Paul Washer: False teacher? Wrong on justification?

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

Preface: It is widely acknowledged on this board (but not in the wider Christianity) that to be reformed means you are a paedobaptist, you hold to the RPW, and subscribe 100% to the 3FU or WCF. And any one who is a credobaptist whether he is Macarthurite, a Particular baptist, a 1689 Covenantal baptist or a Reformed charismatic, are all NOT REFORMED. Thus I myself am content to be labeled as a Particular baptist . However, let us also appreciate that "Calvinism" or "reformed" is frequently referred to by broad evangelicalism as believing in Sovereign Grace / TULIP. Thus, Paul Washer is often referred to as "Reformed" by broad evangelicalism, whereas by PB's own definition, Washer is NOT reformed at all.

Now having listened to these two radio broadcasts, I am even more content to be called a particular baptist, instead of having the label "reformed" - if indeed being "reformed" produces such slanderous evaluation of Paul Washer.

The question for those who listen to this broadcast, and for those who have not but are interested is: "Does Mr Adam Kaloostian and John Sawtelle represent the Reformed faith well in their evaluation of Paul Washer?
EDIT: For those who want to get to the "gold", 21 minutes onwards = their qualm with justification.
[video=youtube;7tMLOxtHCNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tMLOxtHCNQ[/video]
Episode 18 | Paul Washer is NOT Reformed, Part Two - Sinners and Saints Radio 3.0 - YouTube

I would love to hear the views of those who are TRULY reformed (Paedobaptists, 3FU/WCF-ers) on these broadcasts.
**Bryan Peters from this board has already refuted some of their egregious and injurious mistakes on their facebook page. But Messrs Kaloostian and Sawtelle are unrepentant.

 

[Mushroom]

While I appreciate your zeal in defending his Reformed bona fides, Michael, I tend to think that maybe Washer himself is not so very concerned about them himself. It appears to me that he has other more pressing business to attend to.

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

While I appreciate your zeal in defending his Reformed bona fides, Michael, I tend to think that maybe Washer himself is not so very concerned about them himself. It appears to me that he has other more pressing business to attend to.

Dear Brad,
This thread is not about primarily about brother Paul. It is about what those who are truly reformed, and what they believe concerning justification and sanctification. It is about whether those on this board endorse this kind of mud-slinging, misquoting, ad-hominem, uncharitable and dishonest approach which messrs Kaloostian and Sawtelle have aptly demonstrated in these two episodes.

You see, if a preacher gets justification wrong, he is in Galatians 1 territory. Let me submit, if Paul Washer has got the gospel wrong (As Kaloostian and Sawtelle vehemently argues), then He is ANATHEMA. Yes, Anathema. Argh, even listening to their podcast has just made me incredibly averse to reformed theology - if this is the fruit of it!!

 

[MW]

It is about whether those on this board endorse this kind of mud-slinging, misquoting, ad-hominem, uncharitable and dishonest approach which messrs Kaloostian and Sawtelle have aptly demonstrated in these two episodes.

You ask if people on this board will endorse mud-slinging, etc., but by linking to the file you have encouraged the people on this board to listen to it. Presumably, by linking to this file, you desire people to spend the 49 minutes necessary to listen to it; but your strong criticism suggests people should not listen to it.

It is odd that a single 49 minute presentation should make an individual averse to reformed theology.

An emotional response to the issue is not really going to help people to see what the problem is.

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

It is about whether those on this board endorse this kind of mud-slinging, misquoting, ad-hominem, uncharitable and dishonest approach which messrs Kaloostian and Sawtelle have aptly demonstrated in these two episodes.

You ask if people on this board will endorse mud-slinging, etc., but by linking to the file you have encouraged the people on this board to listen to it. Presumably, by linking to this file, you desire people to spend the 49 minutes necessary to listen to it; but your strong criticism suggests people should not listen to it.

It is odd that a single 49 minute presentation should make an individual averse to reformed theology.

An emotional response to the issue is not really going to help people to see what the problem is.

