I'm a little late to this rodeo... But here's my

Mr. Washer’s concerns could be addressed very easily if there was true biblical and Confessional reform. That is reforming back to the Bible and reforming and teaching people what the Confessions and Catechism teach. My concern is that Mr. Washer will get people on an emotional trip not balanced with solid biblically reforming Christian piety. It’s easy to say we have this indictment against the church; but where is the guidance after the indictment is made? If this is true of the modern church, what is the standard in which the church is to conduct itself? Moreover, it’s very easy to critique the church and to point out all of the deficiencies within evangelicalism; but this should not be the object of the church at larger to critique the church. Alternatively, maybe the approach should be instead of pointing out the error of the modern church, the church should be pointing folks to the history of the Christian church and what the church has historically held as Christian piety from a Confessional base.

The answer to Mr. Washer's concerns can be addressed by reforming back to God's word and practicing Confessional Christianity. I believe he’s making the case to reform back to God’s word which is great! I’m encouraged to hear this. However, the church must confess what we believe and why we believe it. Therefore, the true need is to reform back to biblical Confessionalism.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Originally Posted by ReformedChapin

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Brother, you can't reason with apostates and heretics, first of all. Second, I don't know that I've ever heard him call anyone out by name. He attacks methods, philosophies and abominable teaching of men, but I don't know about individuals. But, then, I don't have a problem attacking what an individual says either, if it's heresy. Sheep just don't communicate with goats very well.

Oh wait, are you saying that calling people names is better than reasoning with them? Were both calvinist so we both agree that our methods aren't what causes a person to change it's God. However, Id prefer an intellectual discussion or debate over ad hominims any day.

Sorry for the long quote, but I'd like to keep this in context.
Your comments have a knack of carrying just enough truth to discredit what someone says, without really addressing what was actually said. I say Washer attacks methodology and philosophy and you imply that I approved calling names above reasoning. In such a case, your own reasoning is unclear. Furthermore, his sermons do not involve ad hom attacks. They involve the unashamed proclamation of truth. Perhaps he's a bit abrasive for some. And no preacher is perfect. But when you see people left and right seeking their best life now then you realize that they've been fed a pack of lies and that following such teaching will give them just what it promises - their best life now, and eternal torment to follow. May God call more faithful preachers to expose the lies of easy believism, which is what he attacks and exposes, and eradicate the false sense of security that sends men gleefully to hell. Souls are too precious to attempt to reason with Belial over the souls of men.

Blessings,

I'm not here to criticize Washers methods. I already stated that his methods just aren't my style. When he is critical of people, I'm not stating that his critiques aren't true, they fully are, I'm just stating that I personally wouldn't approach that way.

Example from your own quotes:

Ah, you mean things like, "white-washed tombs," "you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves" and "Cretans are always liars." Yea, he does do that. Seems like there's some precedent though.

My way: The Gospel states that those who _____ are _____. If you find yourself doing ______ the Gospel commands that you repent.

That was just a quick example. Washers method to me sometimes seems to me more like Law, be good, be good method. And it also seems like it's his own personal judgment, although I know it's not but it can be percieved that way.


Another quick example as to how I would approach easy believism.

Easy believism or seeker friendly churches adopt tactics that are unbiblical and adapt to mans need for feelings and emotion. (Proceed to give history of easy believism ____. Proceed to give those who founded this method.)

Just my

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

I'm a little late to this rodeo... But here's my

Mr. Washer’s concerns could be addressed very easily if there was true biblical and Confessional reform. That is reforming back to the Bible and reforming and teaching people what the Confessions and Catechism teach. My concern is that Mr. Washer will get people on an emotional trip not balanced with solid biblically reforming Christian piety. It’s easy to say we have this indictment against the church; but where is the guidance after the indictment is made? If this is true of the modern church, what is the standard in which the church is to conduct itself? Moreover, it’s very easy to critique the church and to point out all of the deficiencies within evangelicalism; but this should not be the object of the church at larger to critique the church. Alternatively, maybe the approach should be instead of pointing out the error of the modern church, the church should be pointing folks to the history of the Christian church and what the church has historically held as Christian piety from a Confessional base.

