Shouldn't have surprised me to hear these pastors endorse the "monetary" tithe as being biblical, even though there is no such requirement under the law and certainly not in the New Covenant. Not accusing them of being intentionally dishonest, but they do have a vested self-interest in holding on to the error.
Phil Endris in the video is no longer in an active preaching ministry. He works a secular job and makes way more money than he ever made in ministry. I, John Carroll, pastor a church, but I have a full-time job. I am also pursuing my a master’s degree in biblical languages so that I can have other forms of income outside the church. Yes, we both have benefitted from church contributions, but I am actively pursuing income streams outside church resources. So tithing is the furtherest thing from a plan to get money. We give to the people in our church, in our community, and outside our community. I feel blessed to give. I don’t care do debate tithing with you. Do, or don’t do. And I have never required one person in the congregation I lead to tithe to be involved in the church on any level.
This comes up again so I respond again lol. Underline all parts it says against n it'll be more clear the scribes intent. They had demons causing them to oppose while they claimed Jesus had them. If one tricks a kid into saying things the heart is noted . And I wouldn't test any theory at all if I was you. He then warns them to repent. Also speaketh is ongoing and it says he who maketh himself a king speaketh against Cesar. Without saying a word.
You do so to justify yourself. Bible is Bible bud. Your Steve Pixler 2.0!! Let me guess you feel so liberated and free just like him too. Compromisers!!
My name is Phil jones..😁. I am in agreement with the need for open, genteel, and 😮courteous discussion of the issue you raise in this video. That said, do you envision this discussion creating cohesion or further division between the two ends of the spectrum? I would venture to say that if a consensus is not reached in your favor or in the favor of those in the camps of Elder Adams or Bishop Carpenter, there will be more significant division. I do not see your efforts to discredit, albeit kindly, the positions of these two solid men of God as an effort to unite the oneness Apostolic Pentecostal movement.
Thank you so much for watching and responding. My sincere hope is to bring unity, not agreement on the issues. I want to see both ends of the apostolic spectrum to be able to unite more closely in fellowship and relationship. I am not trying to discredit either of those men. They are Christians and brothers. I am willing to strive for unity and peace even if the most immediate response is more apparent division. However, if what I say only provides a theological framework for the next generation to unite, then I would be happy with those results as well.
I've never heard it used in the form of correction btwn saints and leaders. That would set a dangerous precedent if that's how it's being used. I always viewed it the scriptural way: God is protective of His Bride.
Obey them that have the rule over you , whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven , and whatsoever is bound in heaven, should be bound on earth
You mixed multiple verses together. 1. Are there any limits to obeying human leaders? 2. Binding in earth and heaven has nothing to do with this topic.
Based on my observation of things over several years, I believe a lot of people repeat things they're told about pastoral leadership instead of investigating it themselves. This is how stuff like "touch not my anointed" and your previous video on how pastors allegedly have the green light to bind extra-Biblical traditions is allowed to persist. Thanks Bro. Carroll for these videos!
For clarification: it was Eve, not Adam, that added “do not touch” to God’s command not to eat (Gen 3:2-3). So, using Bishop Carpenter’s analogy, it was the church, not the pastor that added the tradition. Either way, it’s dangerous to add traditions to God’s commandments.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for binding things beyond what God did. This sort of stuff seems like a re-packaged version of what Pharisees did. It is my observation having been part of the Apostolic movement for a while that this sort of legalism typically comes through people inflating the office of a pastor to be more than it actually is.
Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment. I agree with your comments. I am actually going to be doing a video on pastoral authority soon. I will do so as a pastor myself.
All this confuses people knowing you way back then and now. The group of preachers you fellowshiped back in the day wouldn’t go to doctors or go to the hospital. Some of them wouldn’t even wear neck ties. Now you’re trying to expose or prove them wrong. That’s a dangerous state to be in.
Knowing Caleb a bit and the church he came from, I believe two traditions he has left behind are 1) celebrating Christmas is pagan, and 2) men should wear beards (his old pastor taught that there was an increased level of spiritual maturity that went with having a beard)
Why were those traditions breakable in light of his understanding of traditions from 2 Thess 2:15. Because Paul said one had to stand fast in both unwritten and written traditions alike.