I am hoping that people who have listened extensively to Washer could also listen to these broadcasts and share their thoughts.
I am intentionally provoking a visceral response from the "Truly reformed". Because I do want you guys to listen to this!! This radio show has been mentioned in past PB threads, with quite a few board members who reportedly enjoyed watching it. Now, seeing as these two broadcasts occurred last month, and there seems to be NOTHING from the entire reformed blogging/online community, I thought I might try PB.

My strong criticism can be absolutely wrong. I have listened to Washer and have noted things which I don't 100% agree with. I also note that much of what he says should be qualified with more Scriptural references so as not to confuse people (i.e. on the use of facebook, technology, computer games, dressing, Courtship, worldliness, sensuality).

It is NOT odd that two consecutive publicbroadcasts by highly reformed men, ordained officers of the URC and RPCNA should turn someone off reformed theology. "Wisdom is justified by her children" said our Lord. And if this is the fruit of reformed theology (which I hope it is not!), then that is a very sobering thought indeed. I am hoping that other reformed men may also express their horror at such a perversion on so many levels by "reformed" pastors from very respectable URC and RPCNA denominations.

I agree that an emotional response will not help. That is why I hope those who regularly watch this show, and those who are interested (especially those belonging to the URC and RPCNA) may share their thoughts. After all, Is this type of broadcast typical of reformed people?

 

[One Little Nail]

Preface: It is widely acknowledged on this board (but not in the wider Christianity) that to be reformed means you are a paedobaptist, you hold to the RPW, and subscribe 100% to the 3FU or WCF. And any one who is a credobaptist whether he is Macarthurite, a Particular baptist, a 1689 Covenantal baptist or a Reformed charismatic, are all NOT REFORMED. Thus I myself am content to be labeled as a Particular baptist . However, let us also appreciate that "Calvinism" or "reformed" is frequently referred to by broad evangelicalism as believing in Sovereign Grace / TULIP. Thus, Paul Washer is often referred to as "Reformed" by broad evangelicalism, whereas by PB's own definition, Washer is NOT reformed at all.

I totally agree with you there on your assessment that Immersionists are not Reformed, The American Dutch
Reformed folk have been saying this for awhile, its an Oxymoron.
I now ask all Baptists everywhere to give up the usage of the Term Reformed & return it to the Presbyterian &
Reformed Church's for their exclusive use, We Reformed folk Thank You for your Co-operation.

 

[psycheives]

Dear Brother Michael,

As a Truly Reformed confessional believer who has lived in the MacArthurite baptist world for many years, I hope I can shed some light on your concerns.

You say, "Now having listened to these two radio broadcasts, I am even more content to be called a particular baptist, instead of having the label "reformed" - if indeed being "reformed" produces such slanderous evaluation of Paul Washer." I would gladly and lovingly call you a "Reformed Baptist" since you hold to the LBC1689. Not "Reformed" alone but "Reformed Baptist" or "Particular Baptist" in order to distinguish the slight differences in our theology. Many Reformed Baptists go to my seminary and we love and respect one another as holders of reformed theology in general. Glad to consider you "one of us" in that sense. Hold to the label because it represents "truth" and don't lose it because of the sinful behavior of some brothers in Christ. Truth is more important than that.

I see you called their evaluation "slanderous" but I cannot agree with your evaluation/accusation. It seems you and I would certainly agree it was "ungracious" but they have a valid point that should properly be heard and understood. It seems you may have not understood the distinction they were teaching.

You ask: "The question for those who listen to this broadcast: "Does Mr Adam Kaloostian and John Sawtelle represent the Reformed faith well in their evaluation of Paul Washer?""

Does their lack of graciousness represent Reformed believers? I think you already know the answer. Just as everything sin your commit doesn't represent all Particular Baptists, certainly this is true of Reformers as well. OF COURSE you can't say "these two men were ungracious so ALL Reformed people must be ungracious." Such a stereotype itself would be ungracious! Just as if one day you cut someone off while driving, no one should make the assumption "All Particular Baptists are bad drivers." Silly, right? But I understand the program offended you and so you probably don't actually think this at all. Yes, I was very saddened by what I perceived to be "disrespectful and mocking tones."

