Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

drfuss -> Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/6/2008 6:08:12 PM)

On Charles Stanley's website (and in his book on Eternal Security) is the the folowing paragraph about eternal security from his section on "Those Who Stop Believing":

'I imagine that a woman who has gone through an experience like the one described above would always have faith in firemen and their nets. But even if she did not, the fact remains that she was saved from the fire. In the same way, in all probability, a Christian who has expressed faith in Christ and experienced forgiveness of sin will always believe that forgiveness is found through Him. But even if the believer does not, the fact remains that he is forgiven."

Note the following in the last sentence:

1. Stanley allows that a True Christian can stop trusting in Christ.
2. A Christain who stops trusting in Christ will still be forgiven and will therefore go to heaven even if he is not trusting Christ when he dies.

I first came across the fact that Stanley's eternal security belief was different than the generally accepted ES belief over five years ago, when he had on his webdite the following illustration.

Suppose a person becomes a Christian and trusts in Christ for two years. He then is converted to the Muslim belief and remains a Muslim the rest of his life. Stanley's question was "will this person go to heaven even though he is not trusting Christ when he dies". Stanley's answer was yes, because once a son, always a son.

The illustration was removed from his website years ago, but the belief is still on his website as shown above.

The purpose of this thread is NOT to debate if eternal security is correct. There are other threads for that.

Charles Stanley was president of the Southern Baptist Convention for two years. Is Stanley's belief different than that of the SBC in thier Baptist Faith and Message? Considering items #1&2 above, I think it at least somewhat contradicts it. What do you think?



timf -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 11:11:49 AM)

Charles Stanley' Eternal Security

There are a couple of things that make this type of discussion difficult. The first is the difference between saving faith and living faith. The second is how we evaluate the faith of others.

If we observe someone walking in the flesh, do we assume they are not saved, have lost salvation, were never saved?

I think we may be biting off more than we can chew when we make declarations of the faith of others or establish criteria to evaluate or measure the faith of others. The Bible says that we should examine ourselves.

I see Dr. Stanley describing an observable turning from the Spirit to the flesh and calling it a loss of "faith".

The view that saving faith has to be continually sustained and that it is the person who sustains it has more in common with the Catholic view and I do not see this in the quote of Dr. Stanley.



drfuss -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 3:27:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timf

Charles Stanley' Eternal Security

There are a couple of things that make this type of discussion difficult. The first is the difference between saving faith and living faith. The second is how we evaluate the faith of others.

If we observe someone walking in the flesh, do we assume they are not saved, have lost salvation, were never saved?

I think we may be biting off more than we can chew when we make declarations of the faith of others or establish criteria to evaluate or measure the faith of others. The Bible says that we should examine ourselves.

I see Dr. Stanley describing an observable turning from the Spirit to the flesh and calling it a loss of "faith".

The view that saving faith has to be continually sustained and that it is the person who sustains it has more in common with the Catholic view and I do not see this in the quote of Dr. Stanley.


drfuss: Charles Stanley is talking about Christians who decide to stop believing as evidenced by the title of his article which is "Those Who Stop Believing". I don't see where the saving faith issue has anything to do with what Stanley said. While I don't still have Stanley's example that was on his website (see the OP), that example made it very clear what he was talking about, i.e. stop believing.

Below is the pertinent part of the SBC BF&M.

"V. God's Purpose of Grace

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."


The phrase "but will persevere to the end" is usually interpreted to mean will continue trusting in Christ to the end. I think Stanley's allowing that some True Chriatians may stop trusting in Christ is in direct disagreement with the SBC position. It appears that Stanley may have a different interpretation of this phrase, since he has been very involved in the SBC for a long time.

It appears that Stanley believes a person who is not trusting Christ when he dies, will still go to heaven if he trusted in Christ at one time in his life. BTW, a friend of mine at church this morning, said he used to go to a church that believed what Stanley apparently believes. so he is not alone in this belief.



rcjames -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 3:44:48 PM)

Those of Dr. Stanley's position find themselves in a quandry when the "Absolute Etrenal Security" if followed to a reasonable Biblical end.

Who has Eternal Security according to these folks? Anyone who is a believer>

What about someone who "Professed Christ" but then nothing happened in their filestyle to show Chrost; they continued in sin, murdered, adulterated, cussed God, etc. etc.

The answer from those of this persuasion is that these folkd were never saved to begin with. WHAT?

Then how does one have eternal security if they do not know if they are "Really" saved or not?

That is the question?

I say those that teach and preach this can feasible (and most likely are) be teaching "Eternal Security" to a Church full of lost folks; and never never never encouraging those lost folks to find Jesus!

