related slightly to my other thread about Trig Bundgaard, as i saw this video on the facebook group for Epochalypsis
youtube.com/watch?v=GlYtlsdu … re=related
i hadn’t heard about this guy, but it sounds like he was convinced both by Scripture and divine revelation. actually had tears in my eyes towards the end of this. really inspiring.
I watched the first part of the video and it is pretty good. I also bought Pearson’s book “God is not a Christian, nor a Jew, Muslim, Hindu…” after a friend told me a bit about him a while ago. I respect that Pearson was prepared to “put his money where his mouth is” although I’m cautious of somebody who feels justified in awarding himself the title “Bishop”. He does write well, debunks hell very effectively and can be very entertaining and provocative. I found the book generally helpful, but would not give it an unreserved recommendation. For me, he goes too far away from credal Christianity at times and I found some of his criticism of the mainsteam churches a bit harsh and biased. What do others think?
he was made bishop by Oral Roberts’ organisation
he started off as the standard fire and brimstone, shouty, singy preacher stereotype, but he changed alot, which you can see in how he talks now…it’s alot less like he’s trying to sell people a product.
not sure about all he’s said, this video series only discusses his Universalism and disbelief in hell, though he hints at Biblical errancy, though in fairness that last point might be due to the main translations being arguably errant, but he doesn’t make that distinction. the original Greek and Hebrew which convinced him would be trustworthy by that very fact.
still i could see some beautiful things, especially in the 4th part of that video (and maybe the 3rd) where he realises his grandparents weren’t thrown into hell, and later where he is invited to speak at that predominantly gay church.
his scathing criticisms may be down to the hurt he’s been dealt by those that claimed to be his friends and abandoned him.
I haven’t completely read any of Pearson’s books but carefully read all the articles on his website. I criticize his extreme view of the gospel of inclusion while faith is optional for salvation.
hmm that’s disappointing
maybe he went a bit too far.
i suppose that’s kind of natural. if you’re in the vanguard of extremist Pentacostal fire and brimstone preaching, and you have an epiphany that undermines some core theological points you relied on, there’s always the danger of going way too far the other way.
i’ll happily include anyone in my theology, but i do believe Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life, and that eventually people will find what they seek only in Him.
I actually visited his church a few times in Tulsa when I went to Oral Roberts University and have heard him minister on several occasions. He is a tremendously gifted speaker, charismatic and passionate. I started reading his book, Gospel of Inclusion, a few years ago when someone asked me what I thought of him and his new message. I was hoping his book would be an accademic treatise on why his beliefs changed, but found it to be more of a venting for his hurt and frustration for being so badly treated. But it did start me studying Rom. 5.18, Col.1.20, and other passages that affirm UR. It turns out that though I did not enjoy his book and only read about 1/2 of it, it was a starting point for me to consider UR and eventually came to believe UR based on my own studies.
He’s a tremendous minister, charismatic leader, encourager, but not a teacher, accademically strong. I hope the best for him. I hope he partners with some UR ministers who are teachers and can help to present a well reasoned, scripturally strong affirmation of UR.
You have to respect someone who listens to the voice of God and acts on it, and then stays with their conviction even when it costs them everything. Such as the case here. I believe the scripture tells us its the humble open heart God looks for, not the Academic per se.
Even if he lost his fame and fortune he followed the Lords calling. Even if he can’t fully articulate or understand the sciptural support for what God was telling him.
very true!
I was sharing with my son abut Carlton’s interview. When one consider’s Wesley’s Quadrilateral (scripture, personal experience, tradition, and reason), Pentecostal churches tend to put a major emphasis on Personal Experience as was evident in Carlton’s testimony. His experience with the Lord caused Him to rethink his beliefs and, well, set aside scriptures that have traditionally been interpreted to speak of Hell, and to even rethink his views on scripture all together, instead of it being God’s word, he apparently sees it as “man’s word about God”.
For these reasons, most evangelicals will quickly dismiss him. Evangelicals typically put their emphasis on scripture, it being “infallible” and wholly God’s Word; and they give very little, if any, weight to personal experience. These are two major obsticles for Evangelical Infernalists to overcome.
Evangelicals also have a tendency to dismiss “reason” as a viable foundation for faith. You can see this in Chan’s book, Erasing Hell and in many blogs that appeal to God’s ways being higher than ours and God’s thoughts being deeper than ours. It’s as if Reason is antithetical to Faith.
I’ve come to believe that Wesley’s Quadrilateral is like a four-legged stool. Removing any one of the legs makes it less stable. Remove two legs, and well it takes a lot of propping up for it to stand. Remove 3 legs, as in some branches of evangelicalis, and it’s a balancing act that instills much fear and anxiousness.