The answer to Mr. Washer's concerns can be addressed by reforming back to God's word and practicing Confessional Christianity. I believe he’s making the case to reform back to God’s word which is great! I’m encouraged to hear this. However, the church must confess what we believe and why we believe it. Therefore, the true need is to reform back to biblical Confessionalism.

Yep, "Confessional Christianity" really works for the PCUSA.


The solution is a return to Biblical Christianity; and this return might go through the means of a confession, but it does not need to. "COnfessionalism" is not a magic bullet.

I almost started a thread on this, a while ago. One thing, that I get from Washer, is what seems to me the old you're a better christian if you're in missions or ministry, etc...too the point that he said, he prays his son wants to follow his footsteps, into the missions field. Which is great but should we pray that? Isn't it great, if God, wants to call his son, to be a ???, in life as a regenerate Christian?

To me, one pitfall to many of the Americanized churches, is to not recognize the "work with your hands" simplicity, that is just as God honoring for MOST believers, as going into the "ministry". I believe one can live a radically transformed life as a christian because they love God, they desire to follow His law, and to live a "normal" simple life, and only some are CALLED, to be in the ministry.

It's been a while but I think, Shaefer, Sproul and some threads on the PB have dealt with this, the "false guilt", that, being a Christian means, I should be in the ministry.

I'm only basing it on a couple of sermons but out of all the young people he was preaching too, how many should actually be going into ministry? I think the call to walk the christian walk, is great.

I'm being nit picky though, I love the guy and voted thumbs up!

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Thanks Bern.
I can't imagine how grueling it would be to have my sermons critiqued here. If they're ever on line, I think I'll just not say anything... or use an alias.

Joe, are we reading the same thread? This thread is far more to the fanboy side than the lynch mob. Most of those who have offered criticisms have restricted them to individual aspects of his ministry, rather than passing blanket judgments. The overwhelming consensus has been that Washer is a good man doing good work.

I find your comment hilarious, since you just wrote, "Jesus derides poor teaching, apostasy and heresy, but rarely compliments someone on a job well done. He might encourage where there is growth, but, like Paul, He still encourages them to "excel still more."

My comments were simply in response to Bern's statement, and obviously understood by at least one other member of the board. Your comment about my "hilarity" seems a bit condescending and mocking, brother.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Small - "Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation" by James Sawyer
Bible.org: Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation

Thanks Charlie,

There are some reservations in the manner in which some of this is understood. And, the way Lordship salvation is presented to many, it is an abomination. Unfortunately, many have turned the phrase to mean "works righteousness," which is a misunderstanding - I'm sure you're aware of this tendency.
An interesting note in Sawyer's article is his statement that he has counseled many who have struggled in light of MacArthur's teaching, but not in light of Hodges'. Isn't this understandable? Hodges does not challenge someone to "walk worthy of the calling with which you've been called" as a reflection of our condition before God. MacArthur, on the other hand, exhorts us to examine our lives in light of God's Word and discern whether or not the pattern of our lives exemplifies Christ, or the World. On one hand people are comfortable with their profession of faith.... along with the demons. On the other hand people are confronted with the fact that a profession without works, as James would say, is dead. When confronted with such of course a nominal or pseudo-Christian will be challenged, and need counseling. It's simply logical, but hardly conclusive in regard to who is correct.

Another common problem is that, in his original, MacArthur makes a statement that is Romanesque, if you will. He states, as Sawyer quotes, that the believer is made righteous (181). This is infusion, and unorthodox. But that version was edited over ten years ago to reflect a more reformed and biblical teaching. On righteousness:

And we certainly cannot live up to God’s standard of perfect righteousness... The remedy Luther found was the doctrine of justification by faith. His discovery launched the Reformation and put an end to the Dark Ages. What Luther came to realize is that God’s righteousness, revealed in the gospel, is reckoned in full to the account of everyone who turns to Christ in repentant faith. God’s own righteousness thus becomes the ground on which believers stand before him (196).
Justification may be defined as an act of God whereby he imputes to a believing sinner the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving the sinner of all unrighteousness, declaring him or her perfectly righteous in God’s sight, thus delivering the believer from all condemnation (197)
There are two serious errors to avoid in the matter of justification. First, do not confuse justification with sanctification. Roman Catholic theology makes this error. Sanctification is the work of God whereby he sets the believer apart from sin. Sanctification is a practical reality, not simply a legal declaration. Sanctification involves a change in the sinner’s character, not just a new standing before God. By including sanctification as an aspect of justification, Catholic theology renders instantaneous justification impossible. Worse, this view substitutes the believer’s own imperfect righteousness in place of Christ’s unblemished righteousness, as the basis of justification (197-98).
The cornerstone of justification is the reckoning of righteousness to the believer’s account. This is the truth that sets Christian doctrine apart from every form of false religion. We call it “imputed righteousness.” Apart from it, salvation is utterly impossible (198).
Imputed righteousness solves the dilemma. Christ made atonement by shedding his own blood on the cross. That provides forgiveness. And just as our sins were put to his account when he bore them on the cross, so now his righteousness is reckoned as our own. His perfect righteousness thus becomes the ground on which we stand before God.
This is a crucial point on which Protestants have historically been in full agreement: sinners are not justified because of some good thing in them; God can declare them righteous because he first imputes to them the perfect righteousness of Christ. We stand before God as if we were perfectly just. Judicially, the Father views us as if our righteousness were on the same lofty plane as his Son’s!
Again, this is owing to no good thing in us—not even God’s sanctifying or regenerating work in our hearts. Justification is possible exclusively through the imputed righteousness of Christ: “To the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5, emphasis added). “Those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (5:17, emphasis added). “Through the obedience of the One the many will be made [declared] righteous” (v. 19). “Now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe” (3:22, emphasis added). “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). “Not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:9, emphasis added) (199).
God through his grace imputes to believers the righteousness of Christ (vv. 21–24). On that basis alone they can stand before him (205).

Much of Sawyer's argumentation is based on a position that MacArthur now refutes, and has for many years. For clarity, Sawyer is right, such teaching is wrong and needed to be addressed. But quoting a current edition would be helpful and avoid added polarity, which he claims to be attempting to resolve.

There is a very real problem within the Lordship camp of harsh judgmentalism. I think Sawyer is attempting to deal with it. I've seen it, and lived it. It's brutal and, as he states, offers no hope. It flings sin in the face without offering any comfort in Christ. One has basically shamed the Savior they claim and is an outcast as a result. There is much we can learn from this. And, there is probably a sense in which his perception of MacArthur's first book is accurate. But, though this element still exists among some who are of similar vein, this is not what MacArthur teaches. And if you have seen him minister to souls you would know this.

Another aspect that is neglected, though discussed to a certain degree in his treatment of Hodges, is that the alternative to Lordship salvation is easy believism, a form of antinomianism. He doesn't want the polarity, but there it is. Again, there is no middle ground. One cannot love the world and love Christ too. One cannot serve Balial and Jesus. One is either a resident or an ambassador. There is no escaping it. For those who claim Christ, Jesus is Lord of your life or you have added Him to your list of gods. If you rely on your profession without a possession reflected in your walk then you merely have an insurance policy that you'll never be able to cash in. Assurance only comes through Christ as we strive to walk worthy of our calling. But we must be sensitive. One who is struggling exhibits fruit of the spirit, while one who is succumbing does not. The question then is, "Are you engaging in the battle?" Christ is the only one who can give us the strength to overcome. And those of Christ will engage. Do we die to self, or seek to save our own lives? To point someone in any other direction is to give them a false sense of security.

Blessings,

Originally Posted by Chippy

Maybe pastors like Washer ought not only to challenge individuals but also the churches and denominations themselves.

He does challenge denominations, especially the one he has been affiliated with (SBC). I stumbled across his sermons about three years ago and have listened fairly regularly ever since because they are convicting and convey a passion for Jesus Christ.

For those who want a broad perspective of what Paul Washer's preaching is like, and do not have hours and hours to listen to the 300 or so sermons on sermonaudio.com, check out the video selections on illbehonest.com. They are a bit dramatic, as the site has edited them for impact, but they represent some of times he has spoken powerful, by God's grace.

imo, he is an outstanding preacher today simply because he comes across as someone who has spent much time with God before getting into the pulpit. He speaks the truth he has experienced/scriptures he's had worked into his heart and it comes across with authority. On a broad scale across churches in America, this seems unusual, that a man is a man of God before he is a church leader, but it shouldn't necessarily be that way.

