Paul Washer

[kvanlaan]

In the same way that you won't see your need for a key if you don't see that you're trapped in a dungeon cell, you won't see your need for Christ if you don't see your own sin and depravity and the wrath you've earned yourself.

Yep. This comment reminds me of something that I heard from Ray Comfort. If you tell a man that you're giving him a cure to disease X, he'll say "great, thanks," and wave goodbye. You have to first show him his symptoms and the lethality of disease X. Then, when you tell him you're giving him the cure to it, it will drive home with great force. I think this is where Washer really excels.

 

[CDM]

I have not voted. The few clips I've heard have been very passionate speeches and commentary about the holiness of God and the severity of his wrath toward sinners--thumbs up here. I appreciate his boldness.

Yet, even in this clip, I have heard no exposition of the scripture. No preaching from the text. Yes, I have heard Paul Washers feelings and opinions communicated. I enjoyed his message to the youth (don’t know I’d call it preaching). It's more like he's giving Christian social commentary like what occurs on the PB so often. All fine and good, but is this gospel preaching? Comments like, “God will break you in a million pieces to conform you to Christ if you are his” may have a place here and there. But, where is he drawing this idea from the Scripture?

I'd like to listen to an entire sermon or two so I can have an informed opinion about him. If his sermons are, in large part, like these clips I'm not sure I can call it biblical preaching. Witnessing for the Lord--yes.

 

[mvdm]

I have not voted. The few clips I've heard have been very passionate speeches and commentary about the holiness of God and the severity of his wrath toward sinners--thumbs up here. I appreciate his boldness.

Yet, even in this clip, I have heard no exposition of the scripture. No preaching from the text. Yes, I have heard Paul Washers feelings and opinions communicated. I enjoyed his message to the youth (don’t know I’d call it preaching). It's more like he's giving Christian social commentary like what occurs on the PB so often. All fine and good, but is this gospel preaching? Comments like, “God will break you in a million pieces to conform you to Christ if you are his” may have a place here and there. But, where is he drawing this idea from the Scripture?

I'd like to listen to an entire sermon or two so I can have an informed opinion about him. If his sermons are, in large part, like these clips I'm not sure I can call it biblical preaching. Witnessing for the Lord--yes.

Listen to his sermon "The Great White Throne Room of Judgment". There, he does a better job of preaching directly on texts from the book of Revelation.

 

[ReformedWretch]

The internet is filled with his fire and brimstone messages. You'd have to download and listen to his podcasts to find the more "normal" Sunday morning style messages.

 

[Wannabee]

Not my style. I prefer to reason with people rather than call them names.

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,

 

[LawrenceU]

Alright, listen here fellows, Paul Washer is a fine man from Alabama. I'm from Alabama. Get the message?????

All kidding aside. I'm floored that someone can hear very much of Paul's teaching/preaching and come away that he leaves someone self-centered. I have seen some hacked up youtube videos that might do that. But, he is in my opinion on of the most God centered preachers in the popular front. (And, he NEVER sought the popularity.)

I'm also rather shocked that anyone could listen to his work and call him a name calling ad hominem attacker. He uses names far less that the WHI fellows. I've never heard him deride someone with humour like you hear at times on WHI. Yet, I've never heard anyone chide them. BTW, I don't think what they do is wrong either. Call a kettle black if it is black. Call a man a false prophet if that is what he is. Call him a hypocrite if he is one. According to the standards of accusation leveled against Paul in this light Jesus would be a sinner. And, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Owen, Spurgeon, and scores of others are unfit for spiritual leadership.

 

[ewenlin]

Alright, listen here fellows, Paul Washer is a fine man from Alabama. I'm from Alabama. Get the message?????

All kidding aside. I'm floored that someone can hear very much of Paul's teaching/preaching and come away that he leaves someone self-centered. I have some some hacked up youtube videos that might do that. But, he is in my opinion on of the most God centered preachers in the popular front. (And, he NEVER sought the popularity.)

I'm also rather shocked that anyone could listen to his work and call him a name calling ad hominem attacker. He used names far less that the WHI fellows. I've never heard him deride someone with humour like you hear at times on WHI. Yet, I've never heard anyone chide them. BTW, I don't think what they do is wrong either. Call a kettle black if it is black. Call a man a false prophet if that is what he is. Call him a hypocrite if he is one. According to the standards of accusation leveled against Paul in this light Jesus would be a sinner. And, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Owen, Spurgeon, and scores of others are unfit for spiritual leadership.

well said!

