Tim has a missionary heart for his hometown to love those close to him yet far from God. He is husband to Dusti and father to Nolan, Aiden, and Adelyn - fellow pilgrims to our celestial city.
Tears ran freely down my cheeks as I listened to this and toward the end heard him talk about how praying a superstitious prayer at the end of the “Roman Road” has sent many to hell. Been there, done that–praise God saved FROM that by His mercy and grace! I continue to pray that my extended family will be delivered from this very thing.
Michael Spencer, in the above pingback writes,
“Today, I hear more and more from the back rows of this reformed revolution that sounds like Washer: Revivalistic. Loud. Aggressive. Angry. Wanting a fight. Desiring persecution.
There’s something about that level of rhetoric that always makes me think of the zealous rhetoric of Islam, and I have to wonder at what point the tone of things becomes a clue to how the Bible is being used and how Jesus Christ himself is being proclaimed.”
Thought’s on Spencer’s opining?
Maybe I missed it in the video, but did Washer use the term “Cowardly Calvinists” or is that your label for the clip?
If yours, why use the word “Calvinist” instead of “Christian”?
Regarding Spencer, I have profited much spiritually from Bro. Washer’s messages, but I do wonder if revival really means that “everything changes” and if it is true that we are preaching to a largely unregenerate church? Perhaps he is in his ministry of speaking from church to church, but it is not true everywhere. I mean, not every church lacks integrity on the regenerate church membership issue. In the life of such churches, revival is still something to cry out for God to bring, but when it comes does revival “change everything” or does revival bring an re-energizing of our passion and devotion to many of the same Christian practices and duties that we were walking in prior to the revival?
It is good to set such preachers in the context of where God is using them in the kingdom. I personally know young (20’s) men and women who grew up in Christian homes, said a sinner’s prayer as a child, and yet found themselves outside of the faith in college. Humanly speaking, it was hearing the gospel via Paul Washer that broke them out of their lost condition and brought them to salvation. Yet, in my listening to the very sermons that led these folks to Christ, I am aware of their uniqueness in contrast to the week-by-week preaching in the body of Christ… preaching modeled by MacArthur, Begg, Olford, etc.
My view would be that we need both/and.
Just a few thoughts,
Scott
As far as the iMonk is concerned, he just continues to alienate those he claims to once have stood together with. I wonder if he ever actually did stand with more “mainstream” Calvinists and non-Calvinists. That is, mainstream as in convervative, orthodox, evangelical believers of these two stripes. I used to enjoy the guy’s writing, but I quickly became tired of his spiel.
Scott,
The term is in the audio (check about the halfway point). Regarding “changing everything,” is that not what happened, for instance, in the First Great Awakening?
Alright, so here’s what I am thinking. In full disclosure, I wanted to post this to make a point (perhaps more than one). With a measured amount of confidence, I was certain that there would be individuals who would find Washer’s passion and straightforward preaching offensive and problematic. Spencer has likened Washer’s zeal to that of Islam more than of Christianity. Now that, I find, really enlightening.
You see, whether you are an Arminian, semi-Pelagian, post-evangelical, or Emergent (not to be confused with emerging), the only appropriate or theologically correct position of a Calvinist is to be embarrassed about it, apologetical over it, in denial regarding it, or superficially adhering to it—anything but actually believing it and teaching it and living it. We have created a culture where to hold to any convictions with certainty and passion warrants a rebuttal by our brethren and warning that we are being infused by the spirit of Mohammed instead of Christ.
Now hear me out on this. I am totally against being bombastic, reckless, and irresponsible with your words and actions. I am in no way endorsing an arrogant and pompous version of Calvinism that is angry and “desiring persecution.” But today persecution comes at the cost of merely hold true to what you believe to a degree that alters another person’s sensitivities.
