Breaking down the four hour roundtable from American Gospel creator Brandon Kimber...

::::::::

.watchagtv.com/roundtable-peters-osman-vs-brown-storms

This week a roundtable discussion was released by Brandon Kimber from the American Gospel movie series. This was a dialogue between two people from the Charismaniacal side of Christianity in Dr. Michael Brown and Sam Storms and two from the Cessationist/Calvinist side in Justin Peters and Jim Osman. The idea Kimber had was to provide both sides of the debate in a series that had solely focused on being correctly critical of the Charismatic excesses. Perhaps bridge some gaps or find some middle ground. A noble quest indeed and while all parties seemed to try and be genial in their approach, that seemed to take some of the edge off of the proceedings that needed to be there. What is following is a review, with general time stamps, to guide our discussion. There is a treasure trove of understanding to be gleaned, especially of the tactics often wielded by Dr. Brown when debating. At least this was not his radio show, where he routinely bullies his guests, but Brown remained one of the more skilled debaters in this discussion. Before starting, let me remind you of my position. In a world that is increasingly forcing bifurcated choice, I refuse to be bound by the limits of other people's minds. The truth I have always found to be somewhere in the middle and only the arrogance of man thinks he has totally figured out an infinite God. I think any reading of the bible destroys the concept of cessationism as well as Calvinism. That said, I think it is obvious that the manner in which the gifts are abused in Charismaniacal churches it is obvious we are doing these wrong as well. So, let us reason once more together, through the above link.

Let me preface this by saying that I thought it was a compelling discussion. It was also frustrating because Dr. Brown is very good at what he does in these settings. He avoids criticisms, sets up strawman arguments and muddies the water better than most. There were however recurring, obvious glaring errors on his part throughout. I think Justin and Osman had some weak arguments but there were fundamental underpinnings to the flaws in Brown and Storms' positions. Brown constantly supports his side with personal, anecdotal evidence but that is not evidence. For example, Justin shows a video proving Todd White is a charlatan. It is indisputable! Brown actually says that he does not see the video as evidence but accepts what Todd says to him in private as proof, what? He did the same thing regarding Bill Johnson, who he adores. When I was on his radio show, I presented things Johnson has said and taught and his response was that I don't know him and he does. So what? Brown knew Ravi Zacharias and how did that turn out? The opening agreement needed to be that we all accept that the human heart is wickedly deceitful above all else and thus, our personal experience counts for nothing. Instead, Brown used personal stories throughout as a defense and it went on unchecked.

The other massive sleight of hand Brown always pulls off is changing the definition for a false teacher. He did it to me on his show as well. A false teacher is someone who teaches falsely, unrepentantly, period. It is not my place to judge their eternity, that is God's job. My job is to explain biblically why they are false. What Brown does is he sets up early on the argument that the definition is that they are a hell bound reprobate and then he uses that constantly to never call anyone false. Storms used this specious tactic too. They couch everything. So according to Storms, Joel Osteen should not be in ministry, never preaches the gospel but Sam can't call him a false teacher because he is not ready to say he is going to hell. Matters of hell and heaven are left for God. If Joel Osteen is not false then no one is. By the way, Justin makes the point about some false teachers being deceived themselves and it is spot on. I have written about this many times. I can live with thinking Joel Osteen sincerely believes he is doing good and even doing God's work. He is sincerely wrong. Let's get on with the specifics from the roundtable:

At 11:28 Storms says why they do not call out false teachers as much is that neither he nor Brown can see their hearts. Yet, Jeremiah assures us how corrupt all of our hearts are. They use this constantly to defend not calling out false teachers. By this standard, a false teacher must wear a scarlet letter admitting to their status as being false in order for them to be sure. It is a bogus argument.