So let's get to the real heart of your question and concern. Is their point valid? "Does Mr Adam Kaloostian and John Sawtelle represent the Reformed faith well in their evaluation of Paul Washer?"" And to this, I respond: ABSOLUTELY! I used to not understand the distinction between MacArthurites/Southern Baptists and Reformed but like these men say "The Southern Baptists certainly do!" And you should be very concerned because the differences ABSOLUTELY MATTER. This is not like you and me differing on baptism. You're still my brother and you still hold the gospel and to most of reformed theology too. The two pastors are 100% correct when they say these Baptists are teaching a modified form of "works salvation" and "works sanctification" that are disastrous to the Christian life.

TRANSCRIPTION OF AUDIO (Their words, not mine):

REFORMED VIEW: (24:00) Justification is a legal declaration and it includes imputation of Christ's righteousness on my account and the pardon of sin through Christ's shed blood.

BAPTIST VIEW: (24:40) Saved through faith alone. The evidence of your salvation is by repentance. He claims justification by faith alone but then immediately gets into fruit evidence thing.

(26:25-31:00) On what basis are you rewarded and secure? Is it the imputed righteousness of Christ? Or my repentance I am working after receiving forgiveness of my sins passively. How are you saved? Washer blames preachers for not speaking enough about the fruit of repentance.

JUSTIFICATION. Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal of sinners who believe in Christ from all sin, through the satisfaction that Christ has made. It is given not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but, on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receive and rest on Him and His righteousness by faith.

There is no mention of WHAT obedience is being referred to here. As Reformed, we understand there are two: the active obedience of Christ and the passive obedience of Christ imputed on our account. In Reformed theology, it is the active obedience that is imputed on my account. But on the website, there is ZERO mention of the active obedience of Christ (Christ’s righteousness) being imputed to us. This absence shows up in his preaching. The omission of this concept reinforces a false gospel. He does NOT preach the active obedience of Christ PERIOD. This changes how we understand repentance. When you read someone who suppresses the active obedience of Christ being imputed to you, he will smuggle works right in the back door.

They usually don’t understand the active obedience of Christ. They don’t know how vital this is for a proper righteousness of Christ on their account, they are saved right? Absolutely!

With Washer, you wonder if anyone is ever saved. How can he shy away from saying “If you trust his perfect obedience to the law where he earned heavens rewards for you, then you are saved.” He would say “I do preach that but I’m just focusing on the fact that so many people think they are saved because they prayed the sinner’s prayer.” Yes, it is true there are many Christians that think they are saved but are not, the medicine isn’t to kill them with the law until they clean up their act like me. The assurance of salvation is that you have the level of holiness he has. It produces total despair and hopelessness or you think you achieved and it produces the grosses pharisaical self-righteousness.

The medicine is to breach the real gospel. Of course preach the law but preach the full gospel. This will affect hearts.

He replaces the active obedience of Jesus Christ with the sinners striving after obedience and constantly repenting. So you end up getting the gospel through perpetual repentance. That is Arminianism!​

I stopped listening at 37mins because their evaluation thus far is 100% true. The pastors are absolutely correct. These Bapist men are Arminians in theology with the 5 points of Calvinism and a high view of God's sovereignty over suffering slapped on. Despite their ungraciousness, these pastors are speaking the truth and are seeing a grave error that many MacArthurites/Southern Baptists never realize. Some of us have escaped these horribly legalistic self-righteous churches that some weeks preach ONLY law and scare everyone into "doing works" with a "boot in the butt" to "make you move". They emphasize negative fear and boot-in-butt motivation rather than positive motivation out of love/respect for God and Christ. The "works sanctification" method these Baptists teach sounds to me like what John Piper calls "the Galatian heresy" in his Galatians Ch 3-4 sermons. You MUST understand these two theologies are worlds apart.

No offense meant, but I see MacArthur as teaching the same thing. He confuses justification by faith alone (which he intends to teach) but accidentally teaches "justification by faith plus repentance." I hope this helps you and you can truly understand this message. It is essential. If this causes you trouble, try reading Michael Horton's book "Christ The Lord" to understand the differences in theology. He critiques MacArthur's teachings (which sound the same as Washers). These pastors are correct when they say that this will destroy your spiritual life. They are also correct when they say that Washer (and MacArthur, etc) use human works to earn rewards in heaven and earn favor with God (legalism) and to give themselves assurance of salvation THROUGH human works primarily. MacArthur's book "Saved Without A Doubt" is exactly this teaching - 11 steps to give yourself assurance based on "how good a Christian you have been" or "what experiences you have had." It is Arminianism to the core.

FYI... I looked at Washer's website where it is claimed he holds to the LBC1689 but it is clear he does not. His teachings on the sacraments is absolutely contrary to the LBC. He teaches a dead commemorative only sacrament, while Reformers and Reformed Baptists both teach a "means of grace" sacrament in which we TRULY to partake of Jesus via faith. We hold John Calvin's view. They hold Zwingli's view.

 

[Herald]

FYI... I looked at Washer's website where it is claimed he holds to the LBC1689 but it is clear he does not. His teachings on the sacraments is absolutely contrary to the LBC. He teaches a dead commemorative only sacrament, while Reformers and Reformed Baptists both teach a "means of grace" sacrament in which we TRULY to partake of Jesus via faith. We hold John Calvin's view. They hold Zwingli's view.

Are you sure about this? Here is what the HeartCry Missionary Society website says about the Lord's Supper:

The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be administered with bread and wine and to be observed by His churches till the end of the world. It is in no sense a sacrifice, but is designed to commemorate His death; to confirm the faith of Christians; and to be a bond, pledge, and renewal of their communion with Him and of their church fellowship.

If the Lord's Supper confirms the faith of Christians, that is not a "dead commemorative only sacrament".

 

[Eoghan]

Is this really representative of Presbyterian Churches? I am a Baptist and I would call myself "reformed". Given the choice between Arminian General Baptist churches and Presbyterian Churches which are genuinely reformed I know which way I would jump.

Listening to these two guys dissecting Paul Washer's doctrine of justification I think they must have failed to read James. I think they are being too critical, the balance of emphasis between their ministry and Paul Washer's will differ! We will always fail to match any individuals preferred emphasis but we should be gracious and not argue from silence. Besides I think the emphasis of Paul Washer's ministry is to be Biblical rather than anything else. He will not lose any sleep over the loss of the title "Reformed" I don't know that he has ever been caught describing himself as reformed has he? I think that is the basis that on which I relate to him.

Were they to direct their attention to reformed theologians such as Wayne Grudem a much more valid question is can you be reformed (WCF/LBC)and a continuationist? (that has been answered in the negative on this board)

 

[davdavis]

Obviously the question of how tightly we draw our definition of the word "Reformed". I personally would say many Reformed Baptists that I have known are soteriologically and Christologically Reformed. I would say they were not Ecclesiastically and Sacramentally Reformed. Naturally they would disagree.(in fact I've seen a RB work describing themselves as the only consistently Reformed.) Thus my position would be that they are not consistent with the Reformed position as it is historically defined. (sadly I could say the same of many Presbyterians.) Another difficulty is that it that Reformed Baptist are so diverse in belief. Are dispensationalist "RB" reformed? Are Jon Zens and those who express extreme separation between the Covenants reformed, are Primitive Baptist? I have a great love for my Reformed Baptist Brethren and I would say they are albeit inconsistently Reformed. My guess is that they feel the same about me.

David Davis
PCA
Montgomery, AL
http://ddav-mynewsandviews.blogspot.com/

 

[Herald]

MODERATORS NOTE: This thread was started with the intention of provoking a negative response. That is not a good way to stimulating God-honoring discussion. This thread is being closed. The subject of Paul Washer being Reformed can be taken up in another thread that is begun with honest intentions.