|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/2/2008 10:29:48 PM
|
|
|
Gloryandgrace
Posts: 428
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted[/quote
Wintery:
Ill just say this quickly.
The above text is within a context that deals with the subject of restoration and sins in greater detail that that verse alone. What are you trying to prove?
Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Gal 6:3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
Gal 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.
Gal 6:5 For each will have to bear his own load.
Gal 6:6 One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
When those same couples that refuse to break up from their adultery what shall we do? Sit and contemplate our own sinful navel? No, they must bear their own burden, in the end restoration is given so that we might walk with Christ, accountable to him and walk a healthy strong holy life. Shall the elders forget that the adulterous couples sins will bring corruption and instead concentrate on feeling badly about themselves so that the cannot administer discipline?
Disciplining the flock is not made for those who are self-condemned self troubled with feeling judgmental. They must be mature and walking in Christ so that they can benefit the body instead of leaving it in its immaturity and sinfulness.
You see what I am saying ?
John
_____________________________
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/2/2008 10:54:22 PM
|
|
|
HisFish
Posts: 623
Joined: 8/3/2005
From: Rocky mountain way
Status: offline
|
quote:
1) Washer tells his audience explicitly that God doesn’t love everyone. Washer tries to justify this statement by saying that one must hate in order to love. As an example, he says that because he loves children, he must hate abortion. But Washer appears to miss completely that the former are people, while the latter is a sin.
Washer does not say that in order to love you must hate, thats a mischaracterization. From the transcript:
We have rebelled against God, broken every law. It’s not just an issue that you have sinned. The issue is you’ve never done anything but sin. The Bible says in the prophets that even our greatest works are like filthy rags before God. And because of that, you know what we deserve? The wrath of God. The holy hatred of God.You say, “Now, wait a minute. God doesn’t hate anybody. God is love.” No, my friend. You need to understand something. Jesus Christ taught, the prophets taught, the apostles taught this —that apart from the grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord, the only thing left for you is the wrath, the fierce anger of God because of your rebellion and your sin.When I speak in universities, they’re always quick to point out, “No, God cannot hate because God is love.” And I tell you God must hate because God is love. You see, I love children; therefore, I hate abortion. If I love that which is holy, I must hate that which is unholy. God is a holy God. That’s something that the Americans have forgotten. Many of the things that you love to do, God hates. Did you know that?
quote:
4) Washer tells his audience that you will know Christians by their fruit, but instead of naming the biblical fruit of the Spirit, he implies that the fruit here has to do with not listening to secular music, watching secular TV shows, wearing certain clothes, and other external, cultural-based standards.
You dismiss the fact that christians should be in the world but not of it, that we are to be seperate and not love the things that the world loves by saying that those who look just like the world are just following "cultural based standards", as if that was just some benign thing. If our society is not governed by christian standards, which if you take a look around you can see it isnt, then it is governed by the standards that are set by the god of this world system. What fruit do you expect to see from those who are still of the world?.
I spend most of my time preaching in South America, in Africa, and Eastern Europe. And I want you to know that, when you take a look at American Christianity, it is based more upon a godless culture than it is upon the Word of God. And so many people are deceived, and so many youth are deceived, and so many adults are deceived into believing that, because they prayed a prayer one time in their life, they’re going to Heaven. And then, when they look around at others who profess to know Christ and see those people also just as worldly as the world, and they compare themselves by themselves, nothing troubles their heart. They think, well, I’m the same as most in my youth group. I watch things I shouldn’t watch on television and laugh about the very things that God hates. I wear clothing that is sensual. I talk like the world. I walk like the world. I love the music of the world. I love so much that’s in the world, but bless God, I am a Christian. Why am I a Christian? I don’t look any different than most of the other people in my church. Why am I a Christian? Because there was a time in my life when I prayed and asked Jesus Christ to come into my heart. I want you to know that the greatest heresy in the American evangelical and protestant church is that, if you pray and ask Jesus Christ to come into your heart, He will definitely come in. You will not find that in any place in Scripture
quote:
2) Washer tells his audience explicitly that the cross is not a sign of man's worth. Rather, according to Washer, it is solely a sign of man's depravity.
