SRR #29 | Is Paul Washer a Heretic

This week SRR welcomes Peter Christian to the show and asks him to defend his recent comments that Paul Washer, John MacArther, and Steve Lawson are heretical. Peter Christian does a podcast out of Canada called Grace Hour Radio and is building a following of devoted listeners. What starts out a discussion in this episode turns into a lively debate as Peter attempts to explain why he doesn’t believe anyone can be saved without embracing the five points of Calvinism known by the acronym TULIP. It is interesting to point out that in this episode Peter states that there is no condition for salvation and appears to be confusing that with unconditional election. Peter makes multiple category errors and we may have to address some of it at a later time. At this point, we are not recommending Peter or his ministry to our listeners as we do not think he is teaching sound doctrine.

Questions? Comments? Feedback? Email us at Semper.Reformanda.Radio@gmail.com
Check out our blog: biblethumpingwingnut.com/semper-reformanda-radio

Rate and Review us on iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bible…id901586827?mt=2

16 Comments
  1. Tim Hurd 11 months ago

    Jump to the 16 minute mark to skip the introduction.

  2. Ambar Sanchez Marcelo 11 months ago

    I listened to this episode today and enjoyed it. It’s really a shame that Mr. Christian cannot see the error of his thinking with regard to Arminianism, the Gospel, and regeneration. I pray that rather than be so quick to cast Paul Washer, Steve Lawson, and John MacArthur as heretics, he would take time to see that those who are in Christ Jesus WILL bear fruit. They will have a new relationship with sin. The word of God says that “If we love Him we will keep His commandments.” I am reminded of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s explanation on the difference between cheap grace and costly grace:

    “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

    Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

    Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

    Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.”

    https://www.gotquestions.org/lordship-salvation.html – linking this page in case someone has questions or would like to do further reading on Lordship Salvation.

  3. Tim Hurd 11 months ago

    Great episode

  4. Gary Edwards 11 months ago

    I posted this comment on fb after hearing this debate:
    I don’t mean to be cruel, however this podcast is one of the worse debates I’ve ever heard. Peter is clearly confused in many areas, yet claiming to be feeding on meat. However, the defence of the objevtive Gospel of Christ alone, from both sides has been confusing. As they both have at times confused the redemption accomplished by Christ alone (the Gospel), with the redemption applied by God alone (regeneration, faith and repentance) as the Gospel, when it is the fruit of the Gospel.

    Peter confused regeneration with sanctification, and justification with sanctification. He also is being neo gnostic with his perfect faith requirements, something he would be condemned for under his own scrutiny, therefore coming across as hypocritical.
    However, he does have valid concerns, as Paul Washer has been accused within the reformed camp for being neonomian, not damming him, rather he does seem to be heavily involved in the fruit message to prove salvation.

    The Bible Thumping Wingnut guys have stumbled a little because Peter doesn’t respond well to correction, and gets extremely defensive and then attempts to move the conversation to his area that he feels comfortable with.
    Peter believes that if people baptise babies they are not saved!
    Peter believes that if you teach progressive sanctification then you are an LS, even though he hasn’t read up well on the LS controversy, rather just perceives LS as neonomianism, therefore progressive sanctification, if you teach any of that, you aren’t saved.

    It has been hard work listening to this so called debate to be honest

    • Joseph Rios 11 months ago

      If you could list a time marker with the moment you thought we were confused and the specific idea that would be more helpfull. We are not above correction, but just saying we made a mistake in general lacks. I look forward to hearing back from you as you are very thoughtful in your responses.

    • Author
      Tim Shaughnessy 11 months ago

      Gary I appreciate feedback and helpful correction but if you have to preface your comment with a disclaimer that your not trying to be cruel then there is probably a better way of saying what you need to say. That is just an an encouragement for you. Unfortunately your criticism of us was unhelpful because you did not give actual examples of our confusion.

      It is possible that Joseph or I misspoke and we are open to being corrected.