Do you ever catch the tone of the Emergent when it comes to social justice? They are passionate about it. They speak out about it, where it on their wrist, on their blogs, t-shirts, bumper stickers, tattoos, you name it. It is a cause they believe worth being intense about. What about the dogmatism of those behind the NPP, the rhetoric of Open Theists like Pinnock and Boyd, the “loudness” of egalitarians? Now where are the men like Spencer and his cohorts at BHT calling out other camps for being too serious and sincere about what they believe?
But when it comes to doctrine, particularly Reformed doctrine, we equate humility with being effeminate and question the prophetic mantle for the sake of being culturally conversant. Hear what Spencer calls it—“a Calvinist revolution” and “fanaticism.” I am just becoming more and more convinced that the 21st century version of Christianity in America will not tolerate a modern-day prophet. I wonder if Spencer would rather have a fleeing Jonah in Tarshish than a Jeremiah crying out “Thus saith the Lord”? Perhaps the Daniel’s of today would be better off eating the king’s food in order to not upset the steward while putting his life at risk. Perhaps those Hebrew boys should have not been as fanatical in their uncompromising witness and devotion to their God, but should have bowed to the idols like the rest of them. Perhaps Elijah should not have tested the prophets of Baal but should have sought for a better “conversation” since after all “looking for a fight” is never right, even when tables need turning. Is this what we have to look forward to in the coming years? How can I not but think that Daniel, Elijah, Jeremiah, and the rest of those fanatical OT prophets are just as guilty of being “loud,” “aggressive,” and “angry”?
Let’s face it. The only acceptable version of Calvinism today is cowardly Calvinists. Anything more would be upsetting to the equilibrium of theological correctness. We can be passionate about everything under the sun (hello global warming) but the doctrines of sovereign grace. How odd is that? Yet, when it comes down to it, who would you rather have next to you when the time comes to put up or shut up? I cannot help but think that I want to be in the shadow of a man like Paul Washer than whatever alternative my BHT friends would advocate.
I have to wonder if Bro. Washer is a pastor when I listen to something like this. I am soteriologically reformed, and I am not ashamed of that fact. I believe and teach that God is Sovereign in all things. I also know that many who listen may be unregenerate.
However, I also know that most are theologically ignorant. And many who are devoted to Christ would not pass a reformed test. As I see it, my duty is to Preach the Word with longsuffering. I wonder how long it took the average Calvinist to be persuaded of their position after they were saved and became students of the Word?
Paul is a friend of mine. His passionate concern is genuine. He may sound angry, but the truth is he is simply broken-hearted — as I often am — at the sham Christianity that is rampant today. No, he is not a pastor. He once told me if he were, he would probably preach differently. That’s what is needed in the regular care and feeding of a flock. But in his ministry he does speak in a lot of churches. When you do that you see a lot going on that is far from the biblical model. You also meet a lot of people who claim to be Christian but give little if any biblical evidence of genuine regeneration. As a result, his ministry is very much in the prophetic vein of men like Daniel Rowland, George Whitefield, etc whom God used to shake up a lethargic church and to challenge many who believed themselves to be converted, but had never been brought to saving repentance and faith. It is true, as Scott Lamb says, not every church is full of unregenerate people. Some still maintain biblical standards in preaching the Gospel and exercising church discipline. Sadly, most do not. Many, many of us need to hear this message and take it to heart. I’ve heard Paul preach this, or something like it many times and I was once again convicted by what I heard. May God shake us up once again as he has many times in the past.
Scott, Knowing that you have a looong friendship with Paul, I was hoping to see you jump in here. I think your comments are right on target. I hope I was clear in my earlier remarks, but if not then let me say I admire Paul a great deal. And could the “prophetic voice” be channeled into a week-by-week, verse-by-verse ministry? Look no further than Paul’s own pastor.
Timmy, we probably are not really in disagreement when we are talking about whether God-sent revival “changes everything” or not. I am thinking back to lectures by Dr. Nettles from ten years ago in a course on “Revival and Revivalism”, and I seem to remember his emphasis being that voices from the First Great Awakening saw the genuine revival as being an intensification of “the means of grace” as opposed to something altogether brand new. In other words, preaching, prayer, gospel-sharing, Bible reading, ordinances, etc. – the revival brought intensity and spiritual vitality to these measures. So yes, in the things that really matter, “everything changes”.
p.s. did I miss a “baby’s here” announcement? I thought you guys were due before Thanksgiving!
Scott Lee,
Thanks for sharing. I have had the privilege of spending a little time with Paul since he has been at FBMS but have been listening to his sermons for almost a decade. He is certainly one of the most humble and self-deprecating men I have ever met.
Scott Lamb,
Yeah, Edwards called it an “extraordinary providence” or unusual work of the Spirit upon His people. Yet, the change that revival brought about was documented by Edwards which included young and old, rich and poor, inside church and outside in the world, etc. In that sense, I would say that things changed. But you’re right. If we think of it like a spiritual demolition derby, we would be off base. It is worth noting that Edwards testified that the messages that God used most significantly to bring about revival were those on sovereign grace and regeneration. I think Washer is not ignorant to this. 😉
Oh, and no baby as of yet. We stand at 38 weeks, 1cm dilated, 50% effaced.
(yeah, I studied up on this labor and delivery thing – but I promised to stay above the shoulders!)
“He is certainly one of the most humble and self-deprecating men I have ever met.”
Thanks for stating this! I have heard him preach several times (in person) and each time he has preached through tears. “Angry”?–only in the sense of Biblical anger at false teaching which gives comfort to those on their way to Hell. “Passionate” is the better word….genuine, heart-felt, God-given passion for souls and for Truth. When I try to describe him to those who don’t know him, the best I can come up with is that he is the 21st century Tozer.
I read the recent issue from Heart Cry where he memorialized his mother who has recently gone be with Christ. He once preached at a church with tears and the preacher got up and said he needed counseling. His momma corrected said preacher. I am reminded of George Whitefield preaching through tears, as well as Robert Murray M’Cheyne. Spurgeon was ridiculed for his passionate preaching and was considered by the newspapers as ignorant and uncouth. J vernon McGee said we don’t need more preaching, but the right kind! Keep it up Washer!
Amen to both of your statements. If I can liken Washer to anyone, it would be the prophet Jeremiah. The mantle the Lord has given Washer is a difficult one with a hard message, but the Lord is accompanying it with power, conviction, and change. The God Washer knows, and the gospel he preaches does more for my wicked heart than most any offerings I hear today. May the Lord raise up many more who fear and tremble in His presence and fertilize their message with tears.
I do want to add that yes, it’s my wicked heart that need to hear such and not just “those people.” Mnay thanks for the thought provoking posts.
James L
For those interested, or perhaps you have never heard of Paul Washer and would like to know more, I have a post with almost 100 sermons by Washer, several videos, and HeartCry’s statement of faith. That post is located here:
Timmy,
Thanks for drawing our attention to Paul Washer once again. Every time I hear him I am challenged and desire more holiness and courage.
You wrote in a comment, “It is worth noting that Edwards testified that the messages that God used most significantly to bring about revival were those on sovereign grace and regeneration.” Yes, and Edwards went even further saying that part of the nature of saving faith consists in a realization of one’s total and complete inability and dependence on God for redemption. He preached this in 1731, “For there is included in the nature of faith, a sensibleness, and acknowledgment of this absolute dependence on God in this affair [salvation]. ‘Tis very fit that it should be required of all, in order to their having the benefit of this redemption, that they should be sensible of and acknowledge the dependence on God for it.” I just read this in his sermon “God Glorified in the Work of Redemption . . . .” I am not sure what I think of his argument, and will need to think it through more. But it is clear from Edwards’ preaching and polemics that he saw the doctrines of grace to be foundational to God’s work of redemption and His glory. Edwards didn’t build any bridges toward Arminian thought (see Original Sin and Freedom of the Will). I don’t know if he was right but it is interesting to think of a different perspective on these issues from outside our time and place.
