From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 citation needed 2 citation needed for several quotes 3 == 3.1 Article is a possible candidate for deletion 3.2 Extremely Controversal Views 3.3 Not-so-controversial views

[edit] citation needed

I just got a question: The information given in the article about Paul Washer is to about 80% taken from his own words. These quotes are found on a video and a transcript about a Youth Evangelism Conference in 2002. Thereby Paul Washer shows his intentions and his teachings and shows the biblical foundation. This sermon is available online through a transcript and the video. There are no other sources for information on teachings of Paul Washer than these and a small number of other videos and audio sermons. Concerning the remaining 20% that have been marked "citation needed" there is an easy explanation as well. The information about Paul Washer's person, his career, his time in South America and his current ministry are available on his homepage in a sub article describing him as he is the director of HeartCry Missionary Society. I made the links to the pages available that verify the information given in the article about Paul Washer. Why then were all the links taken away and the "citation needed" reestablished? If this article is "a clear violation of WP:first" what does that mean? What is WP:first? I don't see any article behind that. (Janet1983 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Paul Washer is a well known preacher around the world. The HeartCry Missionary Society that he founded and now directs supports over 80 indigenous missionaries in 15 different countries throughout Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The website is available here: http://heartcrymissionary.com/

This should provide plenty of justification for Paul Washer's significance and I would be more than happy to add any info into the text of the article to make that case stronger. Thank you for your concern.

[edit] citation needed for several quotes

Hello, I am someone, not writing often here in wikipedia. Sorry, if I am doing anything wrong/silly. I read in the article, that there i scitation needed for several quotes. Especially the quotes concerning the "famous preaching" can be seen at a video from this teaching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8 Everyone can listen by himself, what he is talking about. Have a good day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.14.131.2 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to that. It always says "citation needed", but the text is full of them. Every theological statement can be backed up by the bible and by Paul Washer's own sermon which is widely available. Janet1983 15:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==

It doesn't include my favourite quote of his on prayer: "We're trying to pray all the saints out of heaven instead of praying sinners into heaven." But I guess it can't have everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.109.175 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

all thats needed to pretty much clear up all them citation tags is a good few hours on youtube. I for one have betetr things to do with my time , but it would certainly clean the article up. 81.99.2.66 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is a possible candidate for deletion

Per WP:DP, this article needs to be heavily revised. As it stands, this article is a clear violation of WP:first. I will leave this open for discussion, edits and changes before pursuing further action.melonbarmonster (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Against: I'm against deletion, as Paul Washer's fame is slowly growing in Evangelicalism. I went to Wikipedia first to look him up, so that should say something of how important I thought he was when I went to look him up! Perhaps a long-ish article is inappropriate at this time, but at least a stub would be nice. Let's keep it. 209.55.81.128 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Against: I'm against deletion of the article. Paul Washer is well known among many protestant denominations: for better or worse. He holds an annual conference for preachers, preaches around the globe, still performs missionary work, and runs HeartCry Missionary -- which is all mentioned in the article. I say keep it. BankingBum (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely Controversal Views

Paul Washer has some extremely controversial views. In fact I don't believe his views are far away from Fred Phelps; Washer is just not as vocal and consistent in expressing his views as Phelps. What makes it into his mainstream sermons is often the least controversial and offensive of his beliefs. There was one talk he was giving where he basically says something like: "A lady I was talking to claimed that AIDS was NOT God's wrath. I said, 'Madam, what is your proof'? She said 'Well AIDS kill innocent babies'. And I said 'Ma'am, what happened when God flooded the world?' I believe I found this link on the HeartCry site. I will see if I can find it again and post it. Anyway, this guy is much more nuts than the Wikipedia article or most of his sermons lets on. Gherris50 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Washer is a Baptist and is a believer in a certain degree of predestination; and is more likely to believe HIV/AIDS is something God either authorized or allowed. Please keep that in mind. Also, Fred Phelps isn't even a real preacher. He's a lawyer who uses his former profession as a minister to enrage people, incite censorship, and to further his professional lawsuit-filing career. You're comparing apples and oranges. It may be more fair to compare Washer with Pat Robertson in his views on divine judgment ... though even that's a stretch.209.55.81.128 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Paul is not controversial within his community. As a man of any protestant faith, he certainly is controversial to unbelievers, as are all preachers and missionaries. I would never go out on a limb and say he was "extremely controversial" by any stretch of the immagination though. He preaches the truth that has been around since Spurgeon. He is a Calvinist who preaches by reformed doctrine. He stands against simple "sinners prayers" which were never scriptural. - BankingBum (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not-so-controversial views

Mr. Washer often expresses a viewpoint that has a lot in common with the Holiness movement. The Methodists, the Church of the Nazarene, and any variety of Pentecostals and Holiness denominations spring forth from the teaching that genuine salvation must be accompanied by sanctification. Washer's views are not far from the view of a LARGE portion of American Christianity.

On a sidenote: I suspect Washer (or at least some of his supporters at HeartCry) may have a Calvinistic_Methodist heritage or theological leaning. Some call themselves "Baptistic." But that's just speculation on my part.209.55.81.128 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He's a "reformed" southern baptist. He is a Calvinist but does not take to hyper-calvinism and does not go so far as to say that arminians are heritics, as some Calvinists would say. Despite being reformed, he will often attack reformed scholars who spend their lives within doctrine rather than practicing what they study. BankingBum (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)