And Washer is correct. The cross is a sign of how lost man is in his sin and utter depravity and what it took to cover that offense. How pridefull of some one to think that this shows our "worth". Hell and judgement, thats what we're worth.
People say the cross is a sign of how much man is worth. That’s not true. The cross is a sign of how depraved we really are, that it took the death of God’s own Son. The only thing that could save a people like us was the death of God’s own Son under the wrath of His own Father paying the price, rising again from the dead. Powerful to say, this is the Gospel of Jesus.
quote:
3) Washer tells his audience explicitly that there is no such thing as a carnal Christian, despite the fact that the Apostle Paul says that some of the believers in Corinth are carnal
If you read what washer says you will see that what paul meant, and what modern christianity means are two very different things, and washer is right.
Book after book is being churned out by theologian and philosopher and sociologist alike. What has happened to the church? We find out that abortion in the church is just as prevalent as outside in the world. We find that divorce is just as prevalent. We find that immorality . . . you know as well as I do, there are youth here right now who are practicing immorality and yet worshiping God in the same breath. You know there are youth here that are doing drugs and yet coming to youth group. You know, watching and doing things that are not appropriate for a Christian, and yet they’re coming to the youth group, believing themselves satisfied, believing themselves saved, and no one is saying anything except this: They’re carnal Christians. They’re really Christians; they’re just carnal. That was a doctrine that started in a Baptist seminary, that is not a Southern Baptist seminary, several decades ago. It is not biblical and it is not historical. My dear friend, there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.You say, “Now, wait a minute, Brother Paul. First Corinthians chapter 3,
Are ye not carnal.
Paul said that.” No, that’s what Paul said. You need to read the whole book to find out what he meant. You see, one of our problems, youth, listen to me . . . most of our Christianity is based on clichés that we read on the back of Christian tee shirts. Most of our Christianity comes from songwriters and not the Bible. Most of what we believe is dictated to us through our culture and not by the Bible. The Bible never teaches that a person can be a genuine Christian and live in continuous carnality and wickedness and sin all the days of their life. But the Bible teaches that the genuine Christian has been given a new nature. The genuine Christian has a Father who loves them and disciplines them and watches over them and cares for them.My heart is breaking because you know as well as I do, young people, let’s not be hypocrites about it. Let’s not hide it. There are so many. You know them. You might be one of them, or you at least know that they’re in your youth group. They come to youth group. They do all this stuff, but in their heart, they’re as wicked as wicked can be. There is no difference. There is no light. Everything that the world does, they do, and it’s appropriate; it’s okay.
_____________________________
The theology of the present aims at the deification of man, but the truth of all time
magnifies God . C. H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/2/2008 11:14:42 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 1874
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace
quote:
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted
Wintery:
Ill just say this quickly.
The above text is within a context that deals with the subject of restoration and sins in greater detail that that verse alone. What are you trying to prove?
John,
The post you're referencing was me finding the verse for _phinehas_ that he remembered. He has a great point about restoration in the spirit of meekness. But, I'm not saying that anyone has been kicked out over there because of sin. I don't know if they have just like I don't know if anyone has _not_ been kicked out in spite of sin. I know I've heard different things.
It reminds me of what a pastor said about judging his church. He said, "People say I don't even know where to _start_ judging the church. Well, I know where to start. I just don't know where to _stop_!"
Where we start and where we stop can tell us about the elitism that has been suggested here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/2/2008 11:53:00 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
HisFish:
First of all, THANK YOU. Thank you for actually engaging in a cogent discussion about the concerns I raised. I had nearly given up hope that this would ever happen here.
Thank you as well for quoting from the transcripts. I don't want to misrepresent anything that Washer said, and it is easier to avoid that if I don't just rely on my memory. In each case, you've also quoted exactly the part of Washer's sermon that I had in mind, so thank you once more.
quote:
Washer does not say that in order to love you must hate.
So then you agree that he says God doesn't love everyone? That was my main point. If you don't like the particular way I phrased what Washer was saying, that's fine. I'm happy to look at his actual words.
quote:
Now, wait a minute. God doesn’t hate anybody. God is love.” No, my friend.