You handled yourself very charitably. First clip: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 has nothing to do with extra-biblical traditions. If you read the entire chapter, and pay attention to 2:2, it seems the only "tradition" Paul is speaking of here is his teaching on the coming of the Lord. [2:2 and 2:15 probably form an inclusio that surrounds Paul's teaching on the coming of the Lord]. He had preached by mouth about the coming of the Lord while in Thessaloniki, then written about it in 1 Thessalonians, and now reminds them of his teaching by word and epistle. That's all he has in mind here with regards to "traditions." It has nothing to do with any extra-biblical requirements for believers. Later, Paul talks about "traditions" in the sense of the way he lived his life and conducted his personal business among them and tells them they ought to do the same (3:6-7). Words are defined by their contexts and usage, not by lexicons, dictionaries, or what they need to mean to fit our sermon. In the second clip, again there are a lot of assumptions placed upon the text of Scripture. In the first 3 chapters of Genesis, there is no place where Adam gives any commandment, or tradition, to his wife. This assumption may come from the rabbinic idea of "building a fence around the law" [the way the Pharisees of Jesus's day expanded upon the laws contained in the Torah]. Also, Adam and Eve can representative of Christ and the church, but NOT pastor and church (See Ephesians 5:24-33). I don't think the aim of the preaching contained in the clips is wrong, but handling Scripture in this way can cause some to not hear other things we have to say that are clearly delineated within Scripture. In a similar way to how "prophecy teachers" find modern nations and figures in Daniel and Revelation only to have to backtrack later when their insights fail. However, I could be wrong, but I think you're painting with a broad brush when you say that this is the norm for Oneness Pentecostal exegesis and that all Oneness Pentecostals hold to the view that their traditions are equal to Scripture. The Oneness Pentecostal tradition is larger than the ultra-conservative and independent circle.
Excellent lesson. I think the contrast between Pastor’s Adam’s two statements on traditions is beyond significant. Great way of explaining 2 Thess 2:15 within its context. Too often preachers pull one verse out of context to make a point. I’ve seen this many times with Paul’s “I die daily” (1 Cor 15:31) where Paul is talking about putting his life in the line for the gospel to the point of death (15:30) not that he “dies out to sins daily,” which is not even in the context of the chapter. One critique I would add is that I would have liked to have seen equal time given to examining both Oneness brethren. Maybe you focused on Pastor Adams because you’re more personally connected to him, but I think that Pastor Carpenter also reflects a common trend in our movement with trying to establish doctrines through “types and shadows.” This is not only irresponsible but a dangerous way of exegeting the Scriptures.
Jason, thank you for your feedback and observations. I had several more clips including from the Catholics pictured in the thumbnail. However, some got lost. And your point about the types-and-shadows hermeneutic is absolutely correct.
🔥🔥🔥 What a tremendous challenge, AND clear explanation of Paul’s intention in reference to written and oral traditions (being one in the same). ‘Sticking with what’s written’, is what makes the extra-biblical tradition defenders quake in fear! Phenomenal!! -JM
Yes I am. I only baptize in Jesus name. I preach the oneness of God. I believe in the Holy Ghost Speaking in tongues along with all the gifts of the Spirit.
@@ForwardTalkthank you for the reply. I’m glad you are still with us. I wonder if Pastor Adams or Bishop Carpenter would come on the channel to discuss their positions on the questions you have brought up.
I noticed you were extremely careful not to slander the brethren on the videos. I appreciate the truth and simplicity in which you present your subject matter. My question is is this not false doctrine what they are saying? It seems to me these statements they are making could be destructive to certain individuals. I’m not saying we should get belligerent but to say what they think referring to traditional is as binding as the scriptures it truly is as Catholicism. They become as a priest, bishop, or Monsignor in which their ideas are as binding as the scripture. I don’t mean to be controversial but in my years as a Christian I have seen many innocent folks insulted right out of the church. I have to admit I am gun shy when it comes to “Apostolic” I am one and have been for about 43 years and have seen much of the abuse that can be seen. Love you and appreciate what you do.
I did try very hard to remain kind and respectful. I really appreciate you watching and taking the time to comment. Your comments are insightful. I used to be much worse than anything said by these brothers. So I really do want to be gracefully. And I want a conversation about this topic because it is deeply important.
Well done! I can't add anything to your position of man-made traditions should be esteemed equal to Biblical texts. As you stated, which ones do we keep? I must asked, why have many traditions changed overtime? Like l've previously mentioned, I have no desire to 'burn the whole thing down' I actually have very little to change much. However, I will defend the men of exercising their liberty to display a beard. I applaud you for taking some men to task over this matter. Healthy confrontation is beneficial! I have no problem with Apostolic I have no problem with Apostolic authority, but when church elders subscribe to an idea they are authorized to grant saints latitude to practice Christian liberty, is error. Paul wrote to Romans and Corinthians, granting saints authority to utilize their personal liberties. He did not mention authority granting saints permission or authorization to have a beard or not, or whether they could celebrate Christmas?
So, what is your end goal with all these videos? I’m sure Bro Adams and Carpenter are on social media or have a phone… why not call them and talk to them directly? What’s the purpose of putting this online?
I stated the purpose in the episode multiple times. I think it’s a core conversation that should be had for the benefit of the body of Christ. I have had more than one conversations with Pastor Adams about this topic and expressed in the video multiple times my respect for him.
Why shouldn’t the conversation be had in public? I am absolutely fine with any of my public sermons or books to receive public examination. I have had extended conversations with my friend James Dunlap whom I also mentioned in the video. We have been talking all day off and on. I have asked him a couple of times to do a response to my video on the areas where he thinks I am wrong. And he certainly thinks I am wrong. And I respect him and his opinions deeply.