Recently I listened to this series and the first four sermons give a pretty good "taste" for how he preaches the Gospel and some of the implications it has on the Christian's life. The Q&A also gives some more personal info on his early Christian years.

SermonAudio.com - Come to Me - Isaiah 55 (True Disciple Conference 1 of 8) www.sbaoc.org

SermonAudio.com - Regeneration - Ezekiel 36 (True Disciple Conference 2 of 8) www.sbaoc.org

SermonAudio.com - Ministry & Your Prayer Life - Mark 1:29-37 (True Disciple Conference 3 of 8) www.sbaoc.org

SermonAudio.com - Question & Answer Session (True Disciple Conference 4 of 8) www.sbaoc.org

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Our assurance is found in Christ and the verity of His Word reflected in our daily lives. As Christ said, you will know them by their fruit. There are no fence sitters in the Kingdom of God. This is what Washer and MacArthur, among others, teach; and this in the face of the insurance policy offered by so many preaching salesmen.

Joe,

I have some disagreements with MacArthur's approach to assurance of salvation and with the general ethos of the doctrines that are commonly termed "lordship salvation." I am not alone in my disagreement. I will, however, direct away from myself and to better men. For anyone who wishes to look into the matter further, I will suggest a small, medium, and large.

Small - "Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation" by James Sawyer
Bible.org: Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation

"Reflections on Christian Assurance" by D.A. Carson
http://www.sgc.org/resources/ReflectionsonAssurance.pdf

Medium - Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, edited by Michael Horton. I highly recommend this book, as it shows a number of Reformed men (Robert Strimple, Kim Riddlebarger, etc.) have concerns about both the Hodges style easy-believism and MacArthur's presentation of issues such as justification, faith-works relationship, etc. I believe the authors have captured the authentic Reformation spirit and shown where MacArthur and Hodges deviate from it (Hodges much more, of course.)

Large - Assurance of Faith by Joel Beeke. This is a more readable version of his doctoral dissertation, following the development of the doctrine of assurance from Calvin through the Puritans. Beeke affirms the practical syllogism, but I believe that the entire framework of his theology has a balance which some contemporaries lack.

Thank you so much for the links Charlie. I have read Beeke's work and it really helped me in a time of need (I am one who really struggles with issues like assurance, doubt and feelings of despair). I just read the article by James Sawyer...absolutely phenomenal.

In Christ,
Brady

For those looking for assurance...

Originally Posted by Joshua

I'll save you all my horrendous verbiage and just express my sentiments vicariously through Rev. Winzer's words from a previous post in a previous thread:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I appreciate what he does in the context he does it in; but I hope everyone understands that a minister cannot address his congregation like this week in/week out. Where there is faithful exposition and application week in/week out, this sort of confrontational preaching should not be necessary. Faithful biblical preaching founds Christian responsility on divine soveriengty, Christian service on divine grace, and therefore always includes the element of doxology. I hope the brethren on this list who extol Mr. Washer's sermons have carefully discerned that this element seems to be obscured. I would also caution people to beware of the medieval whip, whereby Christians gain some sort of psychological satisfaction from the pain of being awakened to their sins because conviction makes them feel spiritually alive. But I reiterate, I appreciate what Mr. Washer does in the context he does it in. Blessings!

Paul Washer is an itinerant preacher and does no have his own congregation.


I personally have no need to hear preaching over the internet.*edited

Originally Posted by Gesetveemet

Originally Posted by Joshua

I'll save you all my horrendous verbiage and just express my sentiments vicariously through Rev. Winzer's words from a previous post in a previous thread:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I appreciate what he does in the context he does it in; but I hope everyone understands that a minister cannot address his congregation like this week in/week out. Where there is faithful exposition and application week in/week out, this sort of confrontational preaching should not be necessary. Faithful biblical preaching founds Christian responsility on divine soveriengty, Christian service on divine grace, and therefore always includes the element of doxology. I hope the brethren on this list who extol Mr. Washer's sermons have carefully discerned that this element seems to be obscured. I would also caution people to beware of the medieval whip, whereby Christians gain some sort of psychological satisfaction from the pain of being awakened to their sins because conviction makes them feel spiritually alive. But I reiterate, I appreciate what Mr. Washer does in the context he does it in. Blessings!