At the 14-minute mark, Brown says that if what Justin says about Benny Hinn were true, of course he would be a false teacher. Brown repeats this nonsense throughout and it is a recurring tactic of his. He pretends he doesn't know what anyone with a computer knows. The first time I went on his radio show it was to confront him regarding going on Benny's show for a week. He used the same, "I don't know" defense and it just does not pass the smell test. So, you never heard about the guy who waves the magical suit coat, had an affair with Paula White, and has fleeced over 50 million dollars from the flock and wants to gun down his enemies with a holy ghost machine gun? Odd because my cat knows who Benny Hinn is. By the way, my cat has far better theology than Benny Hinn. This gives us a glimpse into what we are dealing with. Joseph Prince can be slippery. Benny Hinn should be low hanging fruit dragging on the ground.

In this same conversation Sam says a recurring theme for him. That as long as someone espouses fundamental truth and he doesn't see unrepentant sin in their lifestyle, then he will give them the benefit of the doubt. He never connects doctrine as proof! How is preaching falsely and leading people away from Christ not living a sinful lifestyle?? Storms admits here that Hinn's ministry style is deceptive! How does that not disqualify him! This is what becomes so frustrating. They set up absurd thresholds and wield them to try and sound reasonable. In order to call someone false, Storms is saying they must openly espouse anti-Christ theology or be in an openly sinful lifestyle. By setting the bar to this ridiculous level, they can deftly avoid calling anyone a false teacher.

At 22:58, Brown claims he is not there to defend Benny Hinn but that is all he has done. He then tells another anecdotal story about how someone he was speaking to after the strange fire conference, which could have been me, started listing false teachers, people he knew, who he has served side by side with and with Sam. That is not the point! The people who served alongside Ravi Zacharias would swear to his godliness! They all loved his holiness teachings! All the while he had an international network of sex servants and masseuses who he groomed, and then spiritually blackmailed. Yet this is how Brown and Storms think. That their personal experience trumps everything. At 44 minutes we see the ultimate irony moment when Sam Storms defends Mike Bickle -

"I know this man to the depths of his soul. I cannot think of a more biblically orthodox, humble, Christ exalting individual who lives an incredibly simple lifestyle. So, when I hear people say that he is a false teacher it angers me because I know the individual. I know the man personally. And he is not NAR that has been claimed by so many. He has openly defied it." - Sam Storms

How's that quote aging now Sam? Just so we are clear, this humble, simple, Christ exalting man, lied to a 19-year-old sheep about what God had said to him, specifically that his current wife was going to die so they could one day get married. He did this to lure her into an adulterous relationship that lasted four years, while he was building the IHOP empire. Before that he also lured a 14- and 15-year-old separately into sexual relationships when he was an adult minister. That does not sound very Christ exalting to me. Ironically, Sam then (47:38) told the story how Bickle prohibited Bob Jones from ever preaching on his platform again after Jones was found to have prophetically manipulated two women. The Bickle situation brilliantly highlights why we cannot justify people based upon the "I know them" defense. This is why we rely on the word of God and testing what people teach. It does not matter if Ravi or Bickle taught holiness well, they were lying! Brown asked recently what we should do with the great holiness teachings of Ravi and Bickle and the answer is throw them in the trash where they belong!

1:08:55 - Storms uses the Brown defense from earlier regarding Kenneth Copeland by saying if everything Justin says is true than he is not a brother, but he (Sam) has not done the research, so he doesn't know. Shouldn't you? Is Kenneth Copeland an unknown entity? He claims to have fleeced the flock for over a billion dollars. His video about why he won't fly coach went viral. There were plenty of people mentioned by both sides that were lesser known but Kenneth Copeland? This just speaks to the utter disingenuousness of the Brown-Storms side. Once again, my cat knows who Copeland is and is creeped out by him. It took me a month to get him off his mailing list.