Since he is contradicting the imagined statement that God doesn't hate anybody, I feel safe in saying that Washer believes that God hates some but loves others. This would seem to imply that John 3:16 must be read as "For God so loved some of the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." And if God hates some, must we now understand that He is "not willing that any that He loves should perish?" One assumes from the context that Washer is saying that God hates sinners, and yet, "God demonstrates His own love toward us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." And how is it that God hates some while loving others, yet does not show favoritism. Further, God commands us to love our enemies, yet He does not love those who are His enemies because of their sin? Even while being directly sinned against in the most heinous way, Christ loved those who were crucifying Him and demonstrated this love by praying for their forgiveness.
quote:
You need to understand something. Jesus Christ taught, the prophets taught, the apostles taught this —that apart from the grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord, the only thing left for you is the wrath, the fierce anger of God because of your rebellion and your sin.
Well, yeah. But the fact is that the grace of God WAS revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord, so why speak of "apart from..." The grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord is precisely what demonstrates God's love for the world, as pointed out above.
quote:
When I speak in universities, they’re always quick to point out, “No, God cannot hate because God is love.” And I tell you God must hate because God is love. You see, I love children; therefore, I hate abortion.
Again, the thing Washer skips over here is that children are people, but abortion is a sin. God hates sin precisely because He loves people. And God died for the one who has participated in an abortion just as surely as he died for the children.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to address your other responses at the moment, but will try to get to at least one more of them tomorrow if I can.
Thanks again for the points you raise.
--Phin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 11:12:56 AM
|
|
|
J_Michael80
Posts: 399
Joined: 3/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Indeed, it is a shame. I have witnessed some brazen acts of mockery and slander against a good minister in this thread by some people. I'm so glad that God is love and just.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 1:24:19 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
faithfulservant:
And I've witnessed a lot of failing to engage in the discussion in favor of sniping from the edges. Now, I am also witnessing a bald-faced accusation, also of the run-n-gun type.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 2:04:28 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Phineas (or Eric??) whoever it was that said a few posts above that Paul Washer had not been asked back and you ASSUMED it was because it was of something negative that he did or said.
Hi Mary,
I'm afraid you need to back up and get a couple things sorted out here. The issue was not that Washer was not asked back (though he wasn't). The issue is that he KNEW GOING IN that he would not be asked back. He actually says this a couple of times during his message.
So, we are left with the following series of events.
- Washer is INVITED to speak to YOUTH at a large SBC function.
- Washer ACCEPTS the invitation
- Washer SPEAKS at the function KNOWING that what he has to say will be so egregious to those present that he won't be invited back.
This brings several questions to my mind. Note that I'm not asking that someone provide the correct answers to these questions, or provide evidence of some kind (though that would be nice). I'm simply asking for plausible answers.
- When Washer accepted the invitation to speak, was he already planning to give a message that he knew would be so egregious to those who had invited him that they would never invite him back?
- When Washer decided to give a message that would be so egregious to those who had invited him that he was certain he would never be invited back, did he fail to respect those who had invited him enough to give them fair warning about his plans?
If the response to either of the above is "YES" then I don't think that Washer dealt with the organizers of the function in the kind of open and honest way that I believe demonstrates integrity in your relationships. Do you disagree?
The fact that Washer spoke at the function makes it difficult for me to imagine that there is not a "YES" answer to one of the above. Do you disagree?
The fact that Washer was speaking at a YOUTH function makes the apparent lack of openness and honesty in dealing with the event's organizers all the more egregious, if true. Do you disagree?
quote:
i am so angry that you would jump to such a conclusion...
As I've stated explicitly a number of times, I am not jumping to a conclusion. I am merely expressing my concerns and inviting anyone interested to help me arrive at whatever conclusion seems most correct to them.
quote:
didn't Jesus say that he is a Rock of offense?
I understand that the truth offends, but at the same time, offense can hardly be used as proof that one is speaking truth. Otherwise, Howard Stern is a prophet. :P
quote:
WHAT WORDS HAVE PAUL WASHER EVER SPOKEN THAT WAS NOT BIBLICAL???
