Is Sam Adams a Good Preacher? (I don't think so)

[creationliberty]

I have heard this man's name mentioned in various places on the internet and in personal conversations people have written me about, but I didn't have any mind to look him up until today. I found an audio teaching he did on repentance, and I want to check him out. This will be an analysis of this teaching, and I hope it's beneficial to others.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=919171256240

To preface, I looked up information on Sam Adams, and in short, his general information can be found here.
http://www.independencebaptist.com/our-pastor.html

• Bible teacher since 1991, beginning at Northwest Christian Church in Tampa, Florida​
• Co-Founder of the Faith Baptist Fellowship Church in Tampa in 1996
• Adult Bible Class Teacher at Landmark Baptist Church, Brooksville, Florida from 2001-2004
• Pastor of Independence Baptist Church (formerly Freedom Baptist Church) in Ocala, Florida since August 2008

There are a few discrepancies I have with that page, but those are matters I can be patient with, so there is nothing seriously wrong so far. (i.e. I don't expect everyone to have everything correct in all matters. -1Co 13:12)

@2:00 - I am already bored, and starting to get impatient because, instead of talking about the teaching, he's talking about a storm and eating ice cream. That's vanity they can discuss later; this is time for doctrine. This is already starting to sound like typical vain church-ianity preachers to me. I hope that will change soon.

@2:50 - I have to commend his firm stance in calling Trump out for his compromising position in general. I did not hear any specifics in that statement, but I can get behind the fact based on Trumps pre-election comments about him claiming to be a Christian, but then turning around and telling everyone that he has never asked forgiveness for sin.

@8:00 - So far so good; he has not defined repentance, but he has made true statements, and called out the heresies of men like Jack Hyles and Steven Anderson. I suppose he and I have done the same research because I have never heard Sam Adams before, and he has probably never heard me teach.

@16:00 - As far as I know, I still have no objections to anything he has said so far, but I'm optimistically cautious because he has not defined the word 'repent' yet. I have this growing suspicion, based on things he is implying, that he believe that 'repent' means "to turn from sin."

@19:30 - So for the first part of his teaching, he kept saying "repentance of sin" over and over, and that's because he was quoting from Scripture, but now, he has shifted to repeating the phrase "repentance FROM sin," which is falling back into his false definition of repentance, namely, that he believes the word 'repent' means "to turn." He has condemned Jack Hyles and Steven Anderson for their erroneous definition of repentance, but then Sam Adams has the same error they have, and they all adopted it from church-ianity instead of going to the context of the Word.

@25:00 - Again, the only reason I can agree with Adams' doctrine is because he is preaching from the same verses that I preach from, but he has not defined what he means by 'repentance', and that is why I believe this teaching is not good.

@26:00 - Okay, here we go! Adams says that the following verse is the best definition of repentance in the entire Bible:
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
-Acts 26:18
So yes, my suspicion was correct; Sam Adams believes that the word 'repent' means "to turn," and even though he states at the beginning that salvation is by grace through faith, I do not believe him because he is teaching that a man must turn from his sin to be saved. (Even heretics like Anderson can figure that much out.) That's works doctrine. I cannot yoke together with such a man because he does not understand the humility and grief that is repentance.
Those of you who know my teachings also know that I teach we Christians must turn from sin, and that we cannot live any longer in sin (and that those who claim to be of Christ but live in sin are hypocrites and liars), but to be saved, a man must come to grief and sorrow of his sin, by which God will open his eyes and turn him away from sin.

@27:00 - He said that repentance and salvation were in the same verse, but that was deceptive because he was answering to Steven Anderson's argument that the specific words 'repent' and 'salvation' were not in the same verse. So he addressed that argument, but then used Acts 26:18 to answer it, which not only gives an incorrect definition of repentance, but also does not answer what Anderson claimed. That was a bit deceptive.

@30:00 - I found what he said here very blind because, whereas he believes that 'repent' means "to turn from sin," he was oblivious to the verse he was quoting:
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
-Acts 3:19
If 'repent' meant "to turn from sin," then our sins are blotted out of the book of life by turning from sin. That's totally antithetical to everything the Bible teaches us. Rather, come to godly sorrow of your wrongdoing and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, which is what converts (i.e. turns and changes) a man, and then your sins will be blotted out by His grace.

The sad thing is that, listening to this, I find Sam Adams to be a man that has spent a lot of time in the Scriptures, but still does not have a full understanding of the Gospel.

@33:40 - Now we can see where Sam Adams is drawing his doctrine from. He is not drawing his meaning and interpretation of Scripture from the context of Scripture itself, but rather, he is drawing it from lexicons, concordances, and other Greek grammar dictionaries. To that point, I will now stop listening to the rest of his teaching because I have heard enough.