1:09:40 - Brown tries to say that he called out Joseph Prince by name in his Hyper-Grace book, but he does not mention that the second time I was on his show he said that Prince was a good brother in the Lord who has some holes in his theology. If you write a good book about antinomianism but refuse to call Joseph Prince a false teacher teaching antinomianism then we don't need your book. At 1:15, Brown makes the claim that he has not spent time in any churches that Justin would be combatting. This is another Brown tactic. He makes singular absurd statements and quickly moves on before anyone questions it. Brown has been to Bethel and has taught at Bethel's supernatural school. I know Justin has combatted the horrific theology of Bethel, just to name one. At 1:25, Brown states that even if Sid Roth has on people as loony tunes as Kat Kerr, that he would not call him false. The reason? He constantly says he has known him for forty years. Who cares? Is his show heretical or not!

At 1:26, Jim Osman says, assuming there would be total agreement, that some episodes of Sid Roth are crazy. The example offered was someone claiming something about a warrior dance in heaven but that was greeted by Storms with "How do you know it is not true? Zephaniah says God danced over His people." Osman was clearly caught off guard because of the sheer lunacy of the rebuff but this "how do you know it is not true" is constantly offered as a defense when it really isn't. It is just wielded to shoo away criticism. The hypocrisy is at many other points Brown and Storms accept anecdotal third hand attestation but it could very easily be asked of them - how do you know it's true!

At 1:30, when discussing Kevin Zadai on Sid Roth claiming Jesus was at the foot of his bed playing the saxophone, Justin asks if they believe that. Brown says unlikely but he can't say it didn't happen. This is the sneaky squid all over again. It is a specious argument to say you can't use common sense because you were not physically at the foot of the bed with Zadai. Brown's tag line is he is the voice of moral clarity but only when it comes to unbelievers in the world who have different politics than his. When it comes to Jennifer LeClaire or Zadai, nothing is clear because he was not a direct witness. It is just so hypocritical.

At the 1:33 mark we come to the story of "mommies and daddies" and Justin's answer misses the point hugely. The word of knowledge in this story brings glory to God and hopefully assures the victim that God sees them. Justin's answer that the bible assures them is tone deaf. Not everyone reads the bible and certainly not as in depth as we might. God could very easily use a word of knowledge to convey this. I am not judging the veracity of the story but the way it was told can be compelling if you believe in the gifts.

1:49:51, when discussing Osteen, Brown says, "can I say he is a false teacher meaning hell-bound and all of that? No. I don't know that, but I wish he would change his message or not be preaching." This is the typical Brown tactic. He couches it enough on the other side but ultimately refuses to say the obvious using the other tactic of pretending that commenting on false teaching is condemning someone to hell. The reason why he was free to use this specious argument is that he got Justin and Jim to agree at the start that a false teacher was a hell bound reprobate.

At 1:52, Brown is speaking about Sid Roth, his good friend of forty years, "I haven't watched his shows." This is why Brown is so unbelievable. Either he is not as close as he claims or he most certainly has watched his shows. C'mon. At 1:54:57, Brown says, "I would point to Proverbs 6 that says God hates spreading division among brothers and I've called out discernment ministries for saying things about me that are false, false, false." The problem Dr. Brown has here is that Romans teaches us that division in the body is caused by false teaching, NOT those that call it out. The underlying assumption that anyone who is willing to lie about the fundamental truths and sin in their life must be a brother is ridiculously naïve. The far better barometer would be to examine what they teach - as we are compelled to do by scripture. It is important to realize here that calling out Benny Hinn is not calling out my brother. Brown always starts from the premise that nobody is lying. That being able to spell "Christ" correctly makes one a brother. He also complains about being linked to the NAR but that is not false false false. He may disagree, but the evidence is compelling in that he refuses to correct anyone in the NAR by name.

1:55 - Dr. Brown actually says that he has never in his 40 plus years of ministry said anything that would give substance to the Kat Kerr type of lunacy. Really? Off the top of my head there was Jennifer LeClaire claiming a sneaky squid spirit was stalking her. She correctly was mocked for this, and Brown had her on his radio show to give her cover and allow her to defend it. His defense was the usual, well I can't say it didn't happen. Calling Benny Hinn and Bill Johnson good brothers in the Lord is just as loony as Kat Kerr.

1:56:12 - Dr. Brown says, "I will get more judged in your circles for refusing to denounce the saxophone guy for years as opposed to what do I teach, what do I preach, what's the output of my life in ministry. I think that is unbiblical, unfair and unethical." Well, Dr. Brown can play the victim here, but his comment is absurd. It is wholly biblical to call out false teachers by name. Remember, it is Brown that claims the international spotlight. He is the one claiming to be the voice of moral clarity. He is the one offering his opinions on a plethora of subjects and platforms. Lying about what he has said or did would be unethical or unfair but telling the truth? Hardly. He also keeps trying to make a point most do not make. I do not call Dr. Brown a false teacher. He rarely does any real teaching anymore outside of NAR political stuff. He is a gatekeeper of false teachers for refusing to name them. If a guy claims Jesus stood at the end of his bed playing the saxophone is not enough for you to say "false"; then nothing is. I have always tried to give Brown the benefit of the doubt but that kindness has rarely been returned. In this one discussion he has affirmed Benny Hinn, Joseph Prince, Bill Johnson, Todd White, the Saxophone guy, Charisma News, Kenneth Copeland and I am sure I am forgetting some. Yet somehow the people pointing that out are being unfair.

1:58:33 - Brown on Hinn again, "I think scripture says that a false teacher is unregenerate and I am not prepared to say that about him." As I said up front this would be a recurring defense to avoid naming names. The reality is that scripture does NOT instruct us that we must determine if someone is hell bound to determine their teaching is false. Brown is trying to sound pious because none of us are called to pass final judgment on anyone but the reality is that we are to judge teaching. The Bereans were noble, not usurpers. At 2:01:52, Brown declares that he is just too busy to be expected to do research on false teachers and asks Justin what percentage of his ministry does Jewish outreach. What a bad comparison. We are all called to test everything but nowhere does it universally say that we all must target one demographic with the gospel. Again, if you simply do not have time to do due diligence about who is leading people to hell, maybe you shouldn't call yourself a church leader. Maybe you shouldn't have a national radio program and call yourself a bible answer man. Because people follow you and you are leading them into the waiting arms of Jennifer LeClaire and Benny Hinn!

2:02 - delicious irony Part Two as Brown declares, "If I am going to be judged on my orthodoxy for refusing to call a fine man like Mike Bickle a false teacher then I am going to say you are out of line. You do not know the man. You do not know his fruit. His walk, his life." - Oops, I think we know it now. His fruit was rotten. His teaching was a lie. He was not a fine man but rather a predator. This once again shreds the Brown-Storms tactic of using personal experience to trump doctrine and proof.

2:17:31 - Storms on defending prosperity pimps - claims there are differing degrees and that some are merely preaching with a great emphasis on generosity. C'mon. If someone is preaching generosity there is no one I know that would even call that the prosperity gospel. Storms knows this and is just trying to muddy the waters. Prosperity preachers preach to give them money in exchange for blessings. They lie about tithing, thus yoking believers back to the law according to Galatians. Teaching the universal principle of sowing and reaping is not prosperity.

Interesting at 2:21, Brown says that if he says this person teaches this or that and he categorically rejects it but without saying they are a false teacher, he thinks that should be sufficient. First of all, Brown mostly does not name the names anyway but look at this tortured statement. He admits the person he names is teaching something so abhorrent that he categorically denies it yet in the same breath won't call him false? Why?

At 2:34, I thought Osman's argument here is a bit weak regarding the fact that healing is sovereign but refusing to use the word gift. Brown was right here to call this difference semantics. Then at 2:43, Justin makes strong argument against divine healing but missed a good opportunity to explore Bethel, which would have triggered Brown, who always staunchly defends Bethel. This talk continues about healing, but Justin and Osman missed an opportunity by never getting into the sovereignty of God and how divine healing robs it. Brown actually infers that it takes no faith to pray for God's will but Osman answers correctly that our faith is in God's ability to heal.

At the 3:28:44 mark, Justin says that because there is a debate about the gifts, this indicates that it somehow proves they are not in operation but that made little sense. In this debate about miracles, Justin should have brought up Bethel who has claimed glory clouds, gemstones, gold dust, and angel feathers as "miracles."

3:34 - Brown is defending Daniel Kolenda healing a blind woman when Osman asks him if it could have been fabricated. Brown's answer is "But I know him. He wouldn't do that. He was a student of mine." Yeah. No. Brown also knew Ravi and Bickle. This defense using personal attribution remains unchallenged. Then Brown claims that Charisma News will not run a miracle story without documented medical proof and no one calls him on it! The very story Justin brings up about the growing toes was celebrated on Charisma! No proof!

3:40 - Storms makes weak argument that Justin is only dealing with the extreme folks, and he wishes he would come to the churches and conferences he and Brown go to. Please. These extreme folks are the ones with the microphones. They are the ones on satellite television. They are the ones with millions of followers. At 3:42, Brown says that if they polled people in Charismatic churches, they would far exceed those in cessationist churches regarding who has ever been divinely healed. It was never pointed out how poor an argument this is. If people are taught to believe in divine healing, they are more likely to expect it then those who are taught the opposite.

At 3:45, Storms says that he has heard from credible people that Todd White has led hundreds of people to Christ. More third hand subjective testimony accepted while plain video proof Justin shows of Todd being a liar and charlatan is dismissed out of hand. In that video, Todd tells his victim they do not need any faith and God was going to heal them anyway. He then mocks religion saying it wasn't about that. Todd White gives hucksters a bad name and Brown and Storms cannot bring themselves to say the word false. After watching the damning video, Brown actually says, what happened to his back pain." Does that matter? You just watched a man lying to another claiming God was going to heal him because he had a shorter leg, which he did not. Does it matter if the victim has a placebo reaction and claims his back feels better? I remember at a local church an itinerant huckster false prophet visited for the weekend and a good brother who needed hip replacement went down to have hands laid on him and prayer. He danced up and down the altar and declared he was healed. The following week I saw him limping into church and asked him what happened and he had to admit that he got emotionally caught up in the moment. The false prophet led many astray that weekend. Thankfully my friend was solid enough in the Lord to not blame God.

Then Brown says to Justin, "You can say before God as a fact that Todd tricked that person?" YESYESYES, a thousand times YES. Brown tries to set up these false piety decisions to get people to waver on what their own eyes are telling them. Meanwhile Brown says that the Todd White he knows behind the scenes is sincere. But Brown also thought Bickle was sincere. And Ravi. To make matters worse, Storms complains that the Todd White video, proving he is a liar defrauding the sheep of the Lord, was paraded by Justin to mock and create a cynical mindset. What? Todd White was providing the mockery and that was a mockery of healing and of God.

Brown closes this segment and the video by saying, "I know you cannot sit here and for a fact say that you know Todd White was doing a parlor trick." That in a nutshell is Brown's approach to dismissing discernment. Proof is not proof. Personal relationships trump your own eyes. Brown and Storms put on a masterclass of subterfuge and distraction. They set up ridiculous pretenses to avoid calling anyone a false teacher. Remember these were not close calls. Benny Hinn, Todd White, Bill Johnson? While the effort was commendable, these remain very unserious folks who traffic in the worst kind of false teachers. Justin and Osman tried their level best but, in an effort to remain genial, many opportunities were missed to point out glaring hypocrisies. Of course, it is easy to Monday morning quarterback as opposed to having to answer in real time. Perhaps the best thing to come of this is the staunch defense from both Brown and Storms of Mike Bickle, which perfectly refutes their primary defense of false teachers - I know him. No, you don't. God did not give us personal relationships to judge teaching by but rather He gave us the bible. We would be wise to use it.

Reverend Anthony Wade - March 4, 2024

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.