Mary, I called out four things that concerned me in this regard in a previous response to you. I even numbered them. If you saw them, you've apparently chosen to ignore them. You've also ignored the fact that none of my stated concerns had anything to do with Washer's "DELIVERY" or his "PERSONALITY." Yet you do not hesitate to accuse me of being motivated by these things. You who hates slander, can you show that this accusation isn't slanderous? Or do you only hate slander against some, yet welcome it against others?
quote:
if that preacher delivers the message THAT THE HOLY GHOST TOLD HIM TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE...
If indeed. Tell me Mary, how does one go about knowing whether Washer (or Stern for that matter) is delivering a message "THAT THE HOLY GHOST TOLD HIM TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE?"
quote:
God have mercy on YOUR SOUL FOR PUTTING A STUMBLINGBLOCK to someone who needs to hear the message.
God have mercy on my soul for many, many things. But I don't believe that following the pattern of the Bereans is one of them.
--Phin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 2:11:30 PM
|
|
|
Stephanos
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
So you are saying that Washer should not have said what was on his heart so he did not offend anyone? Funny, I thought we should always tell the truth regardless of what people think about us. Remember the Word of God is offensive to most of the world. Does that mean we should be silent? If just ONE person whom heard Brother Washer speak those words, changed their life and saw the truth, it was worth it, even if he is never invited back again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 2:18:20 PM
|
|
|
IMA_CHRISTIAN
Posts: 1671
Joined: 1/23/2006
Status: offline
|
First of all Phineas, Howard Stern is a depraved sinner, I cannot take anything that he who follows his father the devil, of any merit. You cannot even compare the two.
The Holy Ghost will NEVER speak out of the mouthof Howard Stern while he is a sinner!!! how can you even say that??!!??
I have never heard of a preacher give an advance warning or preview of what he is going to preach.
If you say that he knew he was going to deliver a message that would possibly offend someone, you must remember that all of us must deliver the message that God puts on our heart, (now i dont mean just go off onyour own fleshly words) but if God tells you to say something from the pulpit, then you need to say those words and let God handle the consequences.
I did not see that post you made until last night and I had not seen it earlier, and yesterday I said "whoa!" You stated wht happened (which was true) and then YOU put in YOUR own analysis (which was negative and slanderous) about the reason.
I am going to see Paul Washer when he comes to Chicago in August. I cant wait, seeing and hearing for myself is going to be excellent. I will hear him first hand.
as for your comment about you thinking your a Berean, I do believe you have misunderstood. A Berean tested the WORDS OF SCRIPTURE against words of the speaker, NOT personally attacking their character or motive FOR WHICH YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW!!! were you there? no. so you dont know, but you typed as if you did.
So again, I ask you - WHAT WORDS HAVE PAUL WASHER PREACHED THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE WORD OF GOD? thats what I base any true preacher on. And Im not talking about how his message makes you feel or what your opinion is - lets get down to the BIBLE. Please see if you can answer my question. I dont think you can find anything heretical or contrary to Gods Word, can you?
< Message edited by IMA_CHRISTIAN -- 7/3/2008 2:49:59 PM >
_____________________________
I'm just one of those Calvinistic robots for the Lord :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 4:12:48 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you are saying that Washer should not have said what was on his heart so he did not offend anyone?
On the contrary. I'm saying that Washer should have shared EXACTLY what was on his heart. What concerns me is that Washer waited until he was standing in front of 5000 YOUTH before revealing that HE KNEW that what was on his heart would not get him invited back.
I don't get why this is so difficult to understand. Let's say that I'm invited to speak at a McCain rally. I accept the invitation. I show up to speak and freely admit during my speech that what I'm going to say will be so upsetting to those who invited me that I'll never be asked to speak again. Then I light into the McCain campaign and talk about all the things they are doing wrong. Even if everything I said was unquestionably correct, would it not be the case that I had dealt unfairly with those who'd invited me to speak? Would it not be the case that I had acted in a manner that did not demonstrate integrity when dealing with others?
quote:
If just ONE person whom heard Brother Washer speak those words, changed their life and saw the truth, it was worth it, even if he is never invited back again.
So are you saying that the ends justify the means?