Mark,
You’re right. Even from the beginning of “The Surprising Work of God,” Edwards set out that one of the major problems and reasons why revival was needed was the pervasive Arminianism in his day. Yet I have to wonder if Edwards was altogether separate from cooperating with any evangelical Arminians.
Yes, I wonder that as well. It just doesn’t seem there were many evangelical Arminians to cooperate with in New England at the time. Most that were embracing Arminianism were moving toward Anglicanism. All of his interactions I have seen with Arminians and their ideas have been negative. And the way he thought the gospel and the glory of God was at stake in any compromise on man’s absolute dependence on God in salvation, makes me think he would not have been real cooperative.
It seems there was a different mind set back then. There was one orthodoxy, and it was defined much more narrowly than our “essentials.” And any decline from that orthodoxy was dangerous to the health of the churches and the future of the colonies. I think more cooperation is good, definitely. Unlike Edwards I would not be so harsh toward separatists like myself. But reading someone with a different mind set may help remind us what is at stake in some of these ‘non-essential’ doctrines, and move us to be more courageous in proclaiming them.
If I can remember correctly, Edwards considered Arminianism in a broader light than we do today (perhaps leading to universalism). I find it remarkable that Edwards, who was so strong and uncompromising in matters of orthodoxy would be succeeded by his son and other disciples who would usher in the New Divinity that would attempt to overthrow everything Edwards believed. In less than a 100 years, the theological landscape drastically changed. I think that is a good historical warning and lesson to be learned.
Wow!
This same sermon clip (with no music) and different visuals/images can be downloaded here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=915072016593
Tears ran freely down my cheeks as I listened to this and toward the end heard him talk about how praying a superstitious prayer at the end of the “Roman Road” has sent many to hell. Been there, done that–praise God saved FROM that by His mercy and grace! I continue to pray that my extended family will be delivered from this very thing.
Michael Spencer, in the above pingback writes,
“Today, I hear more and more from the back rows of this reformed revolution that sounds like Washer: Revivalistic. Loud. Aggressive. Angry. Wanting a fight. Desiring persecution.
There’s something about that level of rhetoric that always makes me think of the zealous rhetoric of Islam, and I have to wonder at what point the tone of things becomes a clue to how the Bible is being used and how Jesus Christ himself is being proclaimed.”
Thought’s on Spencer’s opining?
Maybe I missed it in the video, but did Washer use the term “Cowardly Calvinists” or is that your label for the clip?
If yours, why use the word “Calvinist” instead of “Christian”?
Regarding Spencer, I have profited much spiritually from Bro. Washer’s messages, but I do wonder if revival really means that “everything changes” and if it is true that we are preaching to a largely unregenerate church? Perhaps he is in his ministry of speaking from church to church, but it is not true everywhere. I mean, not every church lacks integrity on the regenerate church membership issue. In the life of such churches, revival is still something to cry out for God to bring, but when it comes does revival “change everything” or does revival bring an re-energizing of our passion and devotion to many of the same Christian practices and duties that we were walking in prior to the revival?
It is good to set such preachers in the context of where God is using them in the kingdom. I personally know young (20’s) men and women who grew up in Christian homes, said a sinner’s prayer as a child, and yet found themselves outside of the faith in college. Humanly speaking, it was hearing the gospel via Paul Washer that broke them out of their lost condition and brought them to salvation. Yet, in my listening to the very sermons that led these folks to Christ, I am aware of their uniqueness in contrast to the week-by-week preaching in the body of Christ… preaching modeled by MacArthur, Begg, Olford, etc.
My view would be that we need both/and.