Bad doctrine.

Thanks
RC



URForgiven -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 4:24:25 PM)

The question is not eternal security nor OSAS, the question is have you received life or not? The wages of sin is death, the only solution to death is life. Salvation is not getting your sins forgiven, salvation is receiving life, eternal life, and that life is in Jesus Christ.

We are saved from death by receiving Christ, in whom is life. And that life is eternal life.

1 John 5:11
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

1 John 5:12
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Romans 5:10
For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Peace



drfuss -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 4:36:17 PM)

drfuss: As requested in the OP, let's not raise the question of whether eternal security is right or not. That will just get this thread transferred to another thread by the moderator.

Let's limit discussions to the types and differences of eternal security beliefs that exist.

Thanks.



rcjames -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 4:40:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drfuss

drfuss: As requested in the OP, let's not raise the question of whether eternal security is right or not. That will just get this thread transferred to another thread by the moderator.

Let's limit discussions to the types and differences of eternal security beliefs that exist.

Thanks.


OK drfuss here is the definitive Scripture for my belief about Eternal Security;

(Mar 13:13) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Endure, endure, endure.

Thanks
RC



drfuss -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 4:58:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: drfuss

drfuss: As requested in the OP, let's not raise the question of whether eternal security is right or not. That will just get this thread transferred to another thread by the moderator.

Let's limit discussions to the types and differences of eternal security beliefs that exist.

Thanks.


OK drfuss here is the definitive Scripture for my belief about Eternal Security;

(Mar 13:13) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Endure, endure, endure.

Thanks
RC


drfuss: Good old RE just couldn't resist. Okay, let's get back to the various types of eternal security beliefs that exist.

5-Point Calvinists believe in eternal security, but justify it differently based on unconditional election and irresistible grace. Should we consider the Calvinists type different than the non Calvinist type of eternal security that is based on a True Christian will not stop trusting Christ. I have seen Calvinists who think it is different. If it is different, then there are three different types of eternal security.

Are there three types of eternal security?



URForgiven -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 5:20:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drfuss

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: drfuss

drfuss: As requested in the OP, let's not raise the question of whether eternal security is right or not. That will just get this thread transferred to another thread by the moderator.

Let's limit discussions to the types and differences of eternal security beliefs that exist.

Thanks.


OK drfuss here is the definitive Scripture for my belief about Eternal Security;

(Mar 13:13) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Endure, endure, endure.

Thanks
RC


drfuss: Good old RE just couldn't resist. Okay, let's get back to the various types of eternal security beliefs that exist.

5-Point Calvinists believe in eternal security, but justify it differently based on unconditional election and irresistible grace. Should we consider the Calvinists type different than the non Calvinist type of eternal security that is based on a True Christian will not stop trusting Christ. I have seen Calvinists who think it is different. If it is different, then there are three different types of eternal security.

Are there three types of eternal security?


...and you were looking to keep this thread from the mods? LOL

You seem to believe that you have all the possible scenerios locked up, unfortunately the Truth rarely fits into the doctrines of man.

God sees man in one of two ways, as those who are alive (in Christ), or as those who are dead (without Christ).

I should think that those who are alive would be much more "secure" than those who are dead. [;)]

Peace



drfuss -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 8:35:02 PM)

drfuss: This thread assumes "Once Saved, Always Saved" (eternal security) is correct. Anyone wishing to question this should post it on another thread.

I have listed three potential versions of "Once Saved, Always Saved".

1. 5 Point Calvinist belief - based on unconditional election/irresistible grace.

2. Non-Calvinist belief - based on a True Christian will not stop trusting in Christ.

3. Stanley's belief - A True Christian can stop trusting in Christ, and even though he is not trusting in Christ when he dies, he will still be saved. (Once a son, always a son).


Is there another "Once Saved, Always Saved" type belief? If I missed it, please help out by providing it.

I think Beliefs #1 and #2 above are the same except for the different justifications. Do you agree? Do the different justifications matter?

Do many churches believe as Charles Stanley does?



colliefan -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/7/2008 9:26:08 PM)

How a true blood-bought child of God could forsake the faith is beyond me. The prodigal son came home when he "came to his senses"



DaveW -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 8:18:45 AM)

For the record, I do not agree with the security doctrine. Per the OPs request, I will not debate the verasity of it.

I have been aware for decades that ES/OSAS comes in a variety of flavors. The version Stanley promotes has particularly been a lightning rod for the opposition, who state that this belief says that you can pray a prayer and then go and live any way you please and be OK eternally.

