RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I've never read much of Paul Washer. I keep seeing guys praise him for making you feel horrible. I don't know if that is true, but how would he present assurance of salvation?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Perhaps consider this as a request for one of your awesome book reviews:
Gospel Assurance and Warnings - Recovering the Gospel (Washer)
Puritan and Reformed books at discounted prices.www.heritagebooks.org
I used to listen to Paul Washer a lot and my take away was that while he often emphasised the need for the new birth, evidenced by a radically changed nature, he acknowledged that the evidences of grace may be weak. He also urged that the Christian's bedrock confidence is always and only Christ by His merits.
I don't recall Washer's preaching making me feel rubbish personally, though I realise that may be the case for some. I have benefited greatly from his sermons and am very thankful for helping direct me in the earlier days of my faith. I recall a series of sermons on 1 John helping me greatly in assurance.
Yes, sometimes in zeal to convict and reprove I think Washer has gone too far. He admits this himself. But on the whole I think the conviction that his preaching brings is good for self examination and looking to Jesus.
That’s his signature passage right? Like Keller with the Prodigal Son?I found Washer very helpful years ago on 1 John. Good balance on what are the marks, accounting for remaining sin.
If Washer says what Ryle says in "Holiness" then he can't possibly be wrong since "Holiness" is like the 67th book of the Bible.I just borrowed the audiobook from my library. I do plan to do a critical review of it (if Washer is saying what I think he is saying and what is fans say he is saying, I am not a fan), but it won't be super analytical because I won't be able to refer to page numbers.
I think I remember seeing a video where he said that the "Shocking Youth Message!" was a bit unbalanced. It was extemporaneous remarks in response to some kids goofing off that ended up going viral.I’ll be interested in reading your review. Based on what I’d seen from YouTube, I pigeonholed him as being very lopsided in his theology but he posted a library tour in the last year that was very balanced in my estimation. I think his whole “persona” is more of a reflection of what gets views on YouTube rather than of his actual ministry.
That’s his signature passage right? Like Keller with the Prodigal Son?
This booklet by Prof (and pastor) David Engelsma may shed some light on assurance:
Which of these do you take issue with?I just glanced over the chapter headings in his book on assurance from the link, under Part 1: Biblical Assurance. Look at all the self works in those headings.
View attachment 8438
That statement my friend, is a blatant lie and ought to be retracted. Washer has never taught a meritorious justification through "enough obedience". You really should be more thorough in the statements you make of others, because this forum takes the ninth commandment seriously. And I would not be surprised if your post sends this thread (mind you, OP had good intentions with his inquiry) into oblivion and argument.he beats them with continual striving after obedience to maybe someday hopefully get to a spot where God might be pleased and accepting of them.
Thank you. I plan to read it. Does he deal with Washer?
Where does Engelsma expound this?refuting the view that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification
No, Jacob,
But he deals with a view that many of the Puritans held – and possibly Beeke, and Washer – that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification, and is given to very few but the more advanced saints. Engelsma vigorously refutes this view – using Scripture – saying that assurance is given along with justification, as a gift of love for the elect, that they may know their Father and the Son and have eternal life in them (John 17:3). He considers the Puritan view a cruel and harmful misrepresentation.
Steve posted a link to Engelsma's book in post #14 above.Where does Engelsma expound this?
This is just plain false.Paul Washer is not a Calvinist, though he may claim that. He is Arminian. Instead of comforting his people with Christ's active obedience, he beats them with continual striving after obedience to maybe someday hopefully get to a spot where God might be pleased and accepting of them. It is the complete opposite of the gospel.
If you’re going to throw Washer under the bus on the topic, then consistency demands that you throw Dr Beeke under the bus along with him. RHB published it, and Beeke could hardly have given it a more glowing recommendation. In his endorsement, Beeke refers to this book as “tremendously helpful,” “masterful,” and “sweet help for God’s children.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let me point out that the Synod of Dort also taught that assurance admits degrees and is dependent upon holiness.refuting the view that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification
No, Jacob,
But he deals with a view that many of the Puritans held – and possibly Beeke, and Washer – that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification, and is given to very few but the more advanced saints. Engelsma vigorously refutes this view – using Scripture – saying that assurance is given along with justification, as a gift of love for the elect, that they may know their Father and the Son and have eternal life in them (John 17:3). He considers the Puritan view a cruel and harmful misrepresentation.
Which of these do you take issue with?