Just a few thoughts,
Scott
As far as the iMonk is concerned, he just continues to alienate those he claims to once have stood together with. I wonder if he ever actually did stand with more “mainstream” Calvinists and non-Calvinists. That is, mainstream as in convervative, orthodox, evangelical believers of these two stripes. I used to enjoy the guy’s writing, but I quickly became tired of his spiel.
Scott,
The term is in the audio (check about the halfway point). Regarding “changing everything,” is that not what happened, for instance, in the First Great Awakening?
Alright, so here’s what I am thinking. In full disclosure, I wanted to post this to make a point (perhaps more than one). With a measured amount of confidence, I was certain that there would be individuals who would find Washer’s passion and straightforward preaching offensive and problematic. Spencer has likened Washer’s zeal to that of Islam more than of Christianity. Now that, I find, really enlightening.
You see, whether you are an Arminian, semi-Pelagian, post-evangelical, or Emergent (not to be confused with emerging), the only appropriate or theologically correct position of a Calvinist is to be embarrassed about it, apologetical over it, in denial regarding it, or superficially adhering to it—anything but actually believing it and teaching it and living it. We have created a culture where to hold to any convictions with certainty and passion warrants a rebuttal by our brethren and warning that we are being infused by the spirit of Mohammed instead of Christ.
Now hear me out on this. I am totally against being bombastic, reckless, and irresponsible with your words and actions. I am in no way endorsing an arrogant and pompous version of Calvinism that is angry and “desiring persecution.” But today persecution comes at the cost of merely hold true to what you believe to a degree that alters another person’s sensitivities.
Do you ever catch the tone of the Emergent when it comes to social justice? They are passionate about it. They speak out about it, where it on their wrist, on their blogs, t-shirts, bumper stickers, tattoos, you name it. It is a cause they believe worth being intense about. What about the dogmatism of those behind the NPP, the rhetoric of Open Theists like Pinnock and Boyd, the “loudness” of egalitarians? Now where are the men like Spencer and his cohorts at BHT calling out other camps for being too serious and sincere about what they believe?
But when it comes to doctrine, particularly Reformed doctrine, we equate humility with being effeminate and question the prophetic mantle for the sake of being culturally conversant. Hear what Spencer calls it—“a Calvinist revolution” and “fanaticism.” I am just becoming more and more convinced that the 21st century version of Christianity in America will not tolerate a modern-day prophet. I wonder if Spencer would rather have a fleeing Jonah in Tarshish than a Jeremiah crying out “Thus saith the Lord”? Perhaps the Daniel’s of today would be better off eating the king’s food in order to not upset the steward while putting his life at risk. Perhaps those Hebrew boys should have not been as fanatical in their uncompromising witness and devotion to their God, but should have bowed to the idols like the rest of them. Perhaps Elijah should not have tested the prophets of Baal but should have sought for a better “conversation” since after all “looking for a fight” is never right, even when tables need turning. Is this what we have to look forward to in the coming years? How can I not but think that Daniel, Elijah, Jeremiah, and the rest of those fanatical OT prophets are just as guilty of being “loud,” “aggressive,” and “angry”?
Let’s face it. The only acceptable version of Calvinism today is cowardly Calvinists. Anything more would be upsetting to the equilibrium of theological correctness. We can be passionate about everything under the sun (hello global warming) but the doctrines of sovereign grace. How odd is that? Yet, when it comes down to it, who would you rather have next to you when the time comes to put up or shut up? I cannot help but think that I want to be in the shadow of a man like Paul Washer than whatever alternative my BHT friends would advocate.
I have to wonder if Bro. Washer is a pastor when I listen to something like this. I am soteriologically reformed, and I am not ashamed of that fact. I believe and teach that God is Sovereign in all things. I also know that many who listen may be unregenerate.
However, I also know that most are theologically ignorant. And many who are devoted to Christ would not pass a reformed test. As I see it, my duty is to Preach the Word with longsuffering. I wonder how long it took the average Calvinist to be persuaded of their position after they were saved and became students of the Word?