 

[reformedminister]

I have never heard of him before. From the clips I saw on YouTube, it seems he is a heartfelt preacher and presents the gospel with clarity.

 

[Pergamum]

To Adam, yes I have seen his testimony ("isn't it enough?"), what I am saying is that in his messages he leaves people to self centeredness. He is GREAT at driving home the point that not all who say Lord Lord will enter heaven, what he is not great at is taking the attention away from self and redirecting it to Christ.

Jesus condemed the pharisees for not realizing their utter unholiness and inability to be self righteous, besides proving this by showing them that their natures and desires were unchanged He told them to either rest in Himself (Christ) or go to hell, and if people are left to trust in their sanctification they are just as much a child of hell as those who have no knowledge of biblical things.

Above all we preach the doctrines of GRACE, NOT the doctrines of Self examination

Post any 5 sermons that you've preached on the web and I am sure we could probably find even more knit-picking faults than you have dug out here.

 

[BradyC]

I know it may not be popular, but I have mixed feelings about Washer. (however, it is based on limited exposure to him and his ministry). Is he a traveling evangelist? Does he pastor a church? 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.

Also, he seems really unbalanced in his view of assurance. He puts far too much emphasis on the practical syllogism (i.e. Christians will be characterized by XYZ, I am characterized by XYZ, therefore I am a Christian). The problem with this approach is that he trains people to look at themselves for their standing before God. Such an approach can only lead to pride or despair. For Calvin, assurance always stemmed primarily from resting upon the promises of God rather than the practical syllogism. The practical syllogism had its place no doubt, but was always a secondary confirmation to the believer.

All in all, I think Washer has some great things to say but is just a little too over the top for me. The sermons I have listened to have done a great job in showing me my sin, guilt and shame but have left me feeling hopeless. Just my opinion though.

In Christ,
Brady

 

[CharlieJ]

Also, he seems really unbalanced in his view of assurance. He puts far too much emphasis on the practical syllogism (i.e. Christians will be characterized by XYZ, I am characterized by XYZ, therefore I am a Christian). The problem with this approach is that he trains people to look at themselves for their standing before God. Such an approach can only lead to pride or despair. For Calvin, assurance always stemmed primarily from resting upon the promises of God rather than the practical syllogism. The practical syllogism had its place no doubt, but was always a secondary confirmation to the believer.

I agree. I would make the same comments about John MacArthur and Walter Chantry. Among Reformed-ish Baptists (and JMac was my exposure to the Reformed faith), some seem to tend to a very heavy emphasis on personal performance for assurance of salvation. Many use it as an evangelism tool - "You say you're a Christian, but look at your life. You're not really a Christian, are you?" The problem with this is that, while it may be true for some in the crows, it has terribly damaging effects on true Christians who have weak consciences, are currently struggling with sin, or tend toward performance-oriented thinking.

If we are honest, every single one of us falls terribly short of God's holiness every single day. If I were to focus on my sins (which is what their preaching often does), I would be in constant despair, and for good reason. Even after being saved, I am so wicked that even the deeds that I think of as most righteous are like used tampons. I have seen quite a few of my friends fall into deep doubt or spiritual fear after reading JMac or hearing Paul Washer, not because they were not living repentant lifestyles but because they were caused to focus on their remaining sin. Taking their eyes of Christ and his super-abundant righteousness was spiritually poisonous for them.

Our preaching and teaching needs balance - Jesus shook the comfortable AND comforted the shaken. Now, I'm a big fan of both JMac and Washer, but I think this deficiency needs to be pointed out. Because they both do so many things right doesn't give them a pass when they do wrong. But that's all it is; a wrong thing. PW still gets a thumbs up from me.

 

[Knoxienne]

Also, he seems really unbalanced in his view of assurance. He puts far too much emphasis on the practical syllogism (i.e. Christians will be characterized by XYZ, I am characterized by XYZ, therefore I am a Christian). The problem with this approach is that he trains people to look at themselves for their standing before God. Such an approach can only lead to pride or despair. For Calvin, assurance always stemmed primarily from resting upon the promises of God rather than the practical syllogism. The practical syllogism had its place no doubt, but was always a secondary confirmation to the believer.

I agree. I would make the same comments about John MacArthur and Walter Chantry. Among Reformed-ish Baptists (and JMac was my exposure to the Reformed faith), some seem to tend to a very heavy emphasis on personal performance for assurance of salvation. Many use it as an evangelism tool - "You say you're a Christian, but look at your life. You're not really a Christian, are you?" The problem with this is that, while it may be true for some in the crows, it has terribly damaging effects on true Christians who have weak consciences, are currently struggling with sin, or tend toward performance-oriented thinking.