Paul Washer is an itinerant preacher and does no have his own congregation.
I personally have no need to hear preaching over the internet.

No need?? God has seen fit to Bless us with the ability to hear from not only our own local preachers, but great and godly preachers from all over the world living and dead through the internet. I am surprised that anyone would feel they have no need or desire to take advantage of such an amazing gift! I truly feel you are missing out...

Originally Posted by Gesetveemet

I personally have no need to hear preaching over the internet.

I do. I think it's an amazing resource we have access to in these times.

Originally Posted by Berean

Originally Posted by Gesetveemet

I personally have no need to hear preaching over the internet.

I do. I think it's an amazing resource we have access to in these times.

Amen. I agree. I am an internet preaching affictionata. Okay, I'm a Sermonaudio junkie.

Originally Posted by ReformedChapin

I do have to admit I was impressed with his sermon in spanish. He did an excellent job for a white guy.

He did an excellent job, period.

Originally Posted by Matthias;616683.[/QUOTE

No need?? God has seen fit to Bless us with the ability to hear from not only our own local preachers, but great and godly preachers from all over the world living and dead through the internet. I am surprised that anyone would feel they have no need or desire to take advantage of such an amazing gift! I truly feel you are missing out...

Jeff,

The Lord has used many preachers thru internet at different times in my life according to His providence and for that I am grateful. It’s just that at present time He has placed me in a church where He still gives His blessed gospel. Oh how I hope that He will press His precious word into my heart that I may be changed thereby. Sorry I did not explain better.


.

I would hope he does not preach to a congregation week after week the way he does in all of his videos on YouTube (where it seems address people like they are all unregenerate). If so, I imagine his sheep are constantly living in doubt and despair.

Really?

I love the preaching against sin because it awakens me to my constant need of God and Christ. I am reminded that I am NOTHING and God is everything. I am awakened to flee the world by delving into the Word so that I may honor the god that saved me from my own horrid wickedness. I am reminded that when I witness I witness to dead people and unless God awakens them I should expect a hostile reaction and to not expect any "method" to do the job but instead try to express mans guilt to them and how they may then be redeemed and leave the rest to God.

I love hard, toe tramping preaching because I need it, I believe you need it, I believe we ALL need it and the reason many are turned off by it is because they do not want to remember what they we're and who deserves all the glory of every waking moment. That they don't want to always, daily, hourly, know that they are low and only God is high, to be reminded that they deserve NOTHING and drawing breath hour by hour is a blessing from God.

Oh the despair I would be in if not for Christ, and thank God for preaching like Paul Washers that frequently reminds me of it, and not of the wonderful things God has in store for me, how awesome Heaven is going to be, or what my job in Heaven might be, etc. etc. All I need to know to know that God loves me and assures me of my salvation is to know and remember what I once was, and what I would be if not for Jesus Christ. There is my motivation, NOT for despair, but for a passion and desire to fall on my knees before a Holy God that would save a wretch like me and seek to do His will.

I love the confessions as well, but they have never caused me to feel this way.

[quote=ReformedChapin;616180]

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Oh wait, are you saying that calling people names is better than reasoning with them? Were both calvinist so we both agree that our methods aren't what causes a person to change it's God. However, Id prefer an intellectual discussion or debate over ad hominims any day.

How people arrive at this sort of conclusion from Scriptures is unsettling. They are basically putting themselves above the Lord, the Apostle Paul, and the man in their own signature all in the name of being "intellectual".

Also, I think the abstract preaching that chapin references in a later point is exactly why there is no power in most preaching. A good study of Acts shows that the Gospel is always applied and not treated in abstract "intellectual" categories. There is very little weight in most preaching, b/c it is abstract & treated like a systematic theology. Mr. Washer comes along and says, "you must repent..." and we say he is attacking men and isn't intellectual enough for our refined tastes & that we are too intellectual for that.

I know little to nothing of Mr Washer, but for many it just doesn't matter if you come eating and drinking or fasting.