Paul is a friend of mine. His passionate concern is genuine. He may sound angry, but the truth is he is simply broken-hearted — as I often am — at the sham Christianity that is rampant today. No, he is not a pastor. He once told me if he were, he would probably preach differently. That’s what is needed in the regular care and feeding of a flock. But in his ministry he does speak in a lot of churches. When you do that you see a lot going on that is far from the biblical model. You also meet a lot of people who claim to be Christian but give little if any biblical evidence of genuine regeneration. As a result, his ministry is very much in the prophetic vein of men like Daniel Rowland, George Whitefield, etc whom God used to shake up a lethargic church and to challenge many who believed themselves to be converted, but had never been brought to saving repentance and faith. It is true, as Scott Lamb says, not every church is full of unregenerate people. Some still maintain biblical standards in preaching the Gospel and exercising church discipline. Sadly, most do not. Many, many of us need to hear this message and take it to heart. I’ve heard Paul preach this, or something like it many times and I was once again convicted by what I heard. May God shake us up once again as he has many times in the past.
Scott, Knowing that you have a looong friendship with Paul, I was hoping to see you jump in here. I think your comments are right on target. I hope I was clear in my earlier remarks, but if not then let me say I admire Paul a great deal. And could the “prophetic voice” be channeled into a week-by-week, verse-by-verse ministry? Look no further than Paul’s own pastor.
Timmy, we probably are not really in disagreement when we are talking about whether God-sent revival “changes everything” or not. I am thinking back to lectures by Dr. Nettles from ten years ago in a course on “Revival and Revivalism”, and I seem to remember his emphasis being that voices from the First Great Awakening saw the genuine revival as being an intensification of “the means of grace” as opposed to something altogether brand new. In other words, preaching, prayer, gospel-sharing, Bible reading, ordinances, etc. – the revival brought intensity and spiritual vitality to these measures. So yes, in the things that really matter, “everything changes”.
p.s. did I miss a “baby’s here” announcement? I thought you guys were due before Thanksgiving!
Scott Lee,
Thanks for sharing. I have had the privilege of spending a little time with Paul since he has been at FBMS but have been listening to his sermons for almost a decade. He is certainly one of the most humble and self-deprecating men I have ever met.
Scott Lamb,
Yeah, Edwards called it an “extraordinary providence” or unusual work of the Spirit upon His people. Yet, the change that revival brought about was documented by Edwards which included young and old, rich and poor, inside church and outside in the world, etc. In that sense, I would say that things changed. But you’re right. If we think of it like a spiritual demolition derby, we would be off base. It is worth noting that Edwards testified that the messages that God used most significantly to bring about revival were those on sovereign grace and regeneration. I think Washer is not ignorant to this. 😉
Oh, and no baby as of yet. We stand at 38 weeks, 1cm dilated, 50% effaced.
(yeah, I studied up on this labor and delivery thing – but I promised to stay above the shoulders!)
“He is certainly one of the most humble and self-deprecating men I have ever met.”
Thanks for stating this! I have heard him preach several times (in person) and each time he has preached through tears. “Angry”?–only in the sense of Biblical anger at false teaching which gives comfort to those on their way to Hell. “Passionate” is the better word….genuine, heart-felt, God-given passion for souls and for Truth. When I try to describe him to those who don’t know him, the best I can come up with is that he is the 21st century Tozer.
I read the recent issue from Heart Cry where he memorialized his mother who has recently gone be with Christ. He once preached at a church with tears and the preacher got up and said he needed counseling. His momma corrected said preacher. I am reminded of George Whitefield preaching through tears, as well as Robert Murray M’Cheyne. Spurgeon was ridiculed for his passionate preaching and was considered by the newspapers as ignorant and uncouth. J vernon McGee said we don’t need more preaching, but the right kind! Keep it up Washer!