If anyone wants to learn the problem with that, please go to this teaching:
The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances

If anyone wants to learn the truth of the Gospel of Jesus and His doctrine on repentance, here is my audio teaching on repentance:
https://youtu.be/NEI_H3QUb7Q?t=20

Until Sam Adams stops preaching works-based doctrine, I cannot endorse or support him in any way, and he is no different than the hypocrites that he points out if he will not hear the truth of the Word of God. I am thankful that he preaches that men should turn from sin, but I cannot say that this man is of Christ when he preaches that a man must turn from sin to receive grace, as that is no different than the antichrist doctrine of the Catholic Church.

His website bio has no salvation testimony on it. It just says he was saved in 1987. I cannot draw any information from that. It's mostly just his credentials, which is typical of most church-ianity pastors. Therefore, we have no evidence to see if he was actually saved, or if he turned from sin (without repentance) and thought he was saved by his works, while hypocritically teaching grace.

[Kenneth Winslow]

@2:00 - I am already bored, and starting to get impatient because, instead of talking about the teaching, he's talking about a storm and eating ice cream. That's vanity they can discuss later; this is time for doctrine. This is already starting to sound like typical vain church-ianity preachers to me. I hope that will change soon.

@2:50 - I have to commend his firm stance in calling Trump out for his compromising position in general. I did not hear any specifics in that statement, but I can get behind the fact based on Trumps pre-election comments about him claiming to be a Christian, but then turning around and telling everyone that he has never asked forgiveness for sin.

This worldly junk is so that even unbelievers can walk out of the church building and say that they "got something out of it".  It is an attempt to be "relevant" to everyone.
He knows that he will not be able to maintain his church building and make payroll if he only appeals to born again Christians (assuming that he is one himself).

[Kenneth Winslow]

Sam Adams is a man who preaches to please the flesh.
Though he correctly decried the false doctrine on repentance of Jack Hyles I didn't notice him quoting one of his sermons nor his writings on repentance. If he is going to expose a man's false doctrine why not give at least one or two quotes? But instead he spent several minutes accusing Jack Hyles of sins of the flesh. But again he gave no references and no quotes. At best he just says that other people said these things about Jack Hyles.
No doubt Sam Adams could spend several weeks exposing the wickedness of Jack Hyles, but he is trying to play both sides of the fence. The flesh side and the Christian side. That's why he has to talk about storm damage, ice cream, adultery and fornication (and who knows what else, I'm only halfway through), and also quote a bunch of scripture.

Let's see if this pattern keeps up...

[creationliberty]

I have seen a number of people mention this guy alongside me, and it made me curious as to what he was teaching. When I listened to him teach, I felt like I got something out of his preaching, so I did not want to be overly critical of the man, but then I had to be reminded that the problem with my thinking was that it wasn't by Adams which I got something out of it; it was by the hearing of God's Word.

To that point, I struggle to help Christians understand that you might be blessed with understanding through the hearing of God's Word, even by a preacher who is false. If they are simply quoting the Word of God, you can learn through that, but the leaven is what we have to be careful of, and the leaven I saw of Sam Adams, just in this one teaching, is his misunderstanding of repentance, and his adherence to lexicons and concordances, which are the foundation of his education. (i.e. The context of God's Word is not the foundation of Adams' education.)

And to Kenneth's point, I have, for far too long, listened to preachers try to appeal to worldly listeners with their opening five minutes, in which they talk about sports, shopping, food, or other anecdotes, and all they are is vain words that are intended to be a fair speech, which is supposed to implant into the minds of the listener that he's a "down-to-earth" guy like everyone else, and that the church is lots of fun.

I'm not against having fun, but the problem is that the particular time I get up to preach, I am teaching the Word of God and doctrine, and that is not play time. This is not a game. I take it seriously, and I do not want to waste everyone's time, but most preachers are more concerned about how people perceive them, rather than making sure they understand the fullness of doctrine so others can be saved.

[Kenneth Winslow]

Sam Adams said that "repentance FROM sin proceeds salvation".
If that was true that I never would have gotten saved.
On the day I got saved I couldn't have even listed even a small fraction with the sins that I was involved in.
How could I ever have repented FROM listening to rock music, for example, if I had no clue that God hated it.

[Kenneth Winslow]

Sam Adams is most assuredly blind. He's said multiple times and that repentance means to turn from sin. And then you quotes several scriptures that say to repent AND turn. Which means that repenting and turning are two DIFFERENT things, but he doesn't see it.
He uses scripture to support his false doctrine, not to find true doctrine.