Actually, I did hear a quote from Mr Washer that I believes best sums this up - "The worst thing that could ever happen to a preacher is that he becomes civilized. It's WORTHLESS! Worthless! One thing I noticed about Leonard Ravenhill - and I'd take 1 Leonard Ravenhill over 11 dead Calvinists - was that he was dangerous. He was dangerous."

put Paul against most of the silly "your best life now" and modern decisionism evangelical preachers wouldn't everyone choose Paul every other day?

stop pitting him against the ideal and stop nip picking on single sentences he says...
here is a man faithfully following the Lord and preaching the gospel wherever he can

God used this man to save my life. If it wasn't for his style of preaching, I wouldn't have been shocked into life. Praise God for men like him.

EDIT: I'm not saying that Washer saved me and I'm not saying that his preaching style saved me. I hope whoever reads this post understands what I'm saying here.

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

God used this man to save my life. If it wasn't for his style of preaching, I wouldn't have been shocked into life. Praise God for men like him.

EDIT: I'm not saying that Washer saved me and I'm not saying that his preaching style saved me. I hope whoever reads this post understands what I'm saying here.

Absolutely. I think we've all heard preachers who have had that effect on us.

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 05:31:28 EST-----

Originally Posted by unlearnedlearner

Also, I think the abstract preaching that chapin references in a later point is exactly why there is no power in most preaching. A good study of Acts shows that the Gospel is always applied and not treated in abstract "intellectual" categories. There is very little weight in most preaching, b/c it is abstract & treated like a systematic theology. Mr. Washer comes along and says, "you must repent..." and we say he is attacking men and isn't intellectual enough for our refined tastes & that we are too intellectual for that.

I like what Pastor John Weaver says - theology that isn't applied is useless.

I like most of what Paul has to say but he does get a little too emotional (I'm sure this is true emotion), but it make me feel uncomfortable for him....which I'm sure is just my problem. I think a balance in emotion during any worship service should be sought. I'm more on the ridge side so....

He's an anointed preacher. I first heard him when beginning to turn from my Arminian ways (watched on youtube). The way he presented the gospel clicked with me. I thought, "that is what I want to hear; that is what I've been searching for." Unfortunately, I was in churches that didn't preach that way, yet the culture of the churches was that everything was alright, "we're all Christians," etc. I had to step back and wonder if it was me who was really off base... Gladly the Lord was gracious enough to open my eyes to many things, and it's been a great journey!

I loved his 2 hour sermon on "The 10 Indictments Against the Modern Church."

Ok..time for my


I like PW's preaching.

I know that he doesn't get the notoriety for the more "calm" sermons that he does for the fiery ones that get passed around the 'net, but he does preach "straight" also.

I had a theory that has been proved out on this thread and this is it:

Paul Washer; love him or hate him...nobody is neutral

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

He's good....too bad he isn't Presby!

Yeah I believe Washer has stated, "Infant Baptism is the golden calf of the reformation."

I love the guy though...true heart for God's glory and souls.

Originally Posted by Re4mdant

We are in luck over here, at the 14-15 of July we get to host Paul Washer at a school building, were he will talk to a small group the first day, about church-plant and things like that.
The second day we will invite as many people as possible to come hear him preach.

So now I would like to know...
What are your opinions about Paul Washer?
and maybe some comments on why.

So how did it go?

Originally Posted by Exiled_2_God

I loved his 2 hour sermon on "The 10 Indictments Against the Modern Church."

Indeed! Wasn't that fantastic?


Yeah Martin, how did it go??? I totally forgot about it.

I love brother Paul. What's not to love? Passion, zeal for the lost. HEAVILY reformed (a five point Calvinist that also openly mocks "Left Behind" eschatology). Southern Baptist. Expositional.

Again, whats not to love? The people on here that talk about him pointing fingers...you do realize that EVERY prophet and evangelist of God in the bible did this, right?

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

I love brother Paul. What's not to love? Passion, zeal for the lost. HEAVILY reformed (a five point Calvinist that also openly mocks "Left Behind" eschatology). Southern Baptist. Expositional.

Again, whats not to love? The people on here that talk about him pointing fingers...you do realize that EVERY prophet and evangelist of God in the bible did this, right?

I wouldn't consider him "HEAVILY" Reformed especially considering the fact that he won't use the term Calvinist. He says prefers to be a called a five point Spurgeonist. Remember there is much more to being Reformed than being a five-pointer.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Re4mdant

We are in luck over here, at the 14-15 of July we get to host Paul Washer at a school building, were he will talk to a small group the first day, about church-plant and things like that.
The second day we will invite as many people as possible to come hear him preach.