This month’s Heart Cry magazine:
http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/content/view/155/131/
James L.
James and Ed,
Amen to both of your statements. If I can liken Washer to anyone, it would be the prophet Jeremiah. The mantle the Lord has given Washer is a difficult one with a hard message, but the Lord is accompanying it with power, conviction, and change. The God Washer knows, and the gospel he preaches does more for my wicked heart than most any offerings I hear today. May the Lord raise up many more who fear and tremble in His presence and fertilize their message with tears.
I do want to add that yes, it’s my wicked heart that need to hear such and not just “those people.” Mnay thanks for the thought provoking posts.
James L
For those interested, or perhaps you have never heard of Paul Washer and would like to know more, I have a post with almost 100 sermons by Washer, several videos, and HeartCry’s statement of faith. That post is located here:
http://timmybrister.com/2007/05/11/the-sound-of-heartcry-missionary-society/
Timmy,
Thanks for drawing our attention to Paul Washer once again. Every time I hear him I am challenged and desire more holiness and courage.
You wrote in a comment, “It is worth noting that Edwards testified that the messages that God used most significantly to bring about revival were those on sovereign grace and regeneration.” Yes, and Edwards went even further saying that part of the nature of saving faith consists in a realization of one’s total and complete inability and dependence on God for redemption. He preached this in 1731, “For there is included in the nature of faith, a sensibleness, and acknowledgment of this absolute dependence on God in this affair [salvation]. ‘Tis very fit that it should be required of all, in order to their having the benefit of this redemption, that they should be sensible of and acknowledge the dependence on God for it.” I just read this in his sermon “God Glorified in the Work of Redemption . . . .” I am not sure what I think of his argument, and will need to think it through more. But it is clear from Edwards’ preaching and polemics that he saw the doctrines of grace to be foundational to God’s work of redemption and His glory. Edwards didn’t build any bridges toward Arminian thought (see Original Sin and Freedom of the Will). I don’t know if he was right but it is interesting to think of a different perspective on these issues from outside our time and place.
Mark,
You’re right. Even from the beginning of “The Surprising Work of God,” Edwards set out that one of the major problems and reasons why revival was needed was the pervasive Arminianism in his day. Yet I have to wonder if Edwards was altogether separate from cooperating with any evangelical Arminians.
Yes, I wonder that as well. It just doesn’t seem there were many evangelical Arminians to cooperate with in New England at the time. Most that were embracing Arminianism were moving toward Anglicanism. All of his interactions I have seen with Arminians and their ideas have been negative. And the way he thought the gospel and the glory of God was at stake in any compromise on man’s absolute dependence on God in salvation, makes me think he would not have been real cooperative.
It seems there was a different mind set back then. There was one orthodoxy, and it was defined much more narrowly than our “essentials.” And any decline from that orthodoxy was dangerous to the health of the churches and the future of the colonies. I think more cooperation is good, definitely. Unlike Edwards I would not be so harsh toward separatists like myself. But reading someone with a different mind set may help remind us what is at stake in some of these ‘non-essential’ doctrines, and move us to be more courageous in proclaiming them.
If I can remember correctly, Edwards considered Arminianism in a broader light than we do today (perhaps leading to universalism). I find it remarkable that Edwards, who was so strong and uncompromising in matters of orthodoxy would be succeeded by his son and other disciples who would usher in the New Divinity that would attempt to overthrow everything Edwards believed. In less than a 100 years, the theological landscape drastically changed. I think that is a good historical warning and lesson to be learned.
Paul Washer: Calvinism is Good Theology
More at:
http://ecothearcy.blogspot.com/2007/12/paul-washer-calvinism-is-good-theology.html
Calvinism is heresy !
Eboli,
Care to give you reason why you believe Calvinism is heresy? Certainly you have good grounds, both biblically and historically.
Folks, salvation is NOT by works!! It is by faith!!