Now a word from Pope Cal

We have heard Benedict XVI (or rather his lieutenants) issue a definition on what it means to be a Christian. Now Cal Thomas takes on the papal roll and declares that Hillary Clinton can believe what she wants but as a presidential candidate she shouldn't parade herself as being a Christian, for her liberal theology is in his estimation defective.
Why is it defective? Well not only is it full of works righteousness (Social Gospel) but instead of standing firm in a literal interpretation of the Bible (which apparently true Christians do) her faith and the faith of liberals is driven by polls.

Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy to modern concerns -- such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus would drive, larger government programs and other "do-good" pursuits -- ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life.

Yes, because we are attentive to the modern world and let reason and experience help us interpret and apply the gospel we're poll driven second class Christians. Therefore, it would appear okay for Mike Huckabee to say he's a Christian but liberals like Hillary and Barack, that's out of bounds.
So my response is simple: Who made Cal Thomas the Protestant Pope?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Now Pastor Bob,

With all of these postings on Catholicism, it seems you may be going the way of Francis Beckwith?

The Mackrel Snapper
Mystical Seeker said…
Cal Thomas is a moron, but in Hillary Clinton's case, I really can't tell what her theology is. Frankly, I think she is a case of all talk and no action when it comes to the social gospel. I can't comment on how progressive her theology really is based on a few snippets from what Cal Thomas quoted. There are a lot of reasons why I intensely dislike Hillary Clinton, such as her early unapologetic support of the Iraq War, and her recent lame excuses (or shall I say "lies") for why she voted for the war. In 2002, she, like fellow Methodist George Bush, turned a blind eye to the objections to the war that bishops in her own faith were offering. And I have to wonder how much she was really concerned with the social gospel back when she was on the board of directors of Wal-mart. The social gospel is about speaking truth to power, but in Hillary's case, she has been part of the power machinery of corporate interests and of Empire, and in voting for the war in Iraq she has bloodstained hands as an instrument of the American Empire.
Robert Cornwall said…
First in response to Mackrel -- I'm very interested in Catholicism, but I doubt very much I'm on the Road to Rome. I like my freedom as a Disciple too much to give my submission to the Pope.

But beware, I'm reading David Gibson's book on Benedict, so I'll be posting on it as well.

and to Mystical Seeker I do think her faith is sincere, but I think she's also a politician first when it comes to these things. My problem is not so much with the critique of Hillary as it is Cal's arrogance in defining what a true Christian is!
Anonymous said…
Thomas does his usual selective quotation, too. In that NY Times interview, Clinton was asked if she believed in a literal resurrection of Jesus and she answered, "Yes, I do."

As you know, Bob, I am no fan of Sen. Clinton, but I had to cheer her in the interview. When the interviewer wanted to bring up (AGAIN) Bill's marital infidelities, she said simply, "I have said all I am going to on that topic." And she showed far more knowledge of Scripture than Thomas ever has.

Popular Posts