As I hear of more genuine evangelicals offering biblical perspectives on the death of John Paul II, I'll post them to this entry. I just saw one this morning written by Rick Holland. [sarcasm] I doubt if anyone has heard of him. [/sarcasm]
RixMix
11:45 a.m.
Adam Bailie has tracked down some more quotes, and Nate Busenitz offers some historical context in the comments.
3:30 p.m.
Crosswalk interview with Mark Bailey, President of Dallas Theological Seminary.
4:20 p.m.
James White's incisive comments. Thanks to Angus for putting me on the trail.
04/06/2005
8:00 a.m.
Bob Bixby offers what I believe is the most thorough biblical and historical analysis yet.
******************************
And on the disappointing side: Tuesday night's Hannity and Colmes on FoxNews led off with an interview of Franklin Graham on a variety of issues. Sean Hannity, a Catholic, asked Graham a very open question about the differences between Roman Catholic and evangelical faith. Graham acknowledged but minimized theological differences, focusing instead on alleged agreement on "the cross." He suggested that that Roman Catholics and evangelicals agree that Christ died for the world and that He rose again.
Surely Graham is aware that evangelicals believe that the work of the cross is finished (tetelestai), not continuing in the Mass, as Catholics believe. And it was accomplished by Christ alone, not in cooperation with Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Graham's gloss of these essential theological distinctions is appalling. Although I appreciate the fact that at least four times in his 10-minute interview he explained the gospel and even quoted John 14:6, I have to wonder whether it is the gospel or another gospel. Graham has made statements in the past that his father would not have made concerning the exclusivity of Christ. I wish I could have pointed to this week as another example.
At this posting I was unable to find a transcript of the interview. I'll keep "efforting" it.
8 comments:
Albert Mohler's Crosswalk Commentary is pretty good:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?cal=go&adate=4/4/2005
He notes the impressive elements of the John Paul II's papacy (especially his stand on moral issues, for example), but notes the huge differences in theology that exist. Actually, on his program a few days ago, a claaer asked Mohler if he thought the Pope was saved, and he gave an excellent answer that basically said if he believed the things he said and wrote, then no.
Thanks, Angus.
I reference Mohler's commentary in a previous post.
oops...didn't notice (and I did look!)
another post is that by Tim Challies, who referes to a post by James White:
http://www.challies.com/archives/000941.php
hey paleo
awesome stuff here- to have a forum in place that would get that mohler quote out to more readers. i was just refered to you by a friend but what you've assembled here is fabulous.
just give me a few days to read some more before you write anything new?
(ha- no way- let 'er buck!)
efforting... nice "Phil the Show-killer" reference. What other Fundy blog will give you that?
Sometimes it's fun to slip something in there just to make myself chuckle. Great to know someone else noticed.
Greg,
Does chuckling at myself make me a Sharper Iron chucklehead?
Sounds good to me. Glad to know someone else is not afraid to embrace the label! :-)
Post a Comment