Why do people keep acting like the issue was him not getting invited back? Me not getting invited to speak again at a McCain rally is not really the same thing at all as the scenario I described above. Once again, not getting invited back is one thing. Knowing you are not going to be invited back, yet still accepting an invitation while planning to give a message that the organizers of the event will consider subversive--that's a completely different thing. To my mind, I have a difficult time imagining how the latter happens without some sort of deceptive behavior, whether active or passive.
--Phin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 4:22:12 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Holy Ghost will NEVER speak out of the mouthof Howard Stern while he is a sinner!!! how can you even say that??!!??
Mary, you seem to be implying that I said that the Holy Ghost would speak out of the mouth of Howard Stern. This is definitely not something that I said. Yet you choose to imply that I did while at the same time ignoring my question. Here's the question again (and please note that it is a question directed at you and not a statement made by me).
quote:
Tell me Mary, how does one go about knowing whether Washer (or Stern for that matter) is delivering a message "THAT THE HOLY GHOST TOLD HIM TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE?"
Could you please answer the question I asked? And would you also please find it in your heart to rescind your implication? If you will not rescind your implication or somehow demonstrate that I either said or implied that the Holy Ghost will speak out of the mouth of Howard Stearn, then how am I to believe that you are interested in treating me fairly in this conversation?
--Phin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 4:40:40 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2335
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
On the contrary. I'm saying that Washer should have shared EXACTLY what was on his heart. What concerns me is that Washer waited until he was standing in front of 5000 YOUTH before revealing that HE KNEW that what was on his heart would not get him invited back.
If more pastors would stick to their convictions and preach unashamedly then the church today wouldn't be in the state it's in. Part of the problem is that the YOUTH have not been taught biblical truths. They've been fed nothing but fluff and when they enter college they are devoured by the world.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 4:47:16 PM
|
|
|
HisFish
Posts: 623
Joined: 8/3/2005
From: Rocky mountain way
Status: offline
|
quote:
To my mind, I have a difficult time imagining how the latter happens without some sort of deceptive behavior, whether active or passive
What do you want people to say?. Your the only one that has this take on it, you keep grinding on the same point ad infinitum. You dont like washer, we get it, at least be a man and come out and say paul washer is a deceiver, you want to say it, you basically do it in every post to the point of obsessive compulsiveness. And when you get called on it you do the ol' texas two-step, " im not sayin' he is a deciever, im just sayin'....".
_____________________________
The theology of the present aims at the deification of man, but the truth of all time
magnifies God . C. H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 4:52:43 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
If more pastors would stick to their convictions and preach unashamedly then the church today wouldn't be in the state it's in.
I don't disagree. I definitely want to see pastors preach unashamedly. I'd also like to see preachers deal unashamedly with those who have invited them to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 5:04:49 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2335
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
Those pastors who do the conferences are part of the problem. They are the one's following fad after fad after fad and they are guilty of not equipping their churches with the basic truths in the Bible.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 5:25:47 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 1874
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
Here's another glimpse into the mind of Washer's chosen pastor:
One more thing. Jeff Noblit, pastor of First Baptist Church, Muscle Shoals, Ala., is the one who said "The rise of Calvinism will produce better church splits."
He said 2 Cor. 6:17 tells Christians to be separate. He said that verse tells "Christians they must split from false professors." He did not say the verse is an admonition to be separate from non-believers.
...
"When a central doctrine is at stake," he said, "the pastor must stand. Peace at all cost is the banner of the coward ... splitting over essential doctrine is commanded and commendable."
from biblicalrecorder
"better church splits"!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 5:26:34 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
What do you want people to say?
That's easy. When I'm interested in hearing what people think about something, I ask them questions. Like these:
quote:
- When Washer accepted the invitation to speak, was he already planning to give a message that he knew would be so egregious to those who had invited him that they would never invite him back?
- When Washer decided to give a message that would be so egregious to those who had invited him that he was certain he would never be invited back, did he fail to respect those who had invited him enough to give them fair warning about his plans?
If the response to either of the above is "YES" then I don't think that Washer dealt with the organizers of the function in the kind of open and honest way that I believe demonstrates integrity in your relationships. Do you disagree?
