Jerry Falwell, a Baptist pastor and political activist, said: "The world has lost a great moral leader and we will certainly feel his loss… [the pope offered] unparalleled pro-life and pro-family leadership."[xvi] There it is again: "Protestant" praise for Antichrist because of his pro-life stance! But what about all his lies, his deceptions, his idolatries, his blasphemies?
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said: "The disagreements that people.. who are Protestants have with John Paul II are things that are in addition to the foundations of the faith. He certainly is considered a spokesman for the Christian faith that has tremendous respect among all branches of Christendom both for his staunch defense of traditional Christian faith and his strong defense of political and religious freedom."[xvii]
This man heads up a "Religious Liberty Commission" – and yet praises the man who headed up a religio-political system utterly opposed to religious freedom through the centuries! A system that persecuted unto death millions of Protestants and others, and still does so wherever it has the opportunity. Mr Land says the pope defended "traditional Christian faith." What is Christian about Mary-worship, the mass, baptismal regeneration, idolatry, auricular confession, and all the other heresies of Romanism? Are these things really nothing but "additions" to "the foundations of the faith", as Land stated?
Tony Perkins, a Southern Baptist and head of the Family Research Council based in Washington, DC, said: "Pope John Paul II has been one of the foremost leaders in building a culture of life. His contribution to the fall of communism in Europe cannot go unnoticed. Because of him, millions around the globe now have the freedom to practice their faith, especially as Christians."[xviii]
Aside from the fact that Communism is not dead either in Europe or anywhere else, and Christians in various supposedly "former Communist" states are beginning to suffer persecution all over again, Perkins' words reveal, again, that "Evangelicals" are willing to speak well of the pope of Rome, even embrace him as a brother in Christ, simply because he was anti-abortion and supposedly fought Communism. Note there is no testing of his false doctrines and his false practices, merely an acceptance because he was "pro-life." But the head of the religious system that has massacred millions of people for centuries can hardly be accurately described as "pro-life", now can he?
John H. Armstrong, of Reformation and Revival Ministries in the U.S., described as "an educational and evangelistic resource" serving "the Church and her leadership worldwide", a supposedly "Reformed" ministry, wrote an article entitled: "John Paul II: Why I Will Miss Him." In the article he wrote: "Personally, I watched with a great deal of sadness and a sense of personal loss. Simply put, I came to love this man over the course of the last twenty-six years."[xix]
He continued: "It would not always have been so. I was taught that the pope always represented fierce opposition to the gospel of Christ. (Indeed, the historic Protestant confessions I read as a young man told me the papacy [and thus the pope] was the biblical figure of antichrist!) I was also taught, by my childhood pastors, that Rome was an opponent."
His pastors, and those historic confessions of faith, were right. But this just shows how far removed present-day Protestants, even "Reformed" ones for the most part, are from the convictions of those who went before them.
He wrote: "John Paul II was a profound theologian. Parts of his system of belief must be questioned if one does not agree with dogmas such as papal infallibility and Marian devotion, as well as the heavy doses of mysticism that marked his teaching. But to focus only on what evangelicals disagree with is a mistake in my view."
Do you see what is happening here? These "Evangelical" traitors can mildly criticise certain aspects of the pope of Rome's teaching, and yet nevertheless praise him as a "profound theologian"! To the average churchgoer, then, sound doctrine becomes unimportant. The doctrines which divide true Christians from Roman Catholics are viewed as really not that important. "Yes, he believed certain faulty things, but he was a true Christian nonetheless." This is the attitude. And, untaught in doctrine, Protestant pew-warmers readily embrace Papists as brethren in Christ. Armstrong went on: "He leaves a legacy of social justice and freedom [ah, that’s all that matters these days, to most “Protestants”!], joined with a conservative Christian outlook that affirms the great verities of catholic faith that all who truly love Christ affirm [note that the word "catholic" is spelled with a small "c", to mean "universal" rather than Roman Catholic, as if this pope merely believed what true Christians believed. What a lie!]…. He embraced the ecumenical goal of unity with all Christians while never wavering on the essentials of Christian faith." What? The essentials of Christian faith? What were these? – Mary-worship, idolatry, the mass, baptismal regeneration, auricular confession, penance, and much more; would this "Protestant" minister have us believe that these blasphemies are the essentials of Christian faith?