There are others who say that this kind of person never was saved to begin with.

As with any subject, you cannot assume everyone sees it the same, even those who agree on the general principle.



greatdivide46 -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 8:20:32 AM)

Based on my discussions concerning eternal security, I was under the impression that all those who accept it as true, believe as Dr. Stanley does (once a son always a son). I don't know how many times I've had people use being a child of our earthly fathers as an example of a person's relationship with God. They say that just like we will always be a child of our earthly fathers and that will never change, so we will always be a child of God and that will never change. I don't see how that's any different from what Dr. Stanley is saying.



DaveW -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 8:38:55 AM)

There are many who believe ES who say if a person falls away, denys the faith, etc. they never were a son to begin with and were never saved.

Those are the 2 main flavors I am aware of, with each group having a variety of minor variations. There may be other flavors as well.

I was not aware until recently that Calvinism was ES but it makes sense as there is ultimately no free will involved in your eternal destiny at all. I guess that is a third flavor.



earthless -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 9:53:11 AM)

I am secure in Jesus because of Him, not because of me. If it was up to me I would have been un-born again the next day after getting saved by His precious shed blood.



drfuss -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 1:30:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46

Based on my discussions concerning eternal security, I was under the impression that all those who accept it as true, believe as Dr. Stanley does (once a son always a son). I don't know how many times I've had people use being a child of our earthly fathers as an example of a person's relationship with God. They say that just like we will always be a child of our earthly fathers and that will never change, so we will always be a child of God and that will never change. I don't see how that's any different from what Dr. Stanley is saying.


Drfuss: Dr Stanley is also saying that even if a Christian stops trusting Christ; and is not trusting Christ when he dies, that unbelieving person will still go to heaven. I think most, if not all, other evangelical beliefs say you must be trusting Christ when you die, to go to heaven.

Other eternal security beliefs say a True Christian will not stop trusting Christ, therefore he will be trusting Christ when he dies and will go to heaven. Dr. Stanley believes that a Ture Christian can stop trusting Christ.

I was under the impression that in most ES beliefs, "Once a son, always a son" means "once believing, always believing". Or at least the Christian will be believing when he dies so he will go to heaven. However, I could be wrong. Can anyone help me on this?



IMA_CHRISTIAN -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 1:40:17 PM)

Re Eternal Security - or also known as Perseverence of the saints....

a person will stay saved because they have eternal life NOW, not at the point of death of the body.... and its the power of God who keeps the Christian,, which is why we can count on it to keep us till we meet the Lord.

now those who were once "christian' and 'saved" and now turned Muslim the rest of thier life till they die, since it is apparant that they remained muslim, they were never saved, because either the Holy Ghost failed in his task to keep us, (WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE SINCE GOD NEVER FAILS).... or else the person was not saved in the first place.. just a professing Christian wannabee. thanks to a lot of terrible watered-down preaching, this can happen.

1 John 2:19 - "they went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us, but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us"

Thats what the Scripture says. so I have to disagree with Charles Stanley.



drfuss -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 1:43:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46

Based on my discussions concerning eternal security, I was under the impression that all those who accept it as true, believe as Dr. Stanley does (once a son always a son). I don't know how many times I've had people use being a child of our earthly fathers as an example of a person's relationship with God. They say that just like we will always be a child of our earthly fathers and that will never change, so we will always be a child of God and that will never change. I don't see how that's any different from what Dr. Stanley is saying.


drfuss: Until I started attending a church 16 years ago that believes in eternal security, I also thought that all eternal security Christians believed as Charles Stanley does. I think most people not familiar with eternal security think all eternal security Christian believe as Charles Stanley does.

My church does not believe as Charles Stanley does, but teaches that a True Christian will continue to trust Christ for the rest of his life; otherwise he was not a true Christian in the first place. This is what Adrian Rogers taught according to our Bible study class book.



Odeliya -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 1:46:29 PM)

Drfuss,
have you actually read Charles Stanley's book Eternal Security?
yes or no would do.[;)]

You seem to be confusing his beliefs with a general "answered-altar-call-means-saved" ideology that dominates churches these days.

Dr Stanley doest believe the latter.



Odeliya -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 1:55:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drfuss

Dr Stanley is also saying that even if a Christian stops trusting Christ; and is not trusting Christ when he dies, that unbelieving person will still go to heaven. I think most, if not all, other evangelical beliefs say you must be trusting Christ when you die, to go to heaven.

