Vol. 36, No. 3 _ March 2005
by Charles W. Martin

Hardly a week goes by here at EMOS that someone doesn’t ask us about the teachings of a popular television preacher or speaker. For example, in one week alone we received questions about Joel Osteen, the popular prosperity preaching pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, who is much like Robert Schuller in his avoidance of the word "sin" for the sake of presenting a "positive gospel; and Wayne Dyer, who is often featured on PBS. Dyer’s disgust for evangelical (biblical) Christianity is not readily evident. Indeed, as with most false teachers, Dyer has a charm that is hard to dislike and within his teachings are some valuable lessons. Further, he quotes the Bible and Jesus, and even sometimes correctly applies certain biblical principles. Of course, Dyer also freely quotes Buddha, Mohammed, and many Hindu teachers to support his teaching, thus implying that all religions are basically the same.

That same week we responded to several questions about Charles Stanley. These questions were more difficult to answer, as Stanley’s theology does not closely follow Reformed (Calvinistic) theology nor the normal patterns of Southern Baptist theology.

Let me illustrate this with a question.

Is salvation by faith? Most evangelical believers would unhesitatingly answer "yes, of course." They would be quite surprised to learn this question has been debated in the conservative church for several centuries. But the debate is real and has practical implications. Its existence reflects the logical consistency of strict Calvinism.

The fact is, many Calvinist theologians object to a simplistic statement that salvation is by faith. They do so on the (Calvinistic) theological grounds that because election is unconditional (and must be so for God to be truly sovereign), it logically follows that salvation - in the broadest sense of the term - rests on God’s decree of who is elect and who is not, rather than on any believer’s faith. Further, in strict Calvinism, since Christ’s atoning death was intended to save only the elect and is thus applied only to them by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, it logically follows that salvation (still in the larger sense) is first and foremost by Christ’s atonement and God’s electing grace, rather than by faith. Again, this is historic (five-point) Calvinism, rather than what is generally found in most Southern Baptist Churches at the present time.

Don’t misunderstand. Many Calvinist preachers and theo-logians will say it is still true that salvation is by faith, that is, the words are legitimate, as long as they are understood in a narrower sense - that is, understood in the context of Reformed theology. What’s going on here is that for the committed Calvinist, "salvation" and "justification" may overlap to some degree, but the two are not exactly the same. In Calvinism "salvation" means more than justification, and when salvation is understood in its fullest sense, for the Calvinist it is the same as election. In other words, for the Calvinist election is not by faith. It is "unconditional," that is, not faith-based. Thus, when it comes right down to it, for the theologically-consistent Calvinist, if election is not by faith, then neither is salvation.

Charles Stanley probably wrestled with this kind of problem as a young seminarian. Stanley was a Wesleyan-Arminian (Pentecostal) before he became a Calvinist. While he was still in seminary he discarded a large portion of the Wesleyan-Arminian theological tradition he was raised in and adopted what might be described as "a form of Calvinism." I say a "form" of Calvinism, because Stanley actually has little to say about predestination and election. Further, he claims to still hold to the biblical teaching concerning universal (as opposed to limited) atonement. In this he is much like Randy Alcorn. Alcorn readily states he theologically agrees with each of the five points of Calvinism, but he also says he honestly doesn’t see the Scriptural basis for a limited atonement (i.e., Jesus dying only for the elect, not for "whosoever will"), but he is willing to affirm its truth theologically. Interesting dichotomy isn’t it?

Of course, this kind of "impure" Calvinism is a source of irritation to those who profess to be "true Calvinists" (or five-point Calvinists) and truly Reformed in their theology. Thus, Stanley is not nearly representative of all Calvinists, nor even all Southern Baptists. Therefore, in dealing with questions about him we find ourselves repeatedly having to first explain Calvinism and then Stanley’s version of it.

Most people know Stanley is a popular preacher, writer, and influential pastor. He became senior pastor at Atlanta’s First Baptist Church in 1971, where he remains, having weathered in the 1990s the storm of divorce (finalized May 11, 2000) and his son, Andy, leaving one of First Baptist’s satellite churches in 1995 (together with many church leaders and senior staff members from his father’s church) and starting North Point Community Church in north Atlanta in 1996. Involved in both of these crises was Charles Stanley’s public statement that if he ever got divorced he would step down as the pastor of First Baptist Church.

More relevant to our discussion of his theology, Charles Stanley gives full endorsement to the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security. He has stated that "the very gospel itself comes under attack when the eternal security of the believer is questioned" (Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You be Sure?, Oliver-Nelson, 1990, 192). How can the believer be eternally secure in Christ? Stanley’s answer is basically that if one trusts in Christ, sin will never again separate him from God. In short, the believer need not be concerned about sin separating him from Christ.