Paul Washer mentions 20 percent of conservative reformed congregants saved

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've heard Alister Begg make similar distinctions, even my dear former opc pastor ...

I'm not starting this thread to stir up anxiety, but look at all the young, restless and reformed whose correct theology has ultimately left them cold. If we believe in perseverance why are so many falling prey to the spirit of the times? I'm sure there are distinctions between fruitful Christians, Christians who show less fruit but still saved, and those who are merely seeking an insurance policy and see no need for a true and radical change and deliverance from their sin and unbelief ...they are not the least uncomfortable in the midst of unbelievers.
As for myself, it is not till I've been afflicted do I understand how low Jesus truly ranks... My self love just begs for a good chastisement sometimes
One big problem today is that many Christian know a lot of theology, but do not apply it and incorporate into their lives.
 
Is Brother Washer right to teach "everybody talking about heaven ain't going there?" Yes, God's Word makes this point. Is he right to challenge listeners as to whether they are truly resting and trusting in Christ? Yes, the Bible does the same. How about marks of a true Christian and grounds of assurance? Yes, again, Scriptures do.

But listen to this sermon (and almost all of his) and you'll hear much talk about the expressions of particular emotions (weeping, especially) as being expected, if not necessary, for true Christians. He needs carefully to read Edwards's Religious Affections and see the distinctions that Edwards makes ("affections" aren't emotions simpliciter). I cite someone that I know he respects; Washer's discussion of this is far less careful than Edwards's.

In general, for all he does that is good and helpful, this dear brother seems to address the matters of the faith too much through the lens of his own spiritual experience. Thus his reading of Scripture is not sufficiently focused on Christ and the gospel and too much on our apprehension of it (he needs more of an emphasis on historia salutis and a bit less on ordo salutis).

This leads him to be less charitable than he should be: he sees the evident shortcomings of Christian professors and concludes that perhaps they are not really Christians. Some are probably not. Others are likely weak Christians. Rather than trying to distinguish he should challenge all, whatever their profession, to trust Christ and to manifest that trust in a life of obedience. It's a little too easy, and too easy on preachers, to conclude that all who may seriously struggle are probably not Christians.

As I said, this is a bit too facile and is not in accord with the historic Reformed view of the iudicium caritatis: I accept your orthodox profession and outward obedience, requiring neither particular religious experience nor a narrative of grace relating such. I am not saying that Paul Washer requires such explicitly, yet he speaks so much of the expression of "religious emotion" and of the details of his own and others' personal religious experience(s) that one might well infer that such is necessary. More could be said, but I'll stop here for now.

Peace,
Alan
Most of how we respond to the Lord and His salvation to us would be based upon our own personality types, as I can see Jeremiah as the weeping Prophet, but also saw John as son of thunder, so all of us will react differently when saved by God.
 
Last edited:
I've heard Alister Begg make similar distinctions, even my dear former opc pastor ...

I am uncertain, brother, whether you are responding to me or not. My post started with recognizing proper distinctions. I do not object to proper calls for self-examination and regularly give them myself, though always urging listeners to take ten looks at Christ for every look at themselves.

The test is not "are you weeping sufficiently?" That might appeal to a rather less secure and mature sort, but that's neither proper milk nor meat for Christian souls. There are ways to properly challenge auditors to the core of their being while also encouraging them in Christ, ways that will not break the bruised reed and quench the smoking flax.

I would encourage you to ask your current pastor what he thinks of all this (including what I've said here).

Peace,
Alan
 
I am uncertain, brother, whether you are responding to me or not. My post started with recognizing proper distinctions. I do not object to proper calls for self-examination and regularly give them myself, though always urging listeners to take ten looks at Christ for every look at themselves.

The test is not "are you weeping sufficiently?" That might appeal to a rather less secure and mature sort, but that's neither proper milk nor meat for Christian souls. There are ways to properly challenge auditors to the core of their being while also encouraging them in Christ, ways that will not break the bruised reed and quench the smoking flax.

I would encourage you to ask your current pastor what he thinks of all this (including what I've said here).

Peace,
Alan
No, I agree with you entirely. Those who are concerned are highly unlikely to have much to which they should be concerned.
 
On a side note, a friend recently gave me a gift. It was Washer's book on assurance which he recently published through Reformation Heritage. I was actually sort of shocked that he wrote a book on assurance since, in my experience, Brother Washer's ministry has been so famous because he takes away all assurance in every sermon. (I know this is an exaggeration, but you all get my drift, I’m sure.)
 
On a side note, a friend recently gave me a gift. It was Washer's book on assurance which he recently published through Reformation Heritage. I was actually sort of shocked that he wrote a book on assurance since, in my experience, Brother Washer's ministry has been so famous because he takes away all assurance in every sermon. (I know this is an exaggeration, but you all get my drift, I’m sure.)
What does he root our full assurance of salvation into though? As he seems to be into confidence based upon our behavior, and not based upon the finished work of Christ in our stead.
 
What about those of us who are from Scottish or Dutch backgrounds, and do not often show emotion?

Jacob:

Quite so. There is a danger here of confusing temperament and disposition with godliness or thinking that godliness typically affects the emotions in a certain way.

I say this to make no excuses for myself, since I am not one lacking in the waterworks department (though this is seen only by those who know me best, as I tend not to manifest such in public).

We always have to be careful and not make normative what the Lord in His Word does not make normative.

Peace,
Alan
 
What about those of us who are from Scottish or Dutch backgrounds, and do not often show emotion?

The problem isn’t that Washer seems to require weeping in order to judge someone as converted, the problem is that he is requiring something that Scripture does not, for it does not say that “Abraham weeped and it was accounted to him for righteousness”, it simply says that “Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
 
On a side note, a friend recently gave me a gift. It was Washer's book on assurance which he recently published through Reformation Heritage. I was actually sort of shocked that he wrote a book on assurance since, in my experience, Brother Washer's ministry has been so famous because he takes away all assurance in every sermon. (I know this is an exaggeration, but you all get my drift, I’m sure.)

Ha! Oy.

:doh:
 
There is a danger here of confusing temperament and disposition with godliness or thinking that godliness typically affects the emotions in a certain way.

Could this be the residue of American Revivalism in Mr. Washer, staunch Calvinist though he be? (Of course, I fully know that Calvinists historically were not immune to intense revivalistic interests and even obsessions, unfortunately.)
 
Could this be the residue of American Revivalism in Mr. Washer, staunch Calvinist though he be? (Of course, I fully know that Calvinists historically were not immune to intense revivalistic interests and even obsessions, unfortunately.)

I don't know where Washer stands personally on drinking but I've found it helpful in discussions on revivalism. If someone forbids the consumption of alcohol for all people at all times it raises a red flag about his moral theology.
 
I don't know where Washer stands personally on drinking but I've found it helpful in discussions on revivalism. If someone forbids the consumption of alcohol for all people at all times it raises a red flag about his moral theology.

This former teetotaller agrees.
 
Thanks for sharing that video brother!

Reminds me of a quote a heard not to long ago...

"the three greatest wonders of Heaven
will be these: The first will be to see many people there whom I didn’t expect to see. The second will be not to find many church-goers whom I did expect to see. And the third and greatest of all will be to find myself there, knowing what I know of the wickedness of my own heart."

John Newton
 
I used to think differently, but studying through the differences between the OT and the NT, I no longer believe it's the "remnant" in the church that are saved in the NT. I believe Scripture teaches that is one of the differences in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31). Then it was the remnant, but now it's the majority.

The remnant motif is particularly strong throughout the OT because the progressive unfolding of God's promises take place in the midst of repeated failure and rebellion. The grace/promise is manifest in the face of these failures in the preservation of the remnant.

Remnant is what you get when man/leaders/the nation break the covenant that God is determined to keep - and so the remnant anticipates Christ, who will finally keep perfect covenant with God and bring the fullness of God's blessing. Christ through his obedience ushers in the permanent kingdom which would grow from the smallest of seeds to the tallest of trees and overcome/overthrow all the kingdoms of this world; an everlasting kingdom. In Christ, the remnant is established and multiplied - not a remnant but a majority, a thriving household.
 
**Alan's excellent quote**

Peace,
Alan

Yeah I agree with Alan, very good assessment.

If the Apostle James can say 'we are all weak and stumble in many ways' then how careful ought we to be to steer people toward the good shepherd and his sufficiency.

And as a byword, nobody ever shed tears or got emotional because they were told that's what a Christian should be and do if they are serious and the real deal. When the Spirit gives the mind and heart a vision of our sin and the beauty of Christ, then the emotion comes freely. But you only get there by upholding Christ and pointing to Christ, and speaking and explaining from a thousand texts the diverse beauties of Christ, his character and mercy and promises. And even then, it is by the Spirit of God.
 
Our tears or level of contrition does not contribute one ounce to our justification; nor is it normative to expect that. John the Baptist was converted in the womb - how many tears do you think he shed during his conversion "experience" (if he even had one). Paul had a tremendously shocking conversion, whereas Timothy simply grew up in a Christian home and no one really knows when he was converted - we just know that he was. I mean, does the Bible even try to establish a standard experience? No. Not in the slightest. Someone's experience or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are saved or not. The Bible tells us that the criteria to be saved is to BELIEVE. It is to trust in God's provision in the gospel. Now the Bible certainly does flesh out what it really means to BELIEVE. But it does not anywhere present some type of standard conversion experience.
 
I remember Washer one time bemoaning that only certain of his sermons end up on the Internet, and it’s usually the hard-hitting ones. Far as I know he pays little attention to his internet presence and that is on purpose. Of course, this is a problem with your ministry being online—you don’t control the content, and you can’t choose your listeners. What you usually see on YouTube may not even be a fair sampling of his outlook. Though for qualification, I hardly ever listen to him anymore, so how the man is now in outlook and theology I don’t have much idea.
 
I remember Washer one time bemoaning that only certain of his sermons end up on the Internet, and it’s usually the hard-hitting ones. Far as I know he pays little attention to his internet presence and that is on purpose. Of course, this is a problem with your ministry being online—you don’t control the content, and you can’t choose your listeners. What you usually see on YouTube may not even be a fair sampling of his outlook. Though for qualification, I hardly ever listen to him anymore, so how the man is now in outlook and theology I don’t have much idea.

Indeed. I’ve been reading through this thread thinking to myself, “Is this the same Paul Washer I listen to?”

I’ve listened to hours and hours of his preaching, and these critiques of him are nothing similar to what my experience has been.

His ‘shocking’ sermons get all the views, but there is a ton of stuff online that is wonderfully gentle and encouraging to the brothers, full of free grace and heartfelt concern—that is actually the real Paul Washer as far as I can tell.

These so-called ‘shocking’ sermons aren’t the norm.

I’m very disappointed by this thread. Let us not be surprised if on that day, we are absolutely floored by what God has accomplished in and through this brother.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed. I’ve been reading through this thread thinking to myself, “Is this the same Paul Washer I listen to?”

I’ve listened to hours and hours of his preaching, and these critiques of him are nothing similar to what my experience has been.

His ‘shocking’ sermons get all the views, but there is a ton of stuff online that is wonderfully gentle and encouraging to the brothers, full of free grace and heartfelt concern—that is actually the real Paul Washer as far as I can tell.

These so-called ‘shocking’ sermons aren’t the norm.

I’m very disappointed by this thread. Let us not be surprised if on that day, we are absolutely floored by what God has accomplished in and through this brother.

I think all here believe God works wonderfully through the man despite the theological gaps. I wasn’t converted by the 2002 message, but it forced me to rethink what real Christianity is. There is some fairness to the criticism too that he pins a lot on the experience, at least in his explanations, and I myself made the mistake of trying to achieve some of the same ones, which has been debilitating. Of course, my diet early on when I became more serious was a lot of Washer and Ravenhill, some of illbehonest.com, whatever preaching had earnestness and fire to it, and I still didn’t have a good concept of what a solid church was. Still some of our view can be shaped by the fact that Washer doesn’t try to manage what is put out there.
 
Last edited:
What about the more quiet ministry of Word and Sacraments? I'm not saying he doesn't believe that, but the piety of the Reformed tradition is centered on Word and Sacraments, and not on the earnestness of my experience.

That's one of the reasons I don't think he is Reformed.
 
I remember Washer one time bemoaning that only certain of his sermons end up on the Internet, and it’s usually the hard-hitting ones. Far as I know he pays little attention to his internet presence and that is on purpose. Of course, this is a problem with your ministry being online—you don’t control the content, and you can’t choose your listeners. What you usually see on YouTube may not even be a fair sampling of his outlook. Though for qualification, I hardly ever listen to him anymore, so how the man is now in outlook and theology I don’t have much idea.

Entire sermons are available both on youtube, and as transcripts for a quick scrutiny.


Indeed. I’ve been reading through this thread thinking to myself, “Is this the same Paul Washer I listen to?”

I’ve listened to hours and hours of his preaching, and these critiques of him are nothing similar to what my experience has been.

His ‘shocking’ sermons get all the views, but there is a ton of stuff online that is wonderfully gentle and encouraging to the brothers, full of free grace and heartfelt concern—that is actually the real Paul Washer as far as I can tell.

These so-called ‘shocking’ sermons aren’t the norm.

I’m very disappointed by this thread. Let us not be surprised if on that day, we are absolutely floored by what God has accomplished in and through this brother.

Legal preaching tends to one of two outcomes: self-righteousness, or despair.

We should not be surprised when, on a confessionally reformed forum, members question or critique a failure to preach the whole counsel of God. We especially should not be surprised at the challenge that our assurance has its firm ground in Christ's objective work for us. Though our good works can and do encourage and assure us, they must never take the place of our true, sure ground.
 
What about those of us who are from Scottish or Dutch backgrounds, and do not often show emotion?
What is ironic to me is that the most emotional churches would be the full blown Charasmatics, and doubt very much that he would see much of what is being done in the name of Jesus in those groups as producing very much fruit.
 
Thanks for sharing that video brother!

Reminds me of a quote a heard not to long ago...

"the three greatest wonders of Heaven
will be these: The first will be to see many people there whom I didn’t expect to see. The second will be not to find many church-goers whom I did expect to see. And the third and greatest of all will be to find myself there, knowing what I know of the wickedness of my own heart."

John Newton

This quote doesn't seem to suppprt Washer's tendency to preach works-grounded assurance. Rather, it seems the opposite.
 
I wonder how much Washer's baptistic ecclesiology plays into this. Only the elect are church members, and since we can visibly identify church members (and presumably those who aren't), then we can know who is saved.

Brother, with all due respect, this isn't even remotely an accurate or fair representation of Baptist ecclesiology in general or Paul Washer's ecclesiology specifically.

Baptists do not believe that "only the elect are church members". We believe that "only the regenerate elect are members of the New Covenant".

We are well aware that there are unregenerate false-brethren who have made professions of faith and exist among us in the visible church.

No Baptist worth his salt thinks that we can know who is regenerate and who is not.
 
Baptists do not believe that "only the elect are church members". We believe that "only the regenerate elect are members of the New Covenant".
We are well aware that there are unregenerate false-brethren who have made professions of faith and exist among us in the visible church.
No Baptist worth his salt thinks that we can know who is regenerate and who is not.

Of course what you say is true. I mean it is an accurate representation of Baptist belief. I'm no Baptist, but when the other team scores you gotta give him a point. :)
 
Indeed. I’ve been reading through this thread thinking to myself, “Is this the same Paul Washer I listen to?”

I’ve listened to hours and hours of his preaching, and these critiques of him are nothing similar to what my experience has been.

His ‘shocking’ sermons get all the views, but there is a ton of stuff online that is wonderfully gentle and encouraging to the brothers, full of free grace and heartfelt concern—that is actually the real Paul Washer as far as I can tell.

These so-called ‘shocking’ sermons aren’t the norm.

I’m very disappointed by this thread. Let us not be surprised if on that day, we are absolutely floored by what God has accomplished in and through this brother.

I very much liked the several sermons I have heard byPaul Washer. Just last night I listened to one of his more emotional (or convicting as the case may be) and loved it and cried through some of it, but my wife didn't. To each his own-in some foreign language for effect.
 
I’m very disappointed by this thread. Let us not be surprised if on that day, we are absolutely floored by what God has accomplished in and through this brother.

I don't think anyone on this thread has denied that God has done mighty things through this brother. I myself said above that I believe I was converted through his "Shocking Youth Message." However, just because someone has been used mightily by God, and just because what is being critiqued isn't this person's norm, doesn't mean the person is beyond or above critique, or that the critiques are illegitimate, or that they don't need to be made. Nobody is arguing that his entire ministry is worthless. We are just focusing on a particular facet of this man's preaching emphasis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top