The fact that Washer spoke at the function makes it difficult for me to imagine that there is not a "YES" answer to one of the above. Do you disagree?
The fact that Washer was speaking at a YOUTH function makes the apparent lack of openness and honesty in dealing with the event's organizers all the more egregious, if true. Do you disagree?
Or here:
quote:
Let's say that I'm invited to speak at a McCain rally. I accept the invitation. I show up to speak and freely admit during my speech that what I'm going to say will be so upsetting to those who invited me that I'll never be asked to speak again. Then I light into the McCain campaign and talk about all the things they are doing wrong. Even if everything I said was unquestionably correct, would it not be the case that I had dealt unfairly with those who'd invited me to speak? Would it not be the case that I had acted in a manner that did not demonstrate integrity when dealing with others?
Or this one:
quote:
Tell me Mary, how does one go about knowing whether Washer (or Stern for that matter) is delivering a message "THAT THE HOLY GHOST TOLD HIM TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE?"
Similarly, I imagine that when someone is interested in what I think, they ask me a question. Like this one:
quote:
What do you think of Paul Washer?
This is the model for effective communication with which I am familiar. Evidently, you are familiar with a different model. One where you ignore questions to imply I haven't asked them ("What do you want people to say?") before proceeding to take pot-shots at the questioner.
quote:
Your the only one that has this take on it...
So, instead of addressing the merits of my points, you choose to imply that I am obviously wrong because I'm the only one holding this position? Even if you were correct that I am the only one holding this position (which I am obviously not), it is a logical fallacy to assume that this makes my position incorrect.
quote:
You dont like washer, we get it..
Instead of addressing the merits of my points, you question my motives. Even if it were correct that I don't like Washer (it isn't), it is a logical fallacy to assume that this makes my position incorrect.
quote:
...at least be a man...
Instead of addressing the merits of my points, you question my manhood? Seriously? Do I really need to point out that even if I were the girliest of men (I'm not :P), this says nothing against the merits of my points?
And so it goes.
What do I want people to say? I'd settle for them addressing my concerns instead of avoiding them in favor of ad hominem attacks for one.
--Phin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 5:38:30 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Those pastors who do the conferences are part of the problem. They are the one's following fad after fad after fad and they are guilty of not equipping their churches with the basic truths in the Bible.
Sorry, Stephanie, but I'm going to have to call you on this one. Do you know any pastors that were at the conference? Are you sure that you haven't just painted some godly men with your broad brush? Even in his message, Washer allowed for the possibility that there were some godly church leaders present. Or maybe you are just referring to the men who ran the conference? Can you tell us who those men are? Can you back up your accusation that they are following fads with evidence? Can you show that the fads they are following are not biblical? And can you give evidence that showing how they are not equipping their churches and what basic truths they are avoiding?
Thanks,
--Phin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 5:46:54 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2335
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _phinehas_
quote:
Those pastors who do the conferences are part of the problem. They are the one's following fad after fad after fad and they are guilty of not equipping their churches with the basic truths in the Bible.
Sorry, Stephanie, but I'm going to have to call you on this one. Do you know any pastors that were at the conference? Are you sure that you haven't just painted some godly men with your broad brush? Even in his message, Washer allowed for the possibility that there were some godly church leaders present. Or maybe you are just referring to the men who ran the conference? Can you tell us who those men are? Can you back up your accusation that they are following fads with evidence? Can you show that the fads they are following are not biblical? And can you give evidence that showing how they are not equipping their churches and what basic truths they are avoiding?
Thanks,
--Phin
I'm southern baptist. I do know what's going on within the denomination.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 5:53:54 PM
|
|
|
Eric B
Posts: 61
Joined: 11/22/2005
Status: offline
|
(To whoever may still think that I'm Phinehas), I do not go along with the focus on "worth". I believe the others here are more right on that one. I would only speak in terms of worth meaning that we are God's creation, and He is saving us through the Cross, and the fact that He wants to save implies some sort of worth to the one saving. So the worth is ultimatlely in God. Otherwise, that whole "worth" business always struck me as some modernistic jargon, like some Robert Schuller type thing made to sound nice and harmonize the Bible with secular notions of "self-worth".
As for "deceptiveness", I wouldn't say that really, but what is being noted is basically the same thing I was pointing out in my first post. It's what I called "stealth". He and the others (Cameron, etc.) initially deal in general issues (such as evangelism methods or increasing worldliness in the church) in their presentation, but then their full premise gets sprung on the unsuspecting people later. And they know full well and admit that it will offend the people, so that's why they must do it this way. So it's kind of like sneaking the message in, and then when the people get wise and kick you out, you did still get the message in and meet your objective.
It does seem somewhat like an unbiblical "sneaky" method to me. But I can understand why he would do it. (Thus also unlike Phinehas, this has not been my issue). It is so important that he must get the message through by any means necessary. If people get saved because of it, then the end will have justified the means. (And I actually wrote this before Phinehas posted a similar statement).
However, the other area where it seems pretentious to me, and this is where the C vs A comes in, is the use of cause and effect language when the underlying belief is that the saved and damned are already predetermined. (Then, he "hates" people because of sin, but then no, he "hated" some people from eternity loved others, "not because of any good or evil they had done", and "charged them with sin" and withheld salvation and punished the "hated" for it to fulfill his predetermined hatred).
So all of this worldliness in the church is said to be caused by false conversion which is said to be caused by all of this "Arminianism/easy believism and its cheap grace". The solution is said to be Lordship salvation teaching, which (as if through fear) will convict everyone into a true conversion. That to me seems like double-talk. But then that's not really Washer's fault; that's the C vs A issue, which is a tangent. The reason it's pertinent, is because if you try to "raise the stakes" with the demands of Lordship teaching, then there's no way anyone can claim to be saved, unless they presume that they're performing good enough compared to all the "sinners" (adulterers, drug users, etc) we like to point at. (And will ALWAYS "persevere" in it). But now, we're right back to the Pharisees. If you want to judge by behavior (The Law), then God's standard is absolute perfection, not simply "trying better" or "growing" faster and behaving a little better than the "sinner" next to you you're comparing yourself to.
BTW; Washer, while dismissing people's use of Corinthians never did get around to explaining what it did mean, if the quote above was all he said on it. Again, just like happened here, we are looking at the whole book, yet people base their rebuttals on one chapter, as if that's all our position is derived from. Ch.3 he's calling them carnal; most of the rest of the book; he's explaining why, and it all goes together.
And again, IMA, if you try to appeal to "the Rock of offense" in other people's anger, then you must realize that you and other fans of his are getting more angry than anyone else! None of us are calling him a "false prophet" or saying he's not truly saved like he does to others. We are addressing problems we see in his teaching. And it apparently is a rock of offense to you. Nobody should be that emotionally attached to a preacher. (ESPECIALLY when you believe he speaks the truth and will be opposed for it. Why get angry when that scriptural teaching is fulfilled? Something just seems not right about this to me).
< Message edited by Eric B -- 7/3/2008 6:22:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 6:14:15 PM
|
|
|
_phinehas_
Posts: 36
Joined: 6/30/2008
From: Leander, TX
Status: offline
|
Hey Eric,
I'm not going to belabor this point, since I don't think you and I are too far off on it, but I wanted to clarify my perspective.
What something is worth is typically understood in terms of what someone is willing to pay for it. Since Christ was willing to die on the cross in order to redeem my life, the cross is a symbol of how much Christ was willing to pay for me, and therefore, a sign of my worth. I believe that worth can also be understood in terms of how much someone is loved. Greater love has no man than that he would lay down his life for a friend. But God demonstrated his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Again, the Bible clearly shows that Christ's death on the cross is a symbol of his love toward us. To me, it only follows that God's love declares my worth.
Note that I'm not claiming that the cross is not also a sign of man's depravity. I believe that it is, as well as being a sign of man's worth.
--Phin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you think of Paul Washer? - 7/3/2008 6:26:23 PM
|
|
|
Eric B
Posts: 61
Joined: 11/22/2005
Status: offline
|
OK; that's basically what I was getting at. Problem is, it can be easily misunderstood, and I do still think a lot of people out there are taking it in some sort of [worldly] "self-worth" way, or at least using it to boost "self-worth".
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