When these people that preach this false doctrine on repentance, (that you must repent from all your sins before you get saved,) I would like to ask if they have ever sinned after they believe they got saved. No doubt they would all admit to sinning at some point after they got saved. So, by that admission, if they were honest, they would have to conclude that they had not actually turned from all their sins; they hadn't actually repented; therefore they never got saved.
If they had actually turned from all their sin in order to gain salvation then they wouldn't, by their own will, be sinning anymore, would they?
Since you don't get the Holy Ghost until you are saved; and you have to turn from all your sins before you get salvation and the Holy Ghost; then you must turn from all your sins in your own fleshly power.
Bow, I am sure that Sam Adams would strongly object to that line of reasoning, however that is exactly what he was preaching.

[creationliberty]

The only reason I did not argue that point is because, if I remember correctly, he specifically said that Christians did not LIVE in their sin any longer, and there is a large difference between sinning and live in (or according to) sin. But again, there is so much he does not define, and forces everyone to assume or imply what he is saying, rather than him just saying things plainly and clearly.

[Kenneth Winslow]

I have noticed something that is common amongst these false preachers. Instead of simply using scripture to discover the truth and hang their hats on that, they have to find an adversary, in this case "Hylesites" and "Andersonites" and present that as the enemy. Then they tear down those other men's false doctrines and act like that they have proven the truth. It is almost like a straw man argument.

I've never listened to Sam Adams before, so I don't know if he holds to the "law of first mention". He seems to have quoted dozens and dozens of verses that talked about repent and repentance but he never once mentioned the first occurrence.
 
Genesis 6:6 KJV  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

There's no way that he simply overlooked that.

[creationliberty]

Hmm. I didn't get the impression that's what he was doing. I heard him expose their sin, and that they had not turned from their sin, but if Hyles' son, for example, had NOT started a wife-swapping club, that wouldn't have automatically made him a Christian. I think that's the core problem with his doctrine. He thinks that, since Hyles' son claimed to believe in Jesus, if he had just stopped sinning, he would have been a true convert. And you and I both know, that's not the way it works. Turning away from a sinful lifestyle is evidence of a Christian, but it's not complete evidence because there have been many people who have turned away from a sinful lifestyle, but have never come to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow of their sin) in Christ.

[Kenneth Winslow]

He thinks that, since Hyles' son claimed to believe in Jesus, if he had just stopped sinning, he would have been a true convert.

To be honest, the vast majority of people whom I consider to be Christians believe just that.  Claim Jesus is Lord and live a sanctified life and you are in. In heaven, that is.

Chris, you said it. Satan's plan to corrupt the meaning of that one word was masterful. Even when a person experiences grief and godly sorrow of wrong doing, and they are truly born again, they still end up believing and teaching a corrupt meaning of repentance.
Whether they are preachers in pulpits or preachers on street corners, either the message becomes "turn from sin...mostly" to get saved or the message becomes "just believe" to get saved because "repentance is works". They both preach a false gospel.

Yes, God gets all the glory if anyone gets saved in this world of false doctrine.

[creationliberty]

Yeah, if people come to godly sorrow and faith in Christ, that is the way God is completely glorified. You made a good point there; it's just that it's grace or it's work, but it can't be both. Yet, churchgoers keep hard-preaching grace, while believing in works.

[creationliberty]

I decided to look up and see if I could find any teachings he's done on tithe, and I was not able to find anything. Surprisingly, I went through the titles of his various teachings, and he seems to be one of those conspiracy-focused, political preachers, more than anything else.

It's beginning to make sense to me now. A number of people who we have had problems with on this forum, and we have had to ban, follow Sam Adams on Sermon Audio and re-post his teachings on their social media accounts. I don't know what that means yet, but there is a pattern, and I am going to be cautious when I see that man's name from here on out.

[creationliberty]

Okay, I just found it. It does appear Adams' church building practices tithe and he teaches false doctrine on it. I found this page on his church building's official site:
http://www.independencebaptist.com/church-incorporation-and-tax-exemption.html

It is presumed this was written by Sam Adams, but even if it wasn't, it is his church building's official site, which means he stands behind the following statement:
"Congress does NOT have authority to destroy the Church through any form of taxation. Congress cannot tax the Church because the government cannot tax God or take His tithe."

If this is what Adams is teaching, then not only is he teaching false doctrine on tithe, but he also has a gross misunderstanding of what 501c3 is, despite the fact that he preaches against it. (i.e. It has nothing to do with Congress having authority over the matter when pastors sign a private corporate contract with the IRS.) That's why I'm working on publishing my 501c3 teaching into a book, so that, hopefully, many of these men who preach against 501c3 might be educated and corrected because, as it stands, they are still willing ignorant of the truth and fighting the wrong battle.

If anyone wants more details on tithe or 501c3, see the following teachings:
501c3: The Devil's Church
Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement