A Reformed Revival: Critiquing a Short Paragraph Uttered by Uber-Evangelical Paul Washer

Friends,

Paul Washer is a preacher. I hear about him seemingly everywhere. Many hail him as the latest in a long line prophetic preachers who are going to change the world with their powerful voice by calling the church to reform. He is hailed as being extremely orthodox, although others have pointed out some inconsistencies  (see, A Message Charles Finney Would Have Love; Calminianism) in his teaching. He is venerated as a powerful voice amongst Reformed Evangelicals. He is a compelling speaker. I came across this little segment just this evening at Reformed Voices:

“You see young men listen to me, there is a reformation going on in this country. There is a real reformation. I’m not talking about the church growth six flags over Jesus entertainment type of reformation or revival. I’m not talking about the media charismatic type of revival. But I travel all over this country, I travel all over the world, I visit many universities and I am seeing quite an amazing thing, that even in secular universities when I go there to speak, I see 100-150 young men and women reading Edwards and Spurgeon and more importantly the Apostle Paul and reading him rightly. There is a reformation occurring. And God has done it, and He will do it.”

I don’t mean to be a wet blanket to Mr Washer’s enthusiasm and conviction, but what?!? This paragraph is absolutely meaningless and I am surprised that the normally carefully written Reformed Voices blog even posted it.

First, what does ‘reading Edwards and Spurgeon’ have to do with ‘real reformation’? All that tells me is that there are a group of people in the world who have done nothing to acclimate themselves to the year 2008. Oh sure, Spurgeon and Edwards said some wonderfully Biblical and profoundly powerful things in their day, many of which are still, amazingly, relevant. But is Mr Washer really saying that in order for God to do ‘it’ (reformation) all he requires is for the church to start reading the works of Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon? This is naive at best; myopic at worst. This takes the burden off of every preacher to do the real work of study and places it squarely in the laps of several hundred year old men. Easy enough for me! Furthermore, this tells me that there is a group of people who think that current day authors and theologians and preacher have discovered nothing new, nothing better, and have nothing fresh to say about the way we do church in 2008 America. Or, that these kids have college professors who are making them read those authors.

Second, what, only 100-150 out of all the people he sees in his ‘worldwide’ and ‘countrywide’ travels are getting this reformation going and, furthermore, not because God’s Holy Spirit has taken hold of them with a conviction for justice, compassion for the poor, love of Messiah, and creativity in ministry–but because they are reading the tired, verbose writings of Edwards and Spurgeon? Seriously? Is that all it takes, because if it is, I’m going to Amazon or Christian Classics Ethereal Library in the morning and downloading a copy of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and preach that instead of preaching a long-winded sermon from Mark and Luke’s Gospel. In fact, I’ll just photocopy some Spurgeon and pass it out to the congregation and sit back and enjoy the morning. No point in doing the hard work of study for myself when Spurgeon and Edwards have it all worked out for us now is there?*

Third, while I am glad there are young men and women reading Paul ‘correctly’ I have to confess that I am a bit confused. (Unless Mr Washer means people are reading Paul Washer correctly, and then I understand perfectly. 🙂 ) Still, here’s my point. Paul the apostle wrote, what, 13 of the books of the Bible. There are 66 books. That means Paul did not write 53 of them. So, my question is, are these 100-150 young men and women around the world also reading Isaiah correctly? What about Leviticus? What about Malachi? What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? How about the Psalms? What about reading the Bible Jesus read? There’s a great big Bible to be read and thinking that we need only read 13 of the books is rather, well, insulting. And ‘correctly’? Well who makes that judgment? If by correctly he means ‘in a Calvin’ sort of way then I know a whole host of people who will contend they are reading Paul, actually, incorrectly. If by correctly he means ‘in a pre-millenial’ sort of way then I know even more people who will contend they are reading incorrectly. If he means ‘in a Church of Christ a-cappella’ sort of way, then others will contend they are reading it wrongly. If in an ‘Amish’ sort of way, again others. If by correctly he means ‘in a Catholic’ sort of way…well, you get the picture.

NT Wright said it this way, “The Bible is there to enable God’s people to be equipped to do God’s work in God’s world, not to give them an excuse to sit back smugly, knowing they possess all God’s truth” (Simply Christian, 184) He also wrote, “Listening to God’s voice in scripture doesn’t put us in the position of having infallible opinions. It puts us where it put Jesus himself: in possession of a vocation, whether for a lifetime or for the next minute. Vocations are fragile, and are tested in performance. That’s what it’s like to live at the intersection of heaven and earth.” (Simply Christian, 189)

Look, I understand perfectly well what Mr Washer is saying and trying to get across, but the fact of the matter is, the majority of Churches in America already hold to a ‘correct’ reading of Paul. What Mr Washer has done is, at least judging by this quote, look at a few radical cases and assume that is the norm for every church that he is not preaching in, to, or at. There are so many orthodox teachers and preachers it isn’t even funny, Bible Colleges are filled to the brim with orthodoxy. There are blogs, websites, Evangelical Associations, magazines, journals, bookstores, publishing houses. I mean the list possibly might never end. What orthodoxy are we lacking? What orthodoxy needs reformed? I defy this notion that the church needs to be constantly reforming because this assumes that the church can be reformed simply by changing our doctrines around every so often–as long as those doctrines go backward, achingly, several hundred years to John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, or Charles Spurgeon. It’s not doctrines that must change in the church, it is the people of God who must change. And people will not be changed, necessarily, by reading Edwards or Spurgeon. I think this call for constant reformation is simply a way to keep the people calling for constant reformation employed thus enabling them to avoid the hard work of being involved in the broken, hurting, lives of the sick, poor, and lost. Endless debate; beginningless service.

I contend: The church is not lacking in orthodoxy. The church is lacking in orthopraxy. The church, Mr Washer, knows too much for its own good. We can recite the catechisms, the confessions, the creeds. We can tell you about TULIP and Arminian theology. We have whole systems of theology. Countless books are published daily on orthodox subjects. It’s neverending. We can spout off a hundred different millenialisms. The church has even developed several different atonement theories–all based on Scripture (perhaps Paul) no less! We know ‘books of the Bible, John 3:16, we’ve got the biggest King James you’ve ever seen’ (to paraphrase an old Amy Grant song called, Fat Little Baby.) We are not lacking in outrage at those so-called media churches and clown preachers. We are not lacking in materials to study or copies of the Scripture Mr Washer. But I’ll say this loudly for all to hear, for any who will listen: If the Church wants true, biblical, radical reformation we must learn how to love. “I’m not talking about the six flags over Jesus entertainment type of love or love. I’m not talking about the media charismatic type of love.” I’m talking about hardcore, radical, love your enemies and those who hate you kind of love. I’m talking about ‘getting your hands dirty’ kind of love. I’m talking about loving the least of the least, the lowest of the low, the unloveliest of the unlovely.

I would be more impressed if those 100-150 young people, sitting around reading Edwards and Spurgeon, took Edwards and Spurgeon to heart and instead went outside the library or the dorm room, and loved someone in the Name of Jesus. Maybe they are! If they are, that should be Mr Washer’s message. How did I hear it said the other day? Oh, yes: We must not be so heavenly minded that we are of no earthly good; and we must not be so earthly minded that we are of no heavenly good. Would that the world heard we were more interested in justice, mercy, compassion, and love than we were in the writings of dead theologians.

Here’s what Isaiah said about Judah’s orthodoxy:

 11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
       what are they to me?” says the LORD.
       “I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
       of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
       I have no pleasure
       in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

 12 When you come to appear before me,
       who has asked this of you,
       this trampling of my courts?

 13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
       Your incense is detestable to me.
       New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
       I cannot bear your evil assemblies.

 14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
       my soul hates.
       They have become a burden to me;
       I am weary of bearing them.

 15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
       I will hide my eyes from you;
       even if you offer many prayers,
       I will not listen.
       Your hands are full of blood;

 16 wash and make yourselves clean.
       Take your evil deeds
       out of my sight!
       Stop doing wrong,

 17 learn to do right!
       Seek justice,
       encourage the oppressed. 
       Defend the cause of the fatherless,
       plead the case of the widow.

They said all the right things, believed all the right things, practiced all the right religious things, and offered up as much sacrifice as they could. Still they were empty and God judged them harshly. Why? Because they did not practice what they preached; they didn’t know how to love. They didn’t love. They loved neither God nor neighbor. In fact, Isaiah begins by pointing out their lack of God-centeredness and goes on to point out how this led to the inevitable destruction of their neighbors and untold suffering and eventual exile. In other words, it’s possible to love people without loving God, but it’s impossible to love God without loving people. Mr Washer: We do not need Edwards and Spurgeon, great, honest, and orthodox as they may be. We need to learn how to love: Our neighbors, our enemies, one another, those who hate us, and God himself.

Mr Washer needs to ‘get out of Paul’ for a day or two and get into Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Then again, it is much easier I suppose to stand and rattle off doctrine. It’s much hard to be confronted with the radical Jesus of Nazareth. Much easier to preach unassailable doctrines than it is to be vulnerable to infection, disease, broken hearts, weakness, etc., etc., etc. I suppose.

Soli Deo Gloria!

*(Please notice that my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek. Or, for the brave among you, read with utter and complete sarcastic tone of mind.)

PS–This is not an ‘attack’ on Paul Washer so please do not characterize it as such. This is an examination of his words and their clarity. I am trying to get at the root of what he means and whether or not what he says is viable. I don’t have the context for this quote. I only have this quote as the snippet of a much larger sermon preached by Mr Washer. This snippet, as I noted above, was posted at Reformed Voices.

Advertisements

  1. pjmiller

    “Second, what, only 100-150 out of all the people he sees in his ‘worldwide’ and ‘countrywide’ travels are getting this reformation going…”

    Hi…

    I think what he was saying was he was finding 100-150 in each of the universities he visited..

    Here is the link to the entire sermon Jerry.

    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=63006232159

    If im not mistaken the whole sermon is posted at youtube also.

  2. PJ,

    I know that. That doesn’t detract from the point that what he is saying is absurd. Reformations do not take place on college campuses because people read books. Revolutions might, but reformations do not. Reformations take place when the people of the church wake up to what God has called the church to be, and start practicing it. (I would suggest the church start reading, say, Isaiah’s Prophecy, that would cause reformation in the Church!) This means that reformation starts with preachers–one at a time. If Washer is right, ‘God did it, God will do it,’ then Edwards and Spurgeon are superfluous. I would suggest we need less reformation and more restoration–restoration to the Biblical idea of discipleship; more love less hate; more serving less being served. These are radical ideas. This will happen through the faithful proclamation of the Word in local churches and, to be sure, when Christians get their fat butts out of their comfortable pews and get about the business of ‘your kingdom come on earth…’

    Thanks for stopping by, it’s good to hear from you.
    jerry

  3. From Wikipedia-
    Reformation usually means “returning to a clean start,” removing accumulated corruption and impurity. It is often used in reference to institutions, sets of practices, and people; those in favor of reformation usually believe that they are correcting errors and returning to a rightful course, such as with reformed criminals.

    Washer does not appear to be talking about a reformation in “how we do church” but rather a reformation back to biblical preaching of the doctrines on God, man, and the Gospel; a God-centered message rather than a man-centered message that is all too popular in much of American Christianity. If you see nothing wrong with the current trends in pop Christianity, then you would naturally not consider the renewed interest in Edwards, Spurgeon, and Paul as a sign of reform. Your bent appears to be leaning to a call to more doing, more serving, more loving rather than a reformation of doctrine. Those acts of service are great but they are not the starting point. Those things will be a natural outflow of a correct knowledge of the Lord and the truths revealed in Scripture. I am reminded of Jesus with Martha and Mary in Luke 10, Martha was all consumed with do, do, do rather than hearing truth from the Lord like Mary.

    you said “This takes the burden off of every preacher to do the real work of study and places it squarely in the laps of several hundred year old men. Easy enough for me! Furthermore, this tells me that there is a group of people who think that current day authors and theologians and preacher have discovered nothing new, nothing better, and have nothing fresh to say about the way we do church in 2008 America.”

    When you say “discovered nothing new,” I am curious what new discoveries have been made that you are referring to that the Church has been in the dark about for the past 2K years?

    you said “Mr Washer needs to ‘get out of Paul’ for a day or two and get into Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Then again, it is much easier I suppose to stand and rattle off doctrine. It’s much hard to be confronted with the radical Jesus of Nazareth. Much easier to preach unassailable doctrines than it is to be vulnerable to infection, disease, broken hearts, weakness, etc., etc., etc. I suppose.”

    Paul Washer has ministered to the gypsy population in Romania, a despised, poor, and outcast culture. He has also worked with remote native jungle tribes in the mountains of Peru in the midst of violent civil wars. So, please do not portray him as being cold and cruel in regards to his love for his fellow man.

    God bless,
    Philip

  4. Philip,

    Just a couple of comments in response to your thoughtful reply.

    1. If you read carefully what I wrote you would note that I am not opposed to ‘right teaching’ or ‘right doctrine.’ A quick perusal of my blog will demonstrate as much too. My opposition is to the constant badgering of Christians to ‘return’ to the teachings of dead people. If you are reminded of Mary and Martha, I am reminded of Solomon, “Do not say, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not wise to ask such questions.” (Eccl 7:10). My point in criticizing this trend is this: The church wasn’t perfect in the days of Spurgeon and Edwards either. Read the sermons they wrote and you will see they were dealing with just as much apathy as we are. Spurgeon and Edwards had no corner on evangelical orthodoxy. For that matter, why stop at Spurgeon and Edwards? Why not go back and read Luther, Calvin, Zwingli; why not the Church Fathers? Finally, on this point, I would suggest that there are plenty of modern authors who have made such a call and if people are not listening to those modern authors, then what makes the difference if they listen to dead authors? I would direct you to the four volumes by David Wells–spectacular volumes even now that they are somewhat outdated. Or DA Carson. Or Voddie Baucham. Or Mark Driscoll. Or any of the 1000’s of preachers in local churches, men without names and faces, who go about quietly advancing the kingdom of God, who do not act like those criticized by Washer and, by extension, yourself. Many of us are preaching a faithful, orthodox Gospel. These men are what I was referring to in my sentence about ‘new discoveries.’ So your question: “I am curious what new discoveries…” misunderstands what I was saying about such ‘new discoveries.’ We don’t need to listen primarily, we don’t need to return to, these old guys because modern guys are saying the same thing. If Spurgeon and Edwards left such a lasting and powerful testimony, why are we now having to return to what they said? What they said, if it was worth its weight, should have lasted. We need to go back even further for such reform as he is talking about: Jesus. This is why I said he should ‘get out of Paul’ and into ‘Matthew..etc.’ It’s not that Paul should be neglected, but that the fact is we are being recreated in the image of Jesus not Paul, so what does Washer have to say about the Jesus in whose image we are being recreated? Or is it just about right doctrine?

    2. Washer SHOULD be talking about how we ‘do church.’ Read Isaiah again–chapters 1 & 2 ought to do. Those people did all the right things in their worship, had all the right information, and yet were still corrupt because they did NOT ‘do’ those things in the right spirit, and because they neglected the things God was looking for: Justice, mercy, compassion, etc. I do not think we are ‘doing church right’ primarily because we do not know how or practice loving one another. (Look at the way bloggers treat one another. Look at the neglect in our communities where we have allowed government to do the work that God has called the church to do.)

    3. I won’t respond entirely here about the so-called constant reforming of the church. I’m thinking of doing another post later, but suffice for here to say that this is somewhat tautologous. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4, among other places, that we are continually being renewed day by day even though outwardly we are wasting away. If we are being renewed then the church is necessarily being renewed. His statement, ‘God has done it, God will do it” seems to be suggesting that it will happen regardless of our cooperation. I’ll have to say more on this later, but I think this constant call for reformation is a just a clanging cymbal. If we really want to get it right, we don’t need to wipe the slate clean, we need to get back to the roots of our faith which is further back than Spureon and Edwards. It goes back to Jesus. We need restoration, not reformation. It is entirely unfair to judge the entire church on the basis of a few kooks and nuts. Neither Washer nor you know what is preached in every church on every Sunday.

    4. Still, this is the gist of my post. I find this constant harping on the need for Reformation an incredibly insipid waste of time. It is so unbelievably self-centered and introspective it is sickening. If God will do it, and I agree that he will, then the responsibility is to preach the Word of God faithfully and let God do what he will do through that preaching: through imperfection, through our weakness. Some day he will present us perfect, but that implies there will be much imperfection in the meantime. It could be that this current time is a sifting of the wheat from the chaff. I don’t think we are powerless to stop it, but that must happen locally.

    5. In my opinion, Mr Washer has been made into an idol for modern thrill seekers who want to merely give assent and a hearty Amen. “I agree. I agree. I agree. Yes. Yes. Yes.” So what? If Mr Washer wants this to happen, he should start in his local congregation, plant himself there, stop traveling around playing judge and jury, and work with his own people, in his own community. To be sure, I am not caricaturing him as cold or cruel–I’m sure he has done wonderful things. He should encourage others to do the same. As you will recall my post is a critique of his comments, not his person. I wrote: “PS–This is not an ‘attack’ on Paul Washer so please do not characterize it as such. This is an examination of his words and their clarity. I am trying to get at the root of what he means and whether or not what he says is viable. I don’t have the context for this quote. I only have this quote as the snippet of a much larger sermon preached by Mr Washer. This snippet, as I noted above, was posted at Reformed Voices.” I am commenting on the, admittedly out of context, quotation you posted at your blog. My comments are primarily concerning your call, through Washer’s preaching, for modern reformation which I find to be profoundly ignorant.

    6. You are right: Those things will flow out of right teaching. The problem is that for many years those things have not flowed out of the right teaching already available. Washer is naive to think we need more orthodoxy: Look at all the books and resources available to people. Look at the internet, the libraries, the colleges, the missions, the associations, the conferences, societies, etc., ad infinitum. The problem as I see it is that the church is often too self-centered. This is where we need reformed. We need to get out. All that other stuff is available. Now we must go and make disciples. Go and ‘do likewise’ Jesus told someone one time in response to the question, “who is my neighbor.” The greatest command is to love God the second is like it, to love our neighbor. Neither command necessarily implies ‘Have all the right teaching.’ Right teaching is important because, as you say, good works flow out of it and also leads to worship. But perfect teaching, doctrinal unity, is only a dream.

    That’s enough for now. I have to go and begin preparing some teaching for next week’s week of Junior High camp. I appreciate your feedback, but rest assured I am not criticizing Washer. He only happens to be the mouth out of which poured the latest call for Reformation. I’m sick of hearing this call and tired of not seeing people put into practice what they claim to believe. James had words about those people who look into the Law and then go away and do not do what they read. They are like people who look into a mirror and forget what they look like. Don’t merely read it, don’t merely know it; but do it!

    Thanks for stopping by.
    jerry

  5. jonswales

    Thanks for your posting. In my opinion you have hit the nail on the head. A sign of revival is fruits not necessarily books. We should not see Spurgeon or Edwards as the litmus test of orthodoxy.

  6. Jon,

    Thanks for stopping by. I was wondering if anyone would see things the way I do. I am happy that we agree.

    jerry

  7. Job

    jerry:

    “I’m sick of hearing this call and tired of not seeing people put into practice what they claim to believe.”

    You totally ignored “Paul Washer has ministered to the gypsy population in Romania, a despised, poor, and outcast culture. He has also worked with remote native jungle tribes in the mountains of Peru in the midst of violent civil wars”

    The truth is that you know virtually nothing about Washer or his ministry, and rather than admitting you spoke from ignorance you stuck to your original WRONG diatribe because you were too PROUD to admit that you were wrong. In other words, even if you did judge the speck in Washer’s eye correctly, you can’t take it out because you have a LOG in your own.

    And you also know perfectly well that we have TONS of liberal Christians who deny the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as God’s standards for holiness and purity that do TONS of mighty works. They are the ones who falsely claim to be applying the true meanings of Jesus Christ and the Old Testament prophets.

    “They said all the right things, believed all the right things, practiced all the right religious things, and offered up as much sacrifice as they could. Still they were empty and God judged them harshly. Why? Because they did not practice what they preached; they didn’t know how to love.”

    It would have been very good had that statement actually applied to Paul Washer. It would have been even better had once you found out that this was in no way applicable to Paul Washer that you acknowledged it. You did not. You carried on as you had before. You started with a quote that was out of context not only with the sermon but the actual man and his ministry himself, and once you were corrected you rejected the truth because it was inconvenient to your agenda. As I stated earlier, whatever problem that Washer has – and Washer is not perfect – yours are bigger.

    “The problem as I see it is that the church is often too self-centered. ”

    Do you know how many podcasts I have downloaded of Paul Washer preaching against church – centeredness and advocating God – centeredness? And do you know how many sermons that I have of Paul Washer advocating love and orthopraxy? Gee, maybe you should have gone to Washer’s website and listened to a couple of them before making this post. Or maybe you should have FOLLOWED YOUR OWN ADVICE AND SHOWN A LITTLE CHRISTIAN LOVE AND HUMILITY AND ADMITTED YOU WERE WRONG WHEN PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT WASHER’S MINISTRY TRIED TO CORRECT YOU.

    But this is why you did not do such a thing: you have no interest in Washer himself. You were only using Washer as a symbol. You were using Washer to do the time – dishonored rhetorical technique of constructing a straw man. There is something about certain types of Christians or strands of Christianity that you dislike, so you take Paul Washer and use him to represent it. It makes no difference whether Washer is actually an example of what you are speaking of, because truthfully you could care less about the guy. All you care about is the axe that you have to grind and you really do not have much regard for the grinder. That is why you can say such nonsense as

    ” In my opinion, Mr Washer has been made into an idol for modern thrill seekers who want to merely give assent and a hearty Amen. “I agree. I agree. I agree. Yes. Yes. Yes.” So what? If Mr Washer wants this to happen, he should start in his local congregation, plant himself there, stop traveling around playing judge and jury, and work with his own people, in his own community. To be sure, I am not caricaturing him as cold or cruel–I’m sure he has done wonderful things. He should encourage others to do the same.” and then follow it with “As you will recall my post is a critique of his comments, not his person. I wrote: “PS–This is not an ‘attack’ on Paul Washer so please do not characterize it as such.”

    1. You have no evidence that Washer is not doing this in his local church. And if someone from Washer’s local church came on here saying that he did, you would ignore it just as you did the comment about Washer’s missionary work. Why? Because as I stated, you could care less about Washer or his church. All you are about is your axe and the straw man that you are using to grind it with.

    2. And as if there aren’t a TON of modern thrill seekers who just love the apostate Christians that are going around saying “enough about all this talk about whether Jesus was God or homosexuality is a sin, or about whether there is a literal heaven or hell! The hungry need to be fed! The prisoners need to be comforted! The sick need medicine! The widows and orphans need to be taken care of!”

    And as for “orthodoxy has always been available” … fellow have you watched Christian television? Don’t you realize that there are hundreds of millions of prosperity doctrine/Word of Faith Pentecostals (many of whom do not even believe in Trinity) and over a billion Roman Catholics? I spoke to the owner/operator/leader of an inner city religious school that has held positions in various churches for a lifetime and whose child is a fast rising pastor in a large Methodist denomination, and that person didn’t even know who John Calvin was. This person’s religion was all about experience, and yes the lack of orthodoxy did lead to a lack of orthopraxy for this person and this person’s ministry, especially the religious school that this person was running. Right now, you have this charlatan in Lakeland Florida bewitching millions on global television telling people that they should be more concerned with angels than Jesus Christ, and you are actually going to claim that doctrines and religious books don’t matter (incidentally, a position that Mormons are known to take)?

    Oh yes, and while you are telling him to get out of Paul and go back to the words of Jesus Christ … have you forgotten Jesus Christ’s polemics against the Pharisees and Sadducees for their falsehoods? And have you forgotten what Jesus Christ said to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 about THEIR false doctrines? If you are claiming that Jesus Christ only cared about orthopraxy and paid little attention to orthodoxy then your “Jesus” is not the one of the Bible. Again, talk about Washer’s speck versus your log!

    Truthfully, I have every confidence that you know and worship the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. But see how I was able to use the same tactic that you used to build your straw man axe grinder out of Washer against YOU? I took a few snippets of what you said and used it to make a far more convincing case that you were worshiping a false Jesus Christ than whatever case that you had against Washer and his supporters.

    In closing, you stated that you were doing some teaching at a junior high camp. Well, those junior high school students probably listen to the Christian rap artists that Washer ministered to at a music workshop/retreat recently. What is an uber – evangelical who puts more emphasis on the works of Spurgeon, Edwards, etc. than on people (in other words a self righteous holier than thou Pharisee that you regard him as without coming out and saying it) doing praising and supporting the work of bunch of black rappers from the inner city? Well why don’t you go find his sermon, listen to it, and tell me. Yes, Washer did get plenty of vigorous amens from a bunch of inner city black rap artists in their teens and twenties who like that inner city charismatic religious school operator probably don’t know Spurgeon from sturgeon. If you have ever gotten the same response from a bunch of inner city black males – or from Peruvians and gypsies in the mission field for that matter – then I am even more mystified as to why you did not acknowledge Philip’s attempt to correct your errors.

    Now this is not to say that the issues that you raised were not legitimate, or that you were wrong to raise them. Quite the contrary … I talk about the issues that you raised in this post on my site ALL THE TIME! (See http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/how-do-we-get-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ-back-to-the-poor/ for an example). All I ask is that next time you pick someone who actually represents what you are speaking of instead of using caricatures of people to erect straw men.

  8. Job,

    Two quick thoughts.

    First, I didn’t take Washer’s comment out of context. I quoted the paragraph exactly as I found it at Reformed Voices. I was commenting on the way Reformed Voices was using the comment that *they* had taken out of context. I confess in my post that I had no context for the quote. That was precisely the point.

    Second, did you see the title of my post? Here it is again: Critiquing a Short Paragraph uttered by Uber-Evangelical Paul Washer. My point in reminding you of the title of the post is that I was critiquing the paragraph as it stood at Reformed Voices. I was not critiquing Paul Washer. If I was critiquing anyone it was Philip at Reformed Voices who constantly yanks quotes like this out of their context and uses them as prooftexts for some sort of church he wishes to construct around Reformed Theology.

    I assure you that even though I disagree with a great deal of Mr Washer’s emotional, altar call revivalism theology, my issue is not with Mr Washer himself. My issue was with Reformed Voices.

    Now, if you take those two comments I have just made and re-read the post I wrote then I think you will see that 99% of your vitriolic diatribe against me, a brother in Christ, is moot. You criticize me for ‘attacking’ Washer–EVEN THOUGH I SPECIFICALLY SAID I WAS NOT DOING SUCH A THING–and then you rant on for 4 pages against me? OK. If I have a log in my eye, you have an entire forest in yours.

    Thanks for stopping by, but the next time you decide to rant please be certain you know who and what you are ranting against. Please, for the Love of all that is right and good, PLEASE-Learn how to read!

    jerry

    PS–The problem is that there are too many Christians in this world who think that certain other Christians are unassailable, that they are above and beyond all criticism. Paul Washer is currently one such person. People think because they have ‘downloaded so many of his podcasts’ (that because he has so many podcasts available!!!) that he is suddenly without fault, that his theology is flawless, that he is the next best thing, and that all of us should line up at his theological soup kitchen. That’s why I said that he should minister in his local church instead of all over the place. If he mattered half as much as people think, he would be unknown to most people. As it is, you justify my contention: People have made him an idol. (And, methinks he likes it.)

  9. Greetings Jerry,

    I am having trouble figuring this out:

    Is reformed voices ‘normally carefully written’ or on the other hand ‘constantly yanking quotes like this out of context’?

    you said on July 6:
    “This paragraph is absolutely meaningless and I am surprised that the normally carefully written Reformed Voices blog even posted it.”

    6 days later you say:
    “If I was critiquing anyone it was Philip at Reformed Voices who constantly yanks quotes like this out of their context and uses them as prooftexts for some sort of church he wishes to construct around Reformed Theology.”

    So which is it?

    I disagree that it was out of context, but if anyone was in doubt what Washer was getting at, I linked to the entire sermon it came from to remove any confusion.

    Perhaps you should have listened to the entire message before creating your critique.

    Thank you for your time,

    Philip

  10. Philip,

    With all due respect, I don’t see the contradiction between the two points. Reformed Voices is normally carefully written, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t take quotes like this and use them to construct and support a rather abysmal theological perspective. I like many of the quotes you post insofar as they relate to Christianity in general, but the quotes that you stack up to support a reformed theological perspective really serve very little purpose except to bolster the ideas of those who already buy into the reformed theological perspective.

    As for your quote from Washer, if you had been concerned about context, you would have posted the entire context. As it is, you posted a few words from one sermon, and I commented on the words you quoted. It’s that simple. It is rather beside the point whether my comments make sense in the context because you didn’t quote the context. You quoted a sound-bite. I know what Washer was getting at. He’s trying to make the point that Christianity Today made a few years ago that Reformed Theology, that hardline Calvinistic point of view, is making a super comeback among evangelicals and that this is good for the church. I happen to disagree profoundly. My other point is that there seems to be a degree of disagreement in the camp as to whether this is true or not anyway. John Piper doesn’t share Washer’s enthusiasm for the revival among young people.

    My point is twofold. First, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the reading of Edwards and Spurgeon is indicative of a reformation or a revival. And second, there is nothing to suggest that a return or a continuance of the horrifying doctrines of Calvin and Augustine are a worthy undertaking.

    Nevertheless, I think you can still be carefully written and yank things out of context. You just carefully yank them out of context and carefully write them. 🙂 Look, I’m sorry If you think the post was about you and I’m sorry if I made it seem that I have an axe to grind with you. I don’t. I just don’t happen to find reformation theology and the veneration of Paul Washer (something you may not do, but many others have), particularly palatable.

    jerry

  11. Hello again Jerry,

    [Please note that this is just a reply to your articles and not anything personal. Although reformed voices has posts that may ruffle theological systems (synergists), It will not be a place of launching personal attacks on pastor X or blogger Y. ]

    ‘Normally careful’ and ‘constantly out of context’ seem to be very much at odds when attributed to the same blog. Maybe it’s just me?

    On the Washer vs Piper piece on crn.info:

    Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but If you had listened to Washer’s sermon or listened to the short Piper video, you would have seen that while Washer was speaking of reformation of doctrine, he was not speaking on ‘revival’.

    Piper was not speaking on either revival or reformation, but rather was rallying his listeners with the rhetorical question “where are the men and women of God”, and yet you construct an entire commentary aimed at stirring people up simply on the basis of your assumptions that Washer and Piper disagreed on a current ‘revival’, of which neither talked about specifically. You didn’t bother to listen to either of them in their context, but simply butted up a quote from Washer with Sam’s response to the Piper clip in your attempt at creating controversy, while being sure to pack in the required Washer pejoratives along the way.

    I know you hate the ‘horrifying’ reformed doctrines of grace but I must ask- does it matter to you whether you are even remotely accurate in your representation of these men in your articles or are you simply trying to cause a stir based on unresearched assumptions?

    You criticize Sam for his lament that there is a lack of zeal for God among young people with your proof of the 4 KCU Summer volunteers. And yet, in this very article you state-

    “I contend: The church is not lacking in orthodoxy. The church is lacking in orthopraxy.”

    Well, I must ask, how is the church lacking in orthopraxy while we have your 4 KCU Summer volunteers proving that it is not?

    You see, your entire argument that we have enough doctrine and that we are lacking is love can be easily switched around by me listing off A, B, or C that Church X, Y, or Z is doing to prove that there is no lack of love and orthopraxy in the Church. Have you been to all the Churches in America to see that there is a lack of orthopraxy? Have you followed them all? Do you not see that this argument that you have presented in your disagreement with Washer (doctrine vs orthopraxy) can be so easily flipped around?

    You are also very quick to make light of my counterpoint that Washer has ministered with the the gypsy population in Romania and the natives in Peru. “If it ruins my assumptions, I will trivialize it as if it were merely a one-time exotic getaway.” I will add, Washer has also established a world wide reaching missions society that train indigenous missionaries, establishes Churches, and creates life long relationships. Yet, me stating this will likely only fan the flame of your Washer dislike and suggestions of Washer worship. So, it may be a lose lose for me to even mention it.

    Your comments on Slice’s CD evangelism also was very distorted.

    You said-

    (that way we don’t have to actually talk to them and hear their story.)

    while at Ingrid’s original post it clearly states-

    “and are wonderful to give to someone after you have had a witnessing conversation in the street. ”

    After a conversation Jerry, but let’s just skip that in the article so that we can make her look bad.

    I hope that you will actually listen to more than 1 Washer sermon before continuing to ignorantly bash his orthopraxy or what he teaches.

    Thanks for your time.

    May God bless you,
    Philip

  12. Philip,

    You make some good points and I’d like to address them.

    On the contrary, even though I said in my post at CRN.info that I didn’t listen to the Piper selection, I actually did go back after the fact and listen to it. I stand by my dissection of SAM’s Comments. I was commenting on the full context of SAM’s comments–not necessarily the Piper quote. Sam was lamenting the absence of young people: I asked if he is living under a rock because I see young people all over the place serving Christ. This is exactly what I was doing with the Washer quote that YOU pulled out of context to make YOUR point. You were only concerned with that snippet–not the context. I was commenting on YOUR quotation of the snippet.

    To be sure, I have listened to more than one of Washer’s sermons–some of them are rather good and some are pathetic (like those of all preachers). Furthermore, I have no real problem with Washer himself. My problem is with the status of ‘Reformed Pope’ that many in ‘your’ circles seem to ascribe to him.

    I think it’s just you. 🙂

    In referencing my volunteers at camp I was not addressing the issue of orthopraxy. Those are two unrelated issues. Piper was saying ‘where are they?’ I was saying, ‘here they are!’ In other words, what Piper doesn’t see happening–I do. My point in contrasting Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy has to do with putting into practice what we claim to know and believe. This is a serious problem in the church. When I say that we have doctrines–well, just look at the voluminous literature available. I contend that people know the doctrines, they just don’t want to live them out. I think this is David Wells’ point in much of his writing–which I have devoured and recommend. (See also my quote by Hans Kung on the front page.) I think even you would agree with David Wells; I do agree with him 95%–excluding, of course, his adherence to the detestable doctrines of Augustine.

    Now, you wrote:

    I know you hate the ‘horrifying’ reformed doctrines of grace but I must ask- does it matter to you whether you are even remotely accurate in your representation of these men in your articles or are you simply trying to cause a stir based on unresearched assumptions?

    Well, Philip, this is entirely unfair. You have made a couple or three errors here.

    1) My hatred of the horrifying reformed doctrines has nothing to do with whether or not I have presented ‘these men’ accurately. I do not oppose them because I am opposed to a doctrinal system. In fact, I have used Piper’s stuff here at my church and found much of what he has written to be compelling.

    2) I do not hate the doctrine of God’s grace. In fact, I have been thoroughly reformed by God’s grace and if you have read any other posts at my blog besides the one criticizing your quote, you would know that. However, and I am preparing a post on this today, I am opposed to a TULIP presentation of it because it is not entirely accurate.

    3) You assumed that I did not research what I wrote. That’s just entirely untrue and is a bad assumption to make on your part. I have thoroughly researched what I have written and to assume I haven’t is just wrong.

    Here is the point I want you to really understand.

    1) You quoted a snippet of Washer’s sermon. I commented on the snippet you quoted. And interpreted what you might mean by it. And contrasted it with the quote by Guzman. There’s nothing unjust about my comparison or my contrasting of the two quotes.

    2) If you were concerned about how people perceived the context around Washer’s quote, you would have quoted the context. My comments, as I stated, were reserved to the snippet you quoted and your, albeit unstated, purpose in doing so. (It’s fits with your assumption that Edwards and Spurgeon are worthy catalysts of reformation in our day and age.)

    3) I commented in my post on Samuel Guzman’s commentary on Piper’s statements. I believe I fairly interpreted and accurately commented on his comments.

    4) I do not have a personal agenda against Paul Washer, John Piper, Samuel Guzman, or Philip at Reformed Voices. I have a personal agenda against the worship of Paul Washer–as if he is the only one in America saying the things he is saying–which has consumed many people. He has important things to say, and right things, but in that quote it is probably not ironic that he said people are reading Spurgeon, Edwards, and then did he say, lastly, the apostle Paul. Why did he say Paul last? So after we have read Edwards and Spurgeon and have our lenses colored, then we go to the Gospel? “That smells stink of it” (Jar-Jar Binks).

    I have a personal agenda against the notion that young people are not involved in serious Christian work in the States and around the world. The irony, is that more often than not certain ODM type blogs go out of their way to criticize anything young people do: Short term mission trips are among the foremost of their criticisms. I am sick and tired of young people doing things for God and being run down when they do them.

    I have a personal agenda against TULIP theology. It is a disgusting, unbiblical, horrifying doctrine that paints God as an unruly tyrant. There is nothing about it that is even remotely satisfying or compelling. Furthermore, methinks it gives far too little credit to man for the mess that is this world and that it has colored the political lenses of far too many world-shakers.

    And Samuel Guzman–well, I think he is just misguided because of the people he has chosen to align himself with.

    As to the CD? I said what I said and I stand by it.

    Thanks for YOUR time.

    May God Have mercy on us all,
    jerry

  13. reformatienl

    25 indictments against Paul Washer:
    1) willfully limiting the subjectmatter of Scripture
    2) willfully presenting his own fabricated version of true christianity
    3) willfully bringing himself under a cloak of godliness
    4) willfully closing the book of Revelation and the Prophets
    5) willfully painting the graves of the prophets for his own selfish ends
    6) willfully presenting himself since 2002 with remarks that show Billy Graham
    to be his brother, although Graham is high in the world and an archdeceiver
    7) comparison with the whole of Scripture and the true old paths of the Reformation
    show him to be a cloud without water
    8) connection in the Netherlands to all false christianity has to offer, even with those
    who publicly say calvinism is a complete error
    9) presenting himself in 80.000 newspapers in the Netherlands smiling as though
    the sins of the churches and the land are no problem to him
    10) proclaiming a message of revival that has never come, thereby telling lies in Gods Name.
    11) accepting in the core of his message two contradictive systems of doctrine
    12) denying the witness of the Holy Spirit in the Reformation against THE antichrist in Rome
    13) denying the blood of hunderthousands christian brothers and sisters against THE antichrist in Rome
    14) going around the USA and the world to gain one proselyte that he makes a clone of himself
    15) being silent about the developements in the outside world, only preaching for his own parish
    16) laying burdens on small people, while leaving big names in bibleschools, synods, and gospelmusic
    untouched and unmentioned
    17) connecting himself to Kirk Cameron, know throughout the world for the message of a future antichrist
    with Left Behind
    18) himself not being able to go to Wallmart for fear of sinning, yet laying on big burdens on everyone else
    19) printing his own material as though it is manna from heaven, yet is only copying a little text everyone
    knows with some questions
    20) saying he serves the God of heaven, yet he himself is an idolater of the ring on his own finger
    21) his minister is Jeff Nobblit who teaches a future antichrist, that gain is godliness, and remains in the
    SBC although a complete apostate body with a statue for Billy Graham
    22) closing the Kingdom of God for the people by keeping silent about the true contents of the witness of the old paths
    23) denying the true witness of the Waldenses, the reformers, the english puritans, the scottish covenanters
    24) denying the true witness of Augustine against Pelagius, Luther against Rome, the Westminster and Dordt Synods
    25) being a facilitator and manipulator replacing the true religion of the King Jesus Christ with a false one of the new world order

  14. nn0535

    Just a hint… Actually understand your opponents stance before writing nonsense on them. It really sucks to see a long article written like this with no content

    • It probably sucks about as bad as owning a blog, getting a reply and finding out that the reply has nothing substantive to add whatsoever to the conversation. Thanks for nothing.

      Or, it probably sucks about as bad as getting a reply to a blog post only to find that the one doing the criticizing doesn’t have the sack to sign his/her name. Good job!

      jerry

      PS–If you are at all interested, I will give you a reprieve and allow you to reply here as to what part of Paul Washer’s nonsense I don’t understand. Instead of dropping random, drive by comments, actually reply with something I should read. Tell me what I am missing. I am willing to learn and debate. 🙂

  15. As the facts of history clearly prove the Waldenses, Hugenots, Lollards, Whycliff, Huss, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Knox, the other reformers, the english puritans,
    the scottish covenanters, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon TO THE MAN protested against the pope of Rome as the man of sin
    in 2 Thess 2v3-12, aka THE antichrist. This based on Scripture and the facts of history regarding the rise and deed of the papacy (see Trente and the Inquisition).

    In 2008 Paul Washer came to the Netherlands and was for many hours translated by Oscar Lohuis.
    http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/sermons-nl
    https://twitter.com/oscarlohuis

    From 2008 to 2013 this translater was and in 2014 still is a weekly biblestudy teacher on the Dutch christian radio station called ‘Grootnieuwsradio.’
    https://www.grootnieuwsradio.nl/nieuwleven

    From 2007 to 2013 yearly gatherings were held by well known and influential christian leaders in the Netherlands under the name of ‘Wij kiezen voor eenheid.’
    Evangelical, reformed and roman catholic.
    http://www.wkve.nl/index.php?id=7
    This culminated in October 2012 in The Hague with a large tentmeeting where evangelical, reformed and roman catholic (including the Roman Catholic bishop
    who is responsible for ecumenism in the Netherlands) came together loudly proclaiming the Reformation as a sad mistake.

    Wij kiezen voor eenheid

    http://www.wkve.nl/index.php?id=39

    There was on sponsor mentioned on the site of http://www.wkve.nl, namely the Dutch christian radio station called ‘Grootnieuwsradio.’
    http://www.wkve.nl
    This did not prevent the translator of Paul Washer in the Netherlands to stop with being a biblestudy teacher on this Dutch christian radio station called ‘Grootnieuwsradio.’
    You can find him in the programs of 2013 and 2014 as bibleteacher on Saturdays from 22.30-23.00.
    https://www.grootnieuwsradio.nl/radio/weekoverzicht/zaterdag

    In 2013 Paul Washer came to the Netherlands and again was translated for hours by Oscar Lohuis.
    Nothing has indicated that the spirit from which Paul Washer was speaking came into conflict with that of Oscar Lohuis who publicly by his presence as bible teacher still endorses
    the only sponsor of http://www.wkve.nl where evangelicals, reformed and roman-catholics have called the Reformation a sad mistake.

    After the conference in 2013 Paul Washer started mentoring the Dutch director of Heartcry.nl (the organisers of his tours in 2008 and 2013).
    http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/jacques-brunt
    In his personal testimony you can read for months now:
    ‘ I am also involved in an interdenominational, rural prayer group of pastors and preachers with Oscar Lohuis and Arjan Baan.’
    The same Oscar Lohuis that still endorses the one sponsor of http://www.wkve.nl that in October 2012 called publicly the Reformation a sad mistake.

    The circles where the yearlong speakers and bibleschoolteachers of Heartcry.nl (the Dutch contact of Paul Washer) operate, have seen since 2010
    two developements appear in the Netherlands. Namely Refo500 http://www.pccmonroe.org/2013/07.08.htm
    and ThePassion thepassion.nl.
    Refo500 brings together all false christianity in the Netherlands (including the churches, speakers and teachers of Heartcry.nl) together with Roman-catholicism.
    ThePassion is a yearly media event where the last three years in front of more than a million people on television and internet Peter has been proclaimed as the rock of the churches in the Netherlands.
    This is clearly 100% Roman Catholic dogma. The Dutch friends of Paul Washer are silent.

    During 2008 to 2013 both the Dutch connection of Paul Washer and Paul Washer himself were too busy proclaiming their gospel.
    While the churches in the Netherlands were publicly apostatising, they were busy straigning the private gnat among ignorant nobodies who listened to them,
    while they swallowed the public elephant amongst themselves and those who were and are higher in rank because of titles and churchexperience in these apostate churches.

    Now in 2014 the friends of Heartcry.nl have now for months on their facebooksite a 100% roman catholic blog as friend which is actively proselytising for the Roman Catholic Church.
    https://www.facebook.com/heartcry.nederland.5?fref=ts
    https://www.facebook.com/hugo.bos.581

    In the beginning of 2014 Justin Peters (speaker John MacArthurs Strange Fire Conference) has come to the Netherlands to teach at Heartcry.nl about discerning the spirits.

    Other developements regarding Paul Washer:

    In 2008 when these 25 indictments against Pau Washer were written the pope of Rome visited the White House, being welcomed by your president and the elite of your country.

    Paul Washer was silent.

    In 2009 many so called protestants signed the Manhattan declaration together with Roman Catholic leaders as ‘we, christians…..’
    Among them Dr. Al Mohler, Dr J.I. Packer and Dr. Tim Keller.
    Paul Washer was silent, but is in 2014 speaker together with Dr Al Mohler at the Shepherds Conference..

    In 2010 the pope got the UK of the Reformation, the english puritans, the scottish covenanters, Bunyan, Henry and Spurgeon back.
    http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/
    Paul Washer was silent.

    in 2013 Paul Washer after so many years of ministry is able to do a conference at a roman catholic monastery where during weekdays the eucharist is celebrated two times
    and where roman catholic leaders come because of its spirituality.
    http://www.monasterosantacroce.it/orari_messe.html
    http://www.monasterosantacroce.it/gallery1.lasso
    http://www.pccmonroe.org/2013/04.30.htm

    At the end of 2013 Paul Washer present himself as speaker at the Billy Graham Center in Illinois.
    Paul Washer’s popularity came because of his shocking youth message in which he plugged Billy Graham.
    This although the apostacy of Billy Graham was already in 2002 very well known.
    http://www.amazon.com/Billy-Graham-His-Friends-Hidden/dp/1891117173/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394822891&sr=8-1&keywords=billy+graham+and+friends
    Paul Washer gave in 2009 publicly a message regarding his doubts about Billy Graham.
    http://gfmanchester.com/paul-washer-on-billy-graham-denying-christ-as-the-only-way
    Yet in 2013 at the period of the last great crusade of Graham Paul Washer presents himself to the public in the Billy Graham Center in Illinois.
    http://billygraham.org/story/billy-grahams-call-to-america/
    http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=49502&forum=16

    Current situation:

    Church
    Paul Washer now is member of http://www.christchurchradford.org/ under the spiritual guidance as elders of Marc Glass and Anthony Mathenia (both of Heartcrymissionary).
    http://5ptsalt.com/?s=marc+glass&x=0&y=0
    http://5ptsalt.com/?s=anthony+mathenia&x=0&y=0
    The elder Marc Glass says in correspondence about this church:
    a. ‘Antony and I are elders that have beens set apart and called as such by the congregation of an autonomous church. As leaders of this congregation, we function under the authority of the Scriptures and the authority and accountability of the church. The church itself, as an autonomous church, is not under a supra-ecclesiastical authority or hierarchy. We are simply a local church. .’
    b. ‘ Our congregation has approximately 60 members with an average Sunday attendance in the 130 range. Approximately 75-80% of the people in our congregation are from the Radford area, all added within the last 2 years.’

    When one looks at the number of churches in Radford, one finds about 30 other churches (see the red dots).
    https://www.google.nl/maps/search/churches+in+Radford+Virginia/@37.1203309,-80.5516821,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!2m4!3m3!1schurches!2sRadford,+VA,+USA!3s0x884df20631c96cab:0x6e33b8106b5c93df
    Paul Washer and his elders created in Radford one more autonomous church where the elders are called by 60 members of which 75-80% were added the last 2 years.

    Missions Heartcrymissionary
    I personally have gone through the missionaries of Heartcrymissionary at their website.
    As I wish them the best, I hope the best of them.
    What I found was weak men who mostly have very little means, who are happy with a very small group (max 25 people consisting of ignorant men, women and children) and who are in need of everything.

    The fact remains that although Paul Washer has been fighting dragons all over the world his own church of which he is a member is 60 members (Sunday attending 130),
    and the missionaries at Heartcrymissionary are 200 very weak men in 30 countries (of a total of 196 http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm).
    Of these missionaries most are in Peru and India.

    In 2014 Paul Washer includes in these missionairies the Dutch Jacques Brunt who prays with the translator of Paul Washer and bibleteacher Oscar Lohuis (see public information at the beginning of this message).

    All this has already in May 2013 been extensively communicated to the elders of Paul Washer at Christchurchradford with the request to inform Paul Washer.
    Al the content of this communication already confirmed by two brothers in Christ.

    My question to you all is ‘If Paul Washer is planted by God as a true minister why does he act as a frog of Revelation 16:13 ?’ traveling across the globe, talking and talking and talking, but while Rome is bringing
    all her harlotdaughters under her umbrella Paul Washer sees nothing, hears nothing, says nothing, because he is too busy with the personal godliness of Paul Washer, his friends and those who give him advantage.

    As the facts of history clearly prove the Waldenses, Hugenots, Lollards, Whycliff, Huss, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Knox, the other reformers, the english puritans,
    the scottish covenanters, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon TO THE MAN protested against the pope of Rome as the man of sin
    in 2 Thess 2v3-12, aka THE antichrist. This based on Scripture and the facts of history regarding the rise and deed of the papacy (see Trente and the Inquisition).

    Paul Washer and friends (like Vaughan, Beeke, MacArthur……) do not teach that.

    This is my personal witness to the truth now in 2013/ 2014 of the 25 indictments against Paul Washer in 2008.

    Paul Washer is a false teacher who gives to worldly people who do church under a cloak of godliness the impression that they are really radical christians.
    While in practise their affliction does not go further than loosing their job, getting sick or a marriage that fails. This also happens to non-christians.
    Nobody outside these churches are impressed by the preaching of Paul Washer. Paul Washer comes to a country and afterwards the apostacy of his friends
    continue. The Netherlands is full proof of total lack of salt of the ministriy of Paul Washer.

    This happened in history to true christians.

    Revelation 18:4, 1 Peter 3:13

    a waldens in the wilderness (Rev 11v1-2, 12v6+14)

  1. 1 Isaiah 1: During the Reign of Kings « Advance Signs

    […] have done a follow up post to this one, or perhaps a companion post, at my other blog: Life Under the Blue Sky Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Isaiah […]




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: