Audio for the NPR interview
Here is the audio for the interview that aired this morning. It was clearly an interview with Palau with me being the controversial Calvinist who does not play well with others (note the interviewer referred to our church as…the ‘Calvinist’ Omaha Bible Church). My portion was extremely abbreviated; I wish that they would have included my references to the Scripture rather than just the historical reference to the Reformation. However, I am thankful to NPR for the opportunity to talk about this important issue and interact over the importance of the promotion and defense of the gospel.
At any rate I think Palau was given enough theological rope to hang himself; his wide inclusivism came through clear, even referring to the gospel as a secondary doctrine.
listen here ::
………
Related Posts ::
>What is Wrong with this Picture (St. James Catholic Church in Omaha)
>Luis Palau festival promoted by The Catholic Voice
>Does Ecumenicalism Undermine Biblical Unity? (part i, part ii, part iii)
>James White on Palau in Omaha
>Open wolf’s mouth insert head
>OWH highlights confessional tent at the crusade
….
-I have to give major props to my good friend Tony Reinke (of The Shepherd’s Scrapbook) who had downloaded and converted the interview file from RealAudio and uploaded it to his server to be streamed. This all happened before the interview aired. Thanks Tony!
Possibly Related posts:
- some specifics on the NPR interview
- NPR interview
- What’s wrong with this picture?
- James White on Palau in Omaha
- Tuesday Trivia Question that should make you pull out your hair like your name was Ezra
31 Responses to “Audio for the NPR interview”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
Wow. At 2:30 in Palau says that Jesus didn’t want us to divide “secondary disagreements.” So the nature of the gospel is secondary? At about 3:10 he says that we can work together when we’re proclaiming “the basic truths of Jesus Christ.” Does that mean that what Jesus did on the cross and how he makes us acceptable before God is not a basic truth?
Sounds like too much was compromised. Good job standing up for the real basic truths and issues that are in no way secondary.
The ‘secondary disagreements’ statement is alarming and troubling.
One thing that didn’t come out in the interview, that I wish had, is that we are not against everything, but we are for the gospel. And when you are for the gospel then…sometimes you have to be against things. Just because this guy is ostensibly for the gospel does not mean he is in reality for the gospel.
My head is spinning from the spin they put on that interview…
I was stunned by the ‘secondary disagreements’ statement as well – I don’t remember reading in the Word that this was a secondary issue that can be compromised, though I do know there is a sharp rebuke of those who preach a different gospel and that believers should not be yolked with unbelievers (whether they think themselves believers or not – that sounds rather philosophical – I think therefore I am…). And given the leader of the catholics recent confirmation of their false teaching on salvation I would think that distinction is even clearer (for crying out loud – even the late night TV genre get it!).
It is sad, but you have to hand it to the Catholics. They have declared they have the only true gospel and those of the “Faith Alone” crowd are devoid of salvation. The pope recently confirmed this. They do not compromise at all in what they believe. The local priests might, but the church holds fast to their teaching.
I guess they involve themselves with churchianity with the goal of converts to their belief system from the mass of evangelicals. Evangelicals involve themselves in churchianity with the goal of converts to any of the available belief systems that name the name of Jesus. Oh, how the Protestants have fallen.
Erik,
Praise God that they actually aired your statements. But I think the intention was to try and spin it toward a conflict for conflicts sake. Anyone who knows the true gospel would not recognize it as such.
And “Secondary disagreements”, wow, my eyes are on fire. The idea that the gospel is a secondary issue should be a red flag for anyone who defends it. Jesus does want His children to be united but that is getting the proverbial cart before the horse by assuming that anyone who professes Jesus is a child of God. I think the universalism movement has forgotten how important the gospel of Jesus really is. In Matthew chapter 10 Jesus says:
34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
The gospel is a divider not a uniter for unity’s sake. It is not a compromiser. Preach the truth brother and God will do the rest.
Hello Erik,
Thanks for the audio post! Very informative to say the least. For the Catholic church’s strategy within the broad ‘evangelical’ base, see my comment under the ‘James White’ post and Vatican II.
From the NPR interview, one can determine what is the Luis Palau gospel. I clicked play several times and have listed the following explicit and implicit conclusions of the Luis Palau gospel.
1) His gospel is ‘good news’ in the sense of all the positive aspects of true salvation and a rejection of the ‘bad news’ of the wrath of God.
2) His gospel rejects the idea of wrath (‘the angry policeman analogy’) from God the judge (again the use of policeman).
3) His gospel treats the monumental difference of justification (a forensic term) by faith as a secondary issue.
4) The implicit conclusion, then, is that because Palau rejects the justice of God and His wrath towards sinners, it is most likely that Palau would interpret the cross of Christ outside of a vicarious, substitutionary atonement idea.
5) Explicitly, he seems to downplay the reality of the cross for the positive effects that anyone would want (except sinners who find pleasure in their sin; cf. John 3:19, Heb. 11:25).
6) If then, my implicit conclusion is correct, (a different theory of the atonement), then justification by faith to Palau would not be a central issue.
7) Explicitly, Palau tries to give divine authority to his gospel by claiming that his presentation is ‘my dream, actual its God’s, because its right from the pages of the Bible.”
It is time, then, not to classify Palau as someone who would merely be misinformed or good-intentioned, but as a false teacher, especially with the reference to the pages of Scripture as the basis for his gospel.
And, in reference to Angie’s comment above, preachers of a different gospel are not merely rebuked, but cursed by God. The word ‘Anathema,’ actually, if studied throughout the OT and NT, does not contain in itself the idea of curse in every context. Rather, the foundational understanding is that of ‘something or someone devoted unto a deity by which the deity determines the purpose.’ Thus, something that is devoted can have a positive sense. But, most contexts, and all contexts in the NT, use anathema in the negative sense. And thus, anathema, means ‘Let them be devoted to destruction.’ In this way, the word does not mean ‘cursed,’ but the result is that they are cursed, devoted to destruction. And, it is both hypothetical (Cf. Gal 1:8) and real (Cf. Gal. 1:9) teachers of a false gospel that are ‘devoted to destruction.’
Yours for our Master,
Paul Bright
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel (Phil 1:27)
Now that is true unity! In one mind, side by side, for the Gospel! Good job in standing for the truth Erik.
“And, in reference to Angie’s comment above, preachers of a different gospel are not merely rebuked, but cursed by God. The word ‘Anathema,’ actually, ”
Thank you for making that clarification! The word ‘anathema’ escaped me at the time… so much for my vocabulary!
Marginalize the Gospel is exactly what the Luis Show did. And For what? Unity. So unity is the banner that we all need to run to. Unity is the instrument that God uses to save mankind. So if we all become unifed then we might as well become an apostate church. Thanks Eric for your standupish for the truth.
Way to go, Erik. Interviews like this can be so tough since they’re just waiting for you to say something that will ruffle feathers. The comment about Christianity being fun reminded me of this post by Challies: http://www.challies.com/archives/002676.php
So in the interview, Erik says that we’ve had 500 years of writing after the reformation. And that you cannot partner with anyone who conflicts with the teaching of the gospel. Well, whose writing and version of the gospel from all the writers in the last 500 years am I supposed to listen too? Luther, Wesley, Calvin, who?
And based on any of these “authorities” can anyone tell me what was meant by this?
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
WG,
Read Matt 16:18 in context. Taking one liners from the Bible makes it easy to make it look like the Bible is teaching what you believe. The earlier parts of Matt 16 make it clear that Jesus is not basing the church upon a man, but upon the confession of faith in Him that Peter made just before this verse.
Erik,
Did you read the article in the Omaha World Herald from the Saturday publication? He used an even easier altar call.
Please check out my posting about it.
http://barrydean.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/one-two-three-im-saved/
Jim,
What earlier parts in Matt 16 explain or disprove the primacy of Peter? Please explain.
Whose Gospel…
I know you probably have heard this many times, but with Peter’s name being “Petros” (stone or pebble) in the Greek there is much weight in how Christ uses Peter’s name and “glory” to show that Peter is NOT the importance here but the Gospel, the Petra (large rock or bed-rock), which is what Christ is referring to when you see the flow of conversation and that Jesus is referring to Peter’s answer to “But who do you say that I am?” in verse 15.
Peter’s answer to Christ is the Petra, it is the bed rock, it is the Gospel, to know that Christ, is the Son of the living God. (verse 16)
Seth McBee,
What about the claims that Matthew was written in the Koine dialect of Greek where there is no difference between petros and petra, they both mean rock?
WG: “What earlier parts in Matt 16 explain or disprove the primacy of Peter?”
The question better to ask is how in the world you get the RC doctrine of the papacy out of Mt. 16. The issue of petros v. petra does not answer it either way. In fact, there are well respected reformed bible teachers who take the rock reference to be Peter (cf. Boice, Carson, etc..). However, this does not institute the papacy. I think you know this. It is a passing reference that gives license to invite in a lot of extras, if you will.
My statement in the interview, albeit abbreviated and divorced from context, was more pointing to the reality of the reformation and what brought it about. Evangelicals today seem to have forgotten that. I was not promoting a Reformed magisterium as it seems you are intimating.
I have said this before in many other strings with respect to debating RC doctrine….there are plenty of debate blogs and message boards out there where this type of stuff gets tossed around, however, this is not one of those sites. You are not going to convince me that Rome’s food is good; I’ve tasted it before, spit it out and have been forever repulsed by it. I think it is a false gospel, so therefore demonic and an insult to Jesus Christ who died to satisfy the eternal wrath of God for his sheep.
We believe Sola Scriptura you believe Sola Roma…unfortunately, it is that simple. The worst part is that you probably understand the biblical gospel of justification by faith alone but yet reject it for a synergistic gospel that really is no gospel.
I hope that you would follow your RC ancestor Martin Luther and struggle with the wrath of God in and through the book of Romans.
erik
Erik,
So are you saying that scholars have indeed said Peter is the rock that Christ gave the keys to his church? And I agree, this one passage on its own does not institute papacy. (Although other passages do back this up, but we all know those of course.)
And I don’t mean to “debate” this necessarily. All my years as a protestant nobody ever explained or talked about Mathew 16. It’s as though this wasn’t supposed to be talked about. Nor any meaning on why Simon’s name was changed to Peter was ever explained.
Further, nobody knew that protestants “protest” the Catholic Church. Instead it’s as though catholicism never happened. I see this too much today. It’s as though each generation gets further and further away from what the reformation was trying to do. Now people who were raised Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever are easily duped into even non-Gospel teachings. Like the one that says Mary wasn’t a virgin. Like there is yet another scholar today that will yet further explain away something new that has never been thought of. Talk about teaching false-Gospels, geesh.
And I guess that’s my main point. Fine, disagree with the Catholic Church. But don’t change the message that the reformers had. Don’t water this down. Seek unity amongst yourselves. By having all these different sub-denominations you’re confusing the message, making people more easily jump into the latest trend, or the church that is the closest to home, etc.
There is one teaching of the Gospel, just pick the right one. How sad.
WG: Yes some reformed guys take this to be Peter, but as the foundation of the church, not as the pope…(cf. Eph. 2.20). Peter as the rock does not make me want to become RC. And I am not persuaded by Scripture at all to conclude the papacy is accurate…in fact just the opposite.
To be clear, I am a protestant in the sense that I am protesting the RCC. Also, I have no problem talking about Mary as the Virgin mother of Jesus as well as Matt. 16…
I think you are not being accurate with your contention that Rome has this great unity while the protestant church is so fragmented and so therefore discredited. As someone who follows the RCC from the sidelines I have often been surprised by such disunity…consider the following exerpt from this post…which I found interesting:
RC’s are not walking lock step with one another and to say so is simply inaccurate.
Were they speaking on matters of faith, as in coming from the chair that was setup by Christ? Or are these ideas just their opinion on things?
When you teach the Gospel are you teaching your opinion/interpretation, or are you teaching what was truly told to us by Christ? And if you are teaching what Christ taught, then does that mean a Methodist or a Lutheran minister is not?
This is why the Bible is the authority and not men, whether individually or within the context of the church.
>the chair that was set up by Christ is an invention by RCC
Erik,
And you and I will disagree in that I think Christ established his church with Peter being the head AS WELL AS giving us the gift of the Gospels.
Getting back to the Luis Palau boycott, what comes across is that the OBC and others who boycott this event are the extreme fringe. I’m sure you think the churches that participate in the Luis Palau festival are the extreme fringe. But what happens though is that you aren’t there to stand up against the catholic church, but instead are equated to Jehovah Witnesses, Baptists and other non-catholic (and not protestant) religions. I always thought that protestants believed that there was a catholic church, but that Rome has lost its way. By not participating in events with the catholic church, you stand no chance to contrast and show your point of view. It may feel good to trumpet your boycott, but for the people who you feel need to hear your message, your not even there to give it away.
I’m sure you’ll disagree and I’m trying to be constructive in my comments, but that’s the impression I got from the NPR interview.
Great job Erik. This is a message that needs to be proclaimed loud and often. How soon we forget from whence we come.
WG: just for the record, I am not concerned with being on the fringes…you would be an idiot to conclude the the majority of Omaha’s evangelical churches didn’t jump in the Palau carriage with Roman Catholics, liberals protestants, and less than orthodox churches. So in a sense I am on the fringe and I know it.
This fringe is more of a new phenomenon though. Church history demonstrates those who base unity on the gospel not on…well…everything else.
If the gospel was the basis for unity then not only could RC churches not be a part of it, but also those who are confessionally evangelical. However, all hung under the broad Jesus tent where his gospel has been marginalized as less than important at the expense of reaching people with the love of Jesus, whatever that means.
In my conclusion Palau did a crusade for Rome. He came here to a predominately Catholic town and allowed Catholics to follow up with those who say they are Catholic…that would be most people. I wonder if he would do a crusade with Muslims in Dearborn, MI?
The reality is Luis Palau has left Omaha and we are left with a worse problem. More people who do not understand the gospel and who think that Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters. This reminds me of the burnt over districts of the Second Great Awakening.
And, it does not ‘feel good’ to ‘trumpet who we boycott’ it actually makes me want to puke. This is honest truth. I think doctrinal indifference gave Jesus the same reaction in Revelation 3.16.
There were actually people from our church there preaching the gospel. We just would not give Palau any support or partner with people who deny the gospel, but instead mobilize to evangelize them.
No, I think what really was left behind when Luis Palau left Omaha was 1) protestants more deeply entrenched in their hatred of catholics (both the person and that person’s religion), 2) catholics who were reminded that they will always be hated by protestants, 3) the outsider looking in thinking what a mess this whole Christian thing is.
From now on you have your revivals and we’ll have our rosaries and the two should never meet.
WG: just to clarify I do not hate Roman Catholics, I apologize if that is the impression. I do however hate the error and perversion of the gospel that is promulgated by the RCC.
“From now on you have your revivals and we’ll have our rosaries and the two should never meet.”
that is a telling quote…
Erik,
So “hate” may have been a strong word, but Protestants definitely have a bias and prejudice against Catholics. How many people reading this blog know other people in cubicleville that are Catholics and when they look at that person at the water cooler, the first thing they think of is that person’s religion? I grew up in a Protestant house that referred to the neighbors as those Catholic neighbors. As in, those neighbors who are going to hell.
Now, I don’t know you well enough to know if that is how you feel toward me. Unfortunately I’ve dished out my share of anti-Catholic rhetoric in the past. And now I’m one that receives the same anti-Catholic rhetoric.
When it comes to people (who are the extension of God), the Catholic person certainly seems to be the one that acts more Christian to his Protestant brothers than the other way around.
I’m out. I’ll let you have the last word since that’s all you have. : )
[...] Doctrine divides?: Martin Downes sheds some light on this idiotic sentiment with the help of Edward Roberts. All you need is love truth: Erik Raymond has posted a link to an NPR broadcast of his reasons for not endorsing Luis Palau. [...]
[...] Other Toolbox * Preaching a Funeral: the hardest sermon? * Piercedforourtransgressions.com * Huge Bryan Chapell Audio Collection * Why Mark Dever Does Sermon Intros * My Email Experiment * Online Greek Interlinear * Online Hebrew Interlinear * John Piper: Romans – New Concentrated Audio * Expository Thoughts – Observations on Pastoral Preaching * Review: Famine in the Land (Steve Lawson) * Should We Cover More in Our Sermons? * 9 Marks Audio: Evangelism and The Gospel With Will Metzger * Cross Centered Books for Children * Controversy – Erik Raymond and Luis Palau Interviews * Faith by Hearing – Top 12 MP3 Sermons [...]
wg,
when we think of Catholics, we do think about the fact that you guys are going to hell if you don’t repent. There are also many Protestants who fall into this category. We consider these facts with great sadness, and it is part of what leads us to preach to you of our great God and the great sin that all of us have been enslaved to.
“extension of God.” I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that, but it sounds like there is an improper understanding of God’s holiness and our sinfulness behind that statement. It seems like the great gulf between us and God is not understood
[...] My friend in the gospel Erik Reymond did an interview with NPR on this issue last week… they unfairly represented his point of view, but I appreciate him for speaking out and being the “contrarian” on this issue. Read his blog for more. Let us be willing to go against the grain (even disagreeing with our evangelical brethren) when faithfulness to the biblical gospel requires it! Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Responses [...]