Other eternal security beliefs say a True Christian will not stop trusting Christ, therefore he will be trusting Christ when he dies and will go to heaven. Dr. Stanley believes that a Ture Christian can stop trusting Christ.

I was under the impression that in most ES beliefs, "Once a son, always a son" means "once believing, always believing". Or at least the Christian will be believing when he dies so he will go to heaven. However, I could be wrong. Can anyone help me on this?


Sure. Solomon was saved but when he became old he stopped being a believer. He turned to other gods.
Did he died in that condition? We dont know. Some like to speculate he repented before death.
What if he didnt? What if he would have died before repenting, while still in the midst of building temples for various goddesses and gods?
You know , of a heart attack ;)- overestimating the potential of little blue pill and underestimating the occupational hazard of an old gizzar owning and widely using a harem?


The thing is that we are still capable of sin even if saved. I agree with eathless that if it was up to me i would have lost salvation on the same day i was saved, way before lunch.



drfuss -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 2:33:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odeliya

Drfuss,
have you actually read Charles Stanley's book Eternal Security?
yes or no would do.[;)]

You seem to be confusing his beliefs with a general "answered-altar-call-means-saved" ideology that dominates churches these days.

Dr Stanley doest believe the latter.


drfuss: I have two of Charles Stanley's books both entitled "Eternal Security", one published in 1990 and republished in 2002. Both books have an entire chapter entitled "For Those who Stop Believing", the 1990 book on pages 71 thru 81, and the 2002 book on pages 73 thru 83. The paragraph from his website that was quoted in the OP is also on page 79 of his 2002 book and on page 77 of his 1990 book. Have I read the book? Yes.

On his website some years ago, Charles Stanley made it very clear on his belief concerning this. Please check my earlier post giving Charles Stanley's example concerning a Christian who was converted to the Muslim religion.



rcjames -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 3:13:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drfuss
drfuss: I have two of Charles Stanley's books both entitled "Eternal Security", one published in 1990 and republished in 2002. Both books have an entire chapter entitled "For Those who Stop Believing", the 1990 book on pages 71 thru 81, and the 2002 book on pages 73 thru 83. The paragraph from his website that was quoted in the OP is also on page 79 of his 2002 book and on page 77 of his 1990 book. Have I read the book? Yes.

On his website some years ago, Charles Stanley made it very clear on his belief concerning this. Please check my earlier post giving Charles Stanley's example concerning a Christian who was converted to the Muslim religion.



Then Dr. Stanley is at odds with Scripture; for Scripture says (Jesus Himself says);

(Mar 13:13) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Thanks
RC



SuccessinTruth -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 3:47:44 PM)

Will Christ say "I never knew you."?



mcleod -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 3:55:39 PM)

quote:

5-Point Calvinists believe in eternal security, but justify it differently based on unconditional election and irresistible grace. Should we consider the Calvinists type different than the non Calvinist type of eternal security that is based on a True Christian will not stop trusting Christ. I have seen Calvinists who think it is different. If it is different, then there are three different types of eternal security.


I just want to put my to cents of knowledge of the calvins theory to what they believe. If you just believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins. Then you may be able to act like hell. As long as you say once in a while "Lord forgive me of my sins". Not acknowledging what you are confessing to.
Now I don't want to put everyone who follows the teaching of John Calvin in that category. But the history of what followed after he came up with his thoughts. Have had people who were some of the worst people who said they were Christians. Making the Corthian church look like unfallen angels.



JimboFletch -> RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security (9/8/2008 4:04:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod

quote:

5-Point Calvinists believe in eternal security, but justify it differently based on unconditional election and irresistible grace. Should we consider the Calvinists type different than the non Calvinist type of eternal security that is based on a True Christian will not stop trusting Christ. I have seen Calvinists who think it is different. If it is different, then there are three different types of eternal security.


I just want to put my to cents of knowledge of the calvins theory to what they believe. If you just believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins. Then you may be able to act like hell. As long as you say once in a while "Lord forgive me of my sins". Not acknowledging what you are confessing to.
Now I don't want to put everyone who follows the teaching of John Calvin in that category. But the history of what followed after he came up with his thoughts. Have had people who were some of the worst people who said they were Christians. Making the Corthian church look like unfallen angels.

A "License to Sin" is a fantasy in the minds of Arminian extremists that have no interest in understanding Perseverance of the Saints. When I couldn't attack Perseverance rationally, I'd revert to the false accusation of "License to Sin" - and did so for more than 3 decades of my life.

If you find a person professing to be a Christian but living in flagrant, unconfessed and unrepented sin, they are a liar, a fraud, a counterfeit, a tare.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI