Charles Stanley now Embracing Antinomian Distortion of Galatians 2:20
As I was driving down the road this afternoon I was delighted to hear “In Touch” with Dr. Charles Stanley. Yes, I know, there has always been some issues with Stanley, but I still enjoy listening to him. However, I was a bit surprised to hear what he had to say during his “Stages of Our Christian Life” series. If I remember correctly, he was on stage seven, the stage where we supposedly realize the significance of, and here we go again, Galatians 2:20.
Stanley then proceeded to exegete this verse in the same way others of our day do; namely, contemporary Antinomians such as David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, Tim Keller, Justin Taylor, Tim Lane, John Piper, Micheal Horton, DA Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, and Jerry Bridges, to name a few. JC Ryle called it the “Christ in us doctrine,” and such Antinomiam doctrines of his day prompted him to write his “Twenty Letters on Holiness.” I go into this in some detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lW
Basically, the doctrine teaches that we (believers) are still dead in trespasses and sins, and that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ who obeys for us, since we are “dead and can do nothing” (Paul Tripp, “How People Change” 2006). Galatians 2:20 can be interpreted that way via a cursory observation. Stanley clearly stated during the message I heard that the only life in us is Christ. To some degree that is true, but the fact is overstated in a way that refutes the biblical truth that we are “new creatures” and “born again” unto spiritual life. Some proponents of the doctrine, also known as Gospel Sanctification, even promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation (totally depraved).
Stanley went on to say that this “truth” is liberating because we can finally cease from putting forth effort in the sanctification process. That’s what he plainly said. He shared what his thoughts were after embracing this “truth” and seeing their church building for the first time afterward: “Lord, I don’t have to do anything to build this ministry, you do it all.” Furthermore, Stanley then explained that Christians don’t have to put forth any effort to obey God, but rather passively “yield” to God’s truth / power. JC Ryle contended against this exact same element of “yielding” in the “Christ in us” doctrine, and objected to this concept as a replacement for exertion by us in the sanctification process.
I address this doctrine as it is being taught by those mentioned above in the following post: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
As Christians we are urged told to tell the truth. Either you are completely ignorant of the writings you name above, completely misunderstand what you read, or purposefullly mis-represent them. In any case, this post is completely false. Have you actually written to some of this men to check if this correct interpretation. For example, please show us the quote wherein some of these writers “promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation”… This is dishonest. “Antinomiam”…Do you even know what you are talking about. This is laughable…
Carlos
LikeLike
Carlos,
You want me to answer questions that you already know the answer to. Sorry, don’t have time for that.
paul
LikeLike
I will repeate my challenge. You made a blatant assertion that these so called ‘antinomias’ “promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation”. As I said before, where is the proof in their writings….none of these writes argue as such. What a straw man! This is suppose to be christian blog??? I realize you will not answer it, but at the very least I put this up for other readers who may frequent this blog at some point in the future. The information up above is blatantly false! Any one who takes time to read some of the writers above in detail will not come to the false conclusions noted by this writer.
I will state again, Christians ought to be people of the truth!
Carlos
LikeLike
Carlos,
I will answer your question, but not until you partake in godly communication. Retract “In any case, this post is completely false,” and “this is dishonest” and “this is laughable” and “this is suppose to be christian blog???” And “I realize you will not answer it,” and “the information up above is blatantly false!” In statement after statement, you pronounce your judgment and then ask me to prove otherwise. I’m not going to play that game.
Frame your question like a Christian should, and I will answer your question.
paul
LikeLike
Just a note:
References that support my perspective in the Stanley post can be found throughout this blog. Especially in this one: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ
paul
LikeLike