained. Short cuts or "dumbing down" do not allow for a full biblical case to be made.

This is why I recommend the book How you can be sure that you will spend eternity with God by Erwin Lutzer. It seems to be in between Stanley & MacArthur. He uses the sinners prayer, but uses it wisely. Lutzer says that a person can live in sin, backslide, and still be saved, while MacArthur would call him a false convert. Lutzer also believes as Stanley does that a person whom lives like this will be in Heaven, they will just lose their rewards. MacArthur may conclude they were never ever saved.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is why I recommend the book How you can be sure that you will spend eternity with God by Erwin Lutzer. It seems to be in between Stanley & MacArthur. He uses the sinners prayer, but uses it wisely. Lutzer says that a person can live in sin, backslide, and still be saved, while MacArthur would call him a false convert. Lutzer also believes as Stanley does that a person whom lives like this will be in Heaven, they will just lose their rewards. MacArthur may conclude they were never ever saved.

that is what I meant by him not provong lordship salvation, as he seems to advocate that unless one has jesus Lord in actuality over ALl things, He will not just accept some...
he seems to be saying that unless we have matured enough to accept jesus as BOTh Saviour/lord, that operson will not get saved by God!

the problem is how much maturity to get saved? What have to do, how long, what degree?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

As has been posted in a recent thread here on the BB, Stanley teaches that outer darkness is a part of God's eternal kingdom. He does this on page 126 of the book Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?

 

[evangelist6589]

As has been posted in a recent thread here on the BB, Stanley teaches that outer darkness is a part of God's eternal kingdom. He does this on page 126 of the book Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?

This is off topic.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

This is off topic.

Not really, since the title of the thread is about the book.

 

[evangelist6589]

Not really, since the title of the thread is about the book.

I created another thread for 1 Cor 3:11-15 & Mt 22:13. By reading MacArthur on pg 282 of the 2nd edition of his book, he argues……. Check out the other thread to find out the answer.