To me, Infernalism is standing on one-leg - Tradition! It’s not supported in scripture. It certainly doesn’t make sence. And it certainly doesn’t line up with the character of God as I’ve personally experienced Him.
I saw the interview with Carlton Pearson awhile back on YouTube, and enjoyed it, and though I didn’t agree 100 % with everything he said, I could really resonate with where he was coming from.
Well said, Sherman. 
I’ve been hearing more about Wesley’s Quadrilateral thing, and it makes a lot of sense.
Funny thing too is how, from what I’ve heard, John Wesley himself became a universalist, or at least a hopeful universalist, towards the end of his life.
No wonder why Methodist churches are more open to UR then others, when their founder was very open to it himself.
I have to admit, personally (and maybe it’s because I didn’t grow up in a church environment) that I put more emphasis on reason and personal experience… but I also have learned the importance of Scripture as well, though if a particular translation or interpretation of Scripture greatly contradicted reason or personal experience, I’ve come to the point where I’m not as afraid of questioning it as I was in the past. And of course this can apply vice versa, where if our reason or our personal experience contradict Scripture (or at least very clear and easy to understand Scripture, that has been properly translated and that even a child could interpret correctly), then we should question it.
It’s kind of like in government (or at least ideally), the idea of checks and balances, like here in America where I’m at, there’s the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, and they are meant to keep tabs on each other. Of course the ideal is that this would help things to run more smoothly and in the right direction, and not create gridlock, like it usually does in American government. 
(On a side note, the media is considered by some to be like the fourth branch of the government… but again, ideally… maybe in the past it was more effective, like in the days of Edward R Murrow, but not so much nowadays)
Tradition on the other hand, at least in my opinion, is probably the weakest of the four legs to begin with (kind of like most of the media out there these days… a pseudo branch of government, or leg, if you ask me).
But then maybe I’m just a young rebel-rouser, who doesn’t care much about tradition. 
Except for Christmas. Now that’s a good tradition.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sherman
I believe Pearson’s doctrine of inclusion is straight out of the pits of Hell! Nothing that comes out of this man’s mouth is doctrinal truth. Unless he repents of these fables he will suffer Galatians 1:6-9! Carlton needs all the prayer he can get. I encourage every Christian that has a right mind to guard your heart from his teaching! Pray for his salvation!
Is that how you feel about us here? That we are all teaching another gospel and if we dont repent that we are all going to hell? And that by doing so are also sending others to hell? Do you believe we are teaching the doctrine of demons?
Just wondering what you believe about us Revival, and why exactly you are here. 
I love this!! Well said Sherman
“Interesting” use of Galatians 1.6-9, Aaron. But “what about the context?” as you are fond of saying. Surely Paul was writing to reassert the gospel of grace over against the judaizers who had followed him and were preaching a gospel of fear and legalism, yes?
If you really want to know what will happen to people who teach something which turns out to be wrong, whether it be Carlton Pearson, the Galatian Judaizers, me or even you Aaron 
… take a look at 1 Corinthians 3.12-15!
The Greek word for another gospel means altered. So yes the context is about mixing law and grace
but the principle of this warning of preaching an altered gospel applies to me, you, anyone in the body of Christ.
Galatians 1:6-9… 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
The Greek word for another means altered. The Greek word for accursed means estrangement from Christ and of salvation. Paul was warning the Galatian Christian Jews if you mix the law with grace you are altering the gospel and you are to be accursed or in danger of losing your salvation. This teaching or preaching an altered gospel applies to any flavor of UR you might represent and preach. This also applies to the doctrine of inclusion. Both are altering the gospel of Jesus Christ. It will also apply to ECT if it is wrong.
Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29 are Paul’s warning to the Hebrew Christian Jews. This principle also applies to every Christian.
Sad, but true, you have numerous churches today that are doing the very thing Paul warned not to do.
I’m not saying that all UR’s are going to hell, but what does the Bible say, Caroleem? God is not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance. There are warnings all over the NT of the consequences of teaching false doctrine in the body of Christ to the body of Christ. (Matt 18:1-8; 2 Peter 2 ; Jude; Rev 22:18-19)
That is why James said teachers of the word of God will receive greater condemnation or judgment! (James 3:1). They are held to a higher accountability. Be careful what you teach. It better be right or you’re in trouble.
Hey you’re finally getting it, God is not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance. So is Gods will not done?
And yet Paul never speaks of eternal torment. And claims he preached the whole gospel. Oh he did call your infernalism the doctrine of demons, in the same breath that he speaks of Jesus being the savior of all people.
Yes, well said Sherman. Isa.1:18 came to mind… “come now, and let us reason together”
And you are still not getting it. God’s will was accomplished at the completed work of the cross, now that grace is extended to humanity…what is humanity going to do about it?. God will not violate your will to make you repent.
But he will violate it if I want to repent after I die.