Well done! I can’t add anything to your position of man-made traditions should be esteemed equal to Biblical texts. As you stated, which ones do we keep? I must asked, why have many traditions changed overtime? Like I’ve previously mentioned, I have no desire to ‘burn the whole thing down’ I actually have very little desire to change much. However, I will defend the men of exercising their liberty to display a beard. I applaud you for taking some men to task over this matter. Healthy confrontation is beneficial! I have no problem with Apostolic authority, but when church elders subscribe to an idea they are authorized to grant saints latitude to practice Christian liberty, this is error. Paul wrote to Romans and Corinthians, granting saints authority to utilize their personal liberties. He did not mention authority granting saints permission to have beard or not, celebrate Christmas or not, and so on
Very good video! I disagree with Peters on this and I hold to many "reformed" positions. As reformed, we believe that faith is a gift from God. So, disbelief in God or some miracle isn't due to lack of evidence but the result of not having a regenerated heart. Before regeneration we are dead men. Dead can't believe. But the overarching point that many cessationists make is that the ministries built on "signs and wonders" are typically lacking any provable healings even for the regenerated and those that do believe that God can/does do miracles based on his Sovereign plan. Many are the reformed that pray for miracles of healing and have testimonies that support God answering those prayers but we also submit to "not my will but thine be done" concept also. The Hinns, Copelands, and other lesser knows "faith healers" are not producing fruit that is undeniable. But if there was documented miracles there will always be those that doubt it. Why because faith is a gift giving by God. Good observation.
Your point is right that miracle ministries are often fraudulent. There are many of those to point to. The people you mentioned are false teachers. I am a continuationist who thinks their argument here was just bad. I have heard compelling argument for cessationism even though I think they still fall short-especially if one uses scripture alone.
IMO, cessationists are the flat-earthers of Christian theology. In much the same way that flat earth proponents use off-the-cuff intellectually lazy arguments (as you describe in this video) or ignore evidence, I feel that believers of cessationism use similar Swiss-cheese hermeneutics (i.e. skipping the parts of the word of God that seem to detail the working and administration of supernatural giftings in 1 Cor 12-14) to get where they already want to go. To be fair, any of us can fall prey to confirmation bias in our arguments - and Peters’ argument sounds like confirmation bias to me (“we are debating this, so it must be false”). And I have heard good ministers make honest errors of scriptural judgment (good Pentecostal preachers in the early 1900’s argued, for example, about “entire sanctification”). But making justifications to ignore passages of the Bible (and especially New Testament doctrines) is just plain dangerous.
Three things: 1) I agree with your defense of the continuation of the sign gifts. Well done. 2) I appreciate you arguing with logic and Scripture while avoiding attacking Justin Peters' credentials as a scholar and his basic humanity. 3) I disagree with Peters, but I genuinely feel for him because he was tainted by the abuse, misuse, and/or falsification of the gifts. I fear that many a person has been messed up by that in both Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostalism. Sadly, the pendulum swung from correction to denial, as it often does. 😔
Thank you sir. I have a lot of respect for Justin in many areas. The fact that he has overcome his physical handicaps to have the ministry and influence he does is impressive. But obviously I disagree with his theology.
Peters is a hard core Double Determinist and former Word of Faith believer. The WoF/NAR wrecked him and made him (understandably) bitter against continuationism. My wife is in stage 3 MS. Peters is in a wheelchair and had to blame someone he cant walk, essentially. The lame man in Acts 3, Jesus walked past him many times and chose not to heal him.
Love my friend and a good conversation. Toward the end the discussion of pastor’s becoming “lord over God’s heritage” came up. I want to say this: To one person, a pastor may be “being lord over God’s heritage”, when actually he may be “preaching the word. Reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine”, and “taking the oversight of and feeding the flock of God.” There is a fine line between the two, and one which may be easily mistaken by either the carnal saint or the carnal overseer. One thing to consider, is there are likely more carnal saints than there are preachers (by magnitude of scale - there simply are more saints than preachers), and so the loudest voices are going the be those which are most numerous. And it is a grave mistake to underestimate the importance of and undermine the necessary spiritual responsibility of the pastor and overseer to “preach, reprove, rebuke, exhort, teach, take the oversight”, of the church. He may not be “being Lord”, he may be doing what is necessary for the sincere saints in the congregation to grow into maturity the way God intended.
I can agree with you that it is not lording over God’s heritage when a pastor is preaching the word. However, there is a sentiment in over-sensitive Christianity that thinks that any scriptural expectations are abusive. However, I don’t think that saints are by default carnal because they do not want to submit to certain extra-biblical rules. I have submitted to those rules many times for myself. As a pastor, I want to be careful not to make people have to chose to not worship in my congregation because I make things much more rigid than they have to be. And I don’t want to just dismiss them as carnal if they chose to leave over an unbiblical rule.
@@ForwardTalk I don’t know of many places that require “extra biblical rules” for those who want to join in congregational worship. I do know of many who require certain “standards” of conduct in order to be involved in leadership roles in the church, or to be on the platform. I think this falls within the role and responsibility of a pastor to “know those who labor among you” and to “take the oversight thereof”. And keep this in mind, sometimes people DO leave because they are carnal. And we shouldn’t dismiss that fact either. Finally, we do need to have an “open door” policy, and be as charitable and kind when people are going as we are when they are coming. Love and appreciate you bro!