If we are honest, every single one of us falls terribly short of God's holiness every single day. If I were to focus on my sins (which is what their preaching often does), I would be in constant despair, and for good reason. Even after being saved, I am so wicked that even the deeds that I think of as most righteous are like used tampons. I have seen quite a few of my friends fall into deep doubt or spiritual fear after reading JMac or hearing Paul Washer, not because they were not living repentant lifestyles but because they were caused to focus on their remaining sin. Taking their eyes of Christ and his super-abundant righteousness was spiritually poisonous for them.

Our preaching and teaching needs balance - Jesus shook the comfortable AND comforted the shaken. Now, I'm a big fan of both JMac and Washer, but I think this deficiency needs to be pointed out. Because they both do so many things right doesn't give them a pass when they do wrong. But that's all it is; a wrong thing. PW still gets a thumbs up from me.

I think you've got a good point that there needs to be a balance and preachers need to make sure their preaching is balanced. But as listeners we also have a responsibility, since the best preaching is not infallible. We need to be active listeners to any and all teaching from the pulpit.

If a preacher is using Practical Syllogism, we can be remembering Christ's atoning work for us and taking into account that it's the Holy Spirit that makes us holy. That always needs to be on our minds. It is good to be exhorted and told how to live as long as we remember who secured our salvation and who is sanctifying us by His grace. Then we realize we are free to live in a righteous way.

At the same time, if a preacher is not very practical in his approach, we have the responsibility of searching our own hearts, and making our calling and election sure as those doctrines are taught to us from the pulpit.

 

[rescuedbyLove]

 

[Wannabee]

Charlie,

I think what you're witnessing is what becomes popular. For instance, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" did not leave people with assurance. It left them trembling and crying out, "What must I do to be saved?!" These are the types of sermons that burst upon our conscience and expose the lies we strive to hide deep inside. They are memorable. But Washer has some excellent teaching on assurance and perseverance. Of course, these are necessarily tied with examining one's self. Just take a look at 1 John, not to mention most of Paul's epistles. All confront the saint with a need for a walk that reflects the salvation they claim. And MacArthur teaches on assurance as well.
There's also some psychobabble that tends to infiltrate our thinking. For instance, would you rather challenge someone on their salvation and find out in eternity that they were already saved, or take it for granted and find out they weren't? The answer is obvious, but in our thin skinned and self-focused society that's not a popular way of thinking. It's too "insensitive." Furthermore modern ideas would tell you that you need to complement people or tell them what they've done right more often than show them their sin or tell them what they should not do. But this is not the norm of Scripture. The commandments are overwhelmingly "Thou shalt not," not "Thou shalt." 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."

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. As Josef Tson said, a preacher once remarked that his people wouldn't buy that we are slaves of Christ, so he sold them what they would buy.

 

[Bern]

It was through Paul Washer that God led me to the Reformed view, to embrace Calvinism and to set my sights higher in terms of being a good husband, increasing in practical holiness and increasing my view of God. Like any man, he's not perfect... but I appreciate his ministry. Its easy to nit pick, but until I've lived in hard conditions in Peru, and been through what he has, and preached the way he has, I'll keep my criticisms to myself

 

[CharlieJ]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Knoxienne]

It was through Paul Washer that God led me to the Reformed view, to embrace Calvinism and to set my sights higher in terms of being a good husband, increasing in practical holiness and increasing my view of God. Like any man, he's not perfect... but I appreciate his ministry. Its easy to nit pick, but until I've lived in hard conditions in Peru, and been through what he has, and preached the way he has, I'll keep my criticisms to myself

Exactly. I remember a sermon where he said one preacher down there had goat urine poured on him by people who got angry at his preaching. I know there are worse types of persecution even than that, but you're right - he's seen and been through a lot. And it's made him love Christ more.

 

[LawrenceU]

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.

Yep. Roast Preacher is a popular internet dish.

 

[CharlieJ]

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."

 

[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.

 

[ReformedChapin]

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

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[tdowns]

What's a better christian life?

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!

 

[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.

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,

 

[wendy]

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.

in my opinion, 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

 

[BradyC]

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

 

[Wannabee]

For those looking for assurance...
[video=youtube;yK0wks-0DGc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0wks-0DGc&feature=related[/video]

 

[Gesetveemet]

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:

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

 

[Matthias]

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:

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...