So now I would like to know...
What are your opinions about Paul Washer?
and maybe some comments on why.

So how did it go?

Interested to know too..

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

I love brother Paul. What's not to love? Passion, zeal for the lost. HEAVILY reformed (a five point Calvinist that also openly mocks "Left Behind" eschatology). Southern Baptist. Expositional.

Again, whats not to love? The people on here that talk about him pointing fingers...you do realize that EVERY prophet and evangelist of God in the bible did this, right?

I wouldn't consider him "HEAVILY" Reformed especially considering the fact that he won't use the term Calvinist. He says prefers to be a called a five point Spurgeonist. Remember there is much more to being Reformed than being a five-pointer.

I understand that. But the doctrines of Grace are certainly the preeminent requirement. Washer is a five point, Covenant theologian. He has a reformed soteriology and a reformed eschatology. When speaking in terms of Baptists (of which I am one), you can't get much more reformed than that.

Baptists that DO get more reformed than that, are called "Presbyterians".

[quote=Damon Rambo;659811]

Originally Posted by Grillsy

I understand that. But the doctrines of Grace are certainly the preeminent requirement. Washer is a five point, Covenant theologian. He has a reformed soteriology and a reformed eschatology. When speaking in terms of Baptists (of which I am one), you can't get much more reformed than that.

Baptists that DO get more reformed than that, are called "Presbyterians".

curious... Where have you seen or heard him say that he is a CT guy... and a reformed eschatology guy?

[quote=Exiled_2_God;659843]

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

Originally Posted by Grillsy

I understand that. But the doctrines of Grace are certainly the preeminent requirement. Washer is a five point, Covenant theologian. He has a reformed soteriology and a reformed eschatology. When speaking in terms of Baptists (of which I am one), you can't get much more reformed than that.

Baptists that DO get more reformed than that, are called "Presbyterians".

curious... Where have you seen or heard him say that he is a CT guy... and a reformed eschatology guy?

It was one of his sermons. He was mocking the "Left Behind" books, spoke of the unbiblical nature of some secret pre trib rapture, slammed dispensationalism in general.... I will see if I can find it.

[quote=Damon Rambo;659914]

Originally Posted by Exiled_2_God

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

curious... Where have you seen or heard him say that he is a CT guy... and a reformed eschatology guy?

It was one of his sermons. He was mocking the "Left Behind" books, spoke of the unbiblical nature of some secret pre trib rapture, slammed dispensationalism in general.... I will see if I can find it.

Yeah, I would love to reference it. I was curious as to where he stood on the issue. I've heard his "I'm a 5 points Spurgeonist" comment in his "10 Indictments Against the Modern Church"...

I heard a story from a friend that went to a conference Washer was speaking at... the friend said that a guy walked up and asked Washer what his stance is on the end times, his eschatology. Washer replied, as he shook the man's hand, "brother, I've barely wrapped my mind around the gospel." Interesting answer.

Having some firm sources on if he is CT would be good. I haven't heard him say anything about whether the 10 Commandments are in effect or not; so, as far as I know, he may be NCT.

See FV, John Piper, Doug Wilson, Paul Washer

Originally Posted by Romans922

See FV, John Piper, Doug Wilson, Paul Washer

ha, they seem to know where Washer stands... I just want to hear it from Washer.

Washer is a talented speaker. Very forceful. If passion/emotion = unction/anointing then he has it. Like some of what he says but not how he says it - seems to be trying too hard, not natural. God is every man's judge.

IMO...

Paul Washer is to ex-fundies what Mark Discoll is to ex-pagans.

It was Paul Washer whom God used to open my eyes to my sins. Through his obedience to the call of preaching the Gospel that I saw my state, by the grace of God Him opening my eyes.

Paul Washer is a good Southern Baptist preacher. I would encourage all to listen through his 1st John series, it really forced me to examine my life. God has used him to minister to me and my wife; we even based a Sunday School lesson on the outline from his 1st John series.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Having some firm sources on if he is CT would be good. I haven't heard him say anything about whether the 10 Commandments are in effect or not; so, as far as I know, he may be NCT.

Are they??