      We are now aware of Peters misunderstanding but going into this conversation with him I was not aware of what he believed. I found him to be very confused and confusing. For example he spoke disparagingly of Calvinist and refused the title of Calvinist but then added the TULIP to the gospel. I was left shaking my head asking “what in the world”?
      The reason I chose not to engage him prio to the discussion is because multiple people warned me that he would end up blocking me and I wanted to ensure I had the chance to talk with him. He has now blocked me and I have no further opportunity to engage him. I was trying to be gracious to him because I had hoped he would change his position. We have another part to this next week and I’m open to talking to you further. If you would like to send me a friend request on Facebook then I would gladly accept. I look forward to reading through your material and I thank you for your brotherly support. God Blesd!

  5. Gary Edwards 11 months ago
  6. Rick Owens 11 months ago

    We are guilty of removing the simplicity of the Gospel, and replacing it with man made doctrines. The Word of God stands all on its own and doesn’t need our made up big words and the confusion it all brings.

  7. Joseph Rios 11 months ago

    Thanks for all the feedback. Much appreciated for you to listen and share your thoughts.

  8. Cory Wentzel 11 months ago

    I enjoyed this podcast, it’s the first one that I have heard from here but I will be listening to more. I am having a hard time finding Peter Christian and the Podcast show he has because I would like to listen to him and see if he has a rebuttal since he has now blocked you guys.
    If someone could send me the link to his show that would be great.

    • Author
      Tim Shaughnessy 11 months ago

      Thanks for the comment and I’m glad you enjoyed it. I think you should be able to find Peter on Facebook and his podcast is call Grace Hour Radio.
      There will be a second half to this next week but I can assure you that Peter does not have a rebuttal to our position. He contradicts himself, makes numerous category errors and misrepresents his opponents position because he most likely misunderstands them.

  9. Gary Edwards 11 months ago

    Hey Tim, just to clarify, when I said I wasn’t trying to be cruel, it was because I had posted it to Facebook to attempt to discuss this issue with Peter Christian. I meant I wasnt being cruel towards him. I should have clarified that before posting.

    Also, I believe that you both struggled to actually rebuke Peter, correctly, by not actually challenging his neo gnostic behaviour enough. Peter believes that L.S and progressive sanctification is synonymous, and anyone who teaches this doctrine is a false convert, or false teachers, like McArthur, Sproul, Washer, and Lawson etc. However, Peter also condemns all people who believe in peadobaptism, as false believers and converts. Peter actually upholds the 5 points of Calvinism, through the teaching of Dort, yet denys Dort and Calvin as heretical also for teaching paedobaptism and progressive sanctification. He turns Calvinism against Calvin and Dort.

    I actually listen to quite a few of your podcast episodes, and enjoy the humor and fun from you guys, as well as the theology. I did think that you could have presented clearer distinctions in relation to the objective Gospel of Christ alone, by His accomplished redemption, and the fruit of the Gospel, redemption applied (by the Triune Godhead alone), when Peter kept challenging you concerning the Gospel.

    When I said it was one of the worst debates I’ve ever heard, was more to do with Peter’s behaviour, not yours. I have attempted to talk with Peter today concerning this all, and he has since falsely accused me, refused to answer the questions I asked him to clarify, and blocked me also.

    If you would like to talk to me about this or in relation to the Gospel, I would gladly Skype with you guys.

    Gospel blessings
    Gary
    Acts 20:24

  10. Rick Owens 11 months ago

    This was a train wreck and no one was saved from listening to this. A non believer would still be a non believer after hearing this.

    Sorry, but true.

    • Tim Shaughnessy 10 months ago

      Nobody was saved by your comment either sooooo….

  11. Cindy 10 months ago

    Can you post a link to the continuation of this show i.e. Lordship/Paul Washer, etc.?

    Suggestion: can you put a tab at the top of this website that lists the shows by # with a brief name and discription of the shows topic and content?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

CONTACT US

Questions, comments, encouragements & condemnations welcome.

Sending

©2017 Bible Thumping Wingnut Network | A Ministry of Striving For Eternity

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account