Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,915
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,636
Posts51,165
Members927
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,432
Tom 3,449
chestnutmare 2,915
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,757
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 17
Pilgrim 13
John_C 3
Johan 1
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
Same sex atrraction sinful then what?
by Pilgrim. Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:53 AM
Mexican illegal immigration into the USA
by Pilgrim. Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:44 AM
TWU Denied Law School Accreditation
by Tom. Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:14 AM
Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text
by Pilgrim. Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:43 AM
Messianic Judaism
by Tom. Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:29 AM
Doctrine and Philosophy
by Tom. Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:02 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 3
Hop To
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Passion #11907
Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:51 PM
Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Western Oregon
G
gnarley Offline OP
Member
gnarley  Offline OP
Member
G
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Western Oregon
In spite of all of the negative reactions to "The Passion" I thought it was terrific. I am really disappointed in the reaction of what appears to be a flood of "self-righteousness" Thank God for publications like World Magazine who report things as they are and not automatically go on the defensive!! Gibson's guts should be an example to exemplify, not run from.Would to God that professing "reformed" Christians would be willing to do as much. : :bash: :bash:


gil
Re: The Passion [Re: gnarley] #11908
Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:56 PM
Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
What did you see in terms of Cathlic imagery? I listened to a reaction by James White and one by Al Mohler, and White saw troubling Catholic imagery, while Mohler did not. Oh, and on his radio show Wednesday Dr. Mohler backed down from saying the movie violates the 2nd Commandment. He seems to do that lately, with speaking well of Billy Graham and commending some Arminian churches.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Re: The Passion [Re: MarieP] #11909
Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:05 AM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:05 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
Quote
Oh, and on his radio show Wednesday Dr. Mohler backed down from saying the movie violates the 2nd Commandment. He seems to do that lately, with speaking well of Billy Graham and commending some Arminian churches.

Well, so much for the SBC's "White Knight in shining armour", who was the hope of many who thought Mohler was going to bring reformation about in the denomination. What a disappointment he is turning out to be. [Linked Image]

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: The Passion [Re: MarieP] #11910
Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:29 AM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:29 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


When I saw it on Thursday, I didn't see ANY Catholic imagry. They showed Mary (Holy crap! Can't do that in a story about Jesus can we??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> )

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ranton.gif" alt="" /> I will admit that there was some emphasis on Mary, but not in some diety form or anything. He basically shows Mary as any other mother watching her son be murdered. She goes to help him even though she can't. She follows him all the way to the mount and she kisses his feet when he is on the cross right before He dies. There is no "troubling Catholic imagery" that I could find.

Not to sound like a [img]http://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img], but the 2nd Commandment arguement, while I can see the validity, just doesn't seem to hold water. The idol is made when we, every time we read the Scriptures, see Jesus as THAT Jesus on the screen. Then we have made a graven image.

What was on that screen had a major impact on my life. I had never really been taught or believed that crucifixion was that brutal. I have a new dimension to the Gospel accounts than I did before. And if that is a bad thing, than, well, I am in the wrong for having a deeper understanding of what happened.

Personally, I think that the reason a lot of people are so against this movie is because it shows, as realistically as was needed at this time, what happened to Christ and others in those days and also takes attention away from renownd pastors and onto what Jesus did, and they can't handle that. I have a lot of respect for White and the others who are so adamant against this film, but at the same time, being fallable men, they are not right on everything. And I think that this is one of those times where they are wrong. I think it is sad when people, especially Christian pastors, are so intolerant of anything other than reformed preaching and dry hymns that when someone does something radical, suddenly it is seen as some sort of damnable thing. God forbid that we use the Gospel story in an attempt to convict people of their sin and see people fly to Christ for salvation.

Having seen the movie, I can say that, from a cinematographical standpoint, it was stunningly beautiful. From a story standpoint, it was a part of the greatest story ever told. And from a truth standpoint, more of the church, reformed and otherwise, needs to stop being so PC and start using their GOd-given abilities and go out and share the Gospel in boldness and love. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />

Re: The Passion #11911
Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:44 AM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:44 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
Quote
And from a truth standpoint, more of the church, reformed and otherwise, needs to stop being so PC and start using their GOd-given abilities and go out and share the Gospel in boldness and love.

Sorry, but some us "reformed" believers choose to NOT be so PC, but rather we choose to follow the Scriptures and not Hollywood and the Devil who have little interest in God's holiness, His commandments and truth. You may not understand or perhaps reject that which is forbidden in the Second Commandment, the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God whose two natures cannot be separated, or perhaps you haven't come to the place in your life where you see Jesus Christ as He really is; the One Whom is the embodiment of all that is perfect, He being the expressed image of God which no mortal could ever hope to impersonate.

Personally, by God's mercy and providence, I shall never be taken in by the world's trendy philosophies and rebellion against the Almighty. I know, worship and obey HIM whom God has revealed in His inspired, infallible and inerrant Word which He ordained to proclaim Christ and Him crucified, and which is the "power of God unto salvation". I cannot and will not resort to the acceptance and/or use of any counterfeit Jesus.

Quote
2 Corinthians 11:2-4 (ASV) For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you [as] a pure virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or [if] ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with [him].


In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: The Passion [Re: Pilgrim] #11912
Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:47 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:47 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


I know that the movie Jesus is not THE Jesus, but just an inadequate portrayal. But if itis wrong to portray it there, then it is also wrong for us to portray Jesus in our preaching, because that is inadequate as well.

Quote

[color:"0000FF"]Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,[/color] Philippians 1:15-18 (ESV)


The story of the gospel is being portrayed, and I rejoice in that.

Sorry about being kind of a jerk in that other post. It just seemed really off to me how adamant "everyone" seemed against the movie, and I just kinda vented off that frustration in a pretty unChristianly way. So, I am sorry about that.

I agree that we shouldn't make graven images. And I agree and believe that the humanity and diety of Christ can not be seperated. IMO, though, unless one makes the Jesus of the Bible to be the Jesus of that screen, there is nothing wrong with the movie. If one keeps in mind that the Jesus on screen is a portrayal from someone's imagination of what is a possibility, I think that it has it's positive attributes for the Christian and non-Christian alike. And people have gone and gotten saved after seeing the movie and having some questions answered. God works all things after the council of His will (Ephesians 1:11), and if His will is to save someone, He will do it. And if He pleases to use this movie, than who are we to condemn it?

(And I am not "angry" anymore.)

Re: The Passion #11913
Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:16 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:16 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Dear Friend:

You said:

Quote
The story of the gospel is being portrayed, and I rejoice in that.


But I must disagree.

The story of the Gospel is not being portrayed, but rather, in it's place a masterful and moving deception. You have believed lies that have been told you about that story. I can make that statment dogmatically because you have told us that you detected no Roman Catholic teaching in what you saw, and you have even extolled that teaching for all to see and hear. You have encouraged others to partake of heresy, a heresy that has clearly been stated by those who made the movie to promote the lie of Mary's role of coremdemptorix with Christ.

You have insulted the Lord Christ, and his faithful ministers who have warned you of this error by calling them PC, when it is you who are PC and going along with the mass of public opinion.

You, my friend, are deceived, and are disobeying the Second Commandment, which was given us because we are so suseptable to idolotry. That is why the writers of the Heidleberg catechism worded their teaching as they did, and that teaching has been displayed here for you to see.

Are so much better informed than Ursinus? I don't think so. These men knew and worshiped Christ in a way that most today can't even conceive of, and that is spiritually, and thus they knew that to see Him in his flesh was but nothing compared to the glory of His spiritual reality, revealed to the eyes of faith.

Choose the lesser for the greater if you prefer, but do not cast dispersions on your elders and betters in the faith when they warn you of your error.

May the Lord bring you to a right understanding of these things.

In Him,

Gerry

Re: The Passion #11914
Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:42 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
Quote
I agree that we shouldn't make graven images. And I agree and believe that the humanity and diety of Christ can not be seperated. IMO, though, unless one makes the Jesus of the Bible to be the Jesus of that screen, there is nothing wrong with the movie. If one keeps in mind that the Jesus on screen is a portrayal from someone's imagination of what is a possibility, I think that it has it's positive attributes for the Christian and non-Christian alike.

I am greatly confused by this statement. So, perhaps you can help me make some sense out of it, if you would be so kind to humor an old man?

Was it not Gibson's intent to put the Jesus of the Bible on screen? Does the title alone convey that this was his intent? Isn't the one who plays the part of Jesus Christ allegedly doing just that; portraying the Jesus of the Bible?

Now... given that these things are true, which no one would deny, I'm assuming, can it be said with confidence that what you saw portrayed by this actor in this film was exactly what the Bible teaches concerning all facets of the Lord Jesus Christ? Can it be said of this actor what John said of the biblical Christ:

Quote
"(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

Can you honestly confess that by watching this film and seeing this actor, who attempts to be a representation of Jesus Christ, that the following statement is also true of him?:

Quote
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9)

Does not the Second Command and the understanding of it which the Confessions of the Church have held for centuries teach that ALL images of any of the three Persons of the Godhead are forbidden, including that of the imagination? And this being true, how is it now acceptable that Gibson's and this actor's imaginative portrayal of the incarnate Son of God is not to be condemned? Where is the exemption given to them to fabricate a Jesus after their own liking and display it on film?

Quote
And people have gone and gotten saved after seeing the movie . . .

Have they? How do you know that some have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, convicted of their sins and sinfulness, repented of their sins and cast themselves upon the Christ of the Bible? Or have there been a number of people who have made some kind of profession as do thousands at Billy Graham crusades, etc., only to show no evidence of spiritual life hours, days or months later?

I think you are confusing God's preceptive will; i.e., that which is written in the Scriptures and to which we are responsible to do with God's decretal will, whereby He has determined who and when He will call His elect to salvation. This is generally known as "pragmatism"; if it works, then it must be okay. We are responsible to do that which is required of us according to what God has revealed in His written Word. We are not to deviate from it either in word or method. To do so is to obviate the work of the Holy Spirit and to ignore God's perfect will. Would we be so presumptuous as to think ourselves wiser than God? For God would have us call men to repentance and faith in the Lord Christ by the ordained means of the word preached. (Rom 10:12-17) God has not ordained that men be called by means of alleged pictures of Jesus, skits, puppet shows, or movies. But God calls men by the preaching of the Word,

Romans 1:16-17 (ASV) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: . . ."


No one can ever see "the righteousness of God" in that movie. It is impossible that it could be seen, for the actor can only hope to display a counterfeit Jesus; a Jesus without the Spirit of God, without "grace and truth", without perfection of thought, word and deed, and totally incapable of expressing the true agony of suffering the penalty of the sins of His sheep upon the cross. The Scriptures speak very little of the physical suffering of Christ which is the antithesis of what this film does. The Scriptures speak of Christ's spiritual suffering, His atoning for the sins of man, agonizing under the wrath of God for us. The film offers an impostor; "another Jesus". And would God have us have an image of a counterfeit Jesus emblazoned upon our minds rather than the Jesus of the Scriptures? You decide.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: The Passion #11915
Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:48 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:48 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
When I saw it on Thursday, I didn't see ANY Catholic imagry. They showed Mary (Holy crap! Can't do that in a story about Jesus can we???)


Did you not see the portrayal of the devil? Did you not see the woman, St. Veronica, who wiped Jesus' face? Did you not see the Pieta, where Mary held the dead Jesus in her arms? Did you not note that the disciples addressed Mary as "Mother"? Did you not see the overwhelming emphasis on Jesus' physical agony? How could you miss the Catholic imagery? I haven't even seen the movie, but I have read about all of this in reviews of it.

Quote
Not to sound like a [img]http://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img], but the 2nd Commandment arguement, while I can see the validity, just doesn't seem to hold water. The idol is made when we, every time we read the Scriptures, see Jesus as THAT Jesus on the screen. Then we have made a graven image.

What was on that screen had a major impact on my life. I had never really been taught or believed that crucifixion was that brutal. I have a new dimension to the Gospel accounts than I did before. And if that is a bad thing, than, well, I am in the wrong for having a deeper understanding of what happened.


What is the deeper understanding that you have gained from the brutality of Mel Gibson's imaginary protrayal of Christ's Passion? Do you think you have a greater understanding than the Gospels themselves offer, which are sparse on detail? You have now an image in your mind, which I pray does not recur to you every time you partake of the Lord's Supper.

Quote
Personally, I think that the reason a lot of people are so against this movie is because it shows, as realistically as was needed at this time, what happened to Christ and others in those days and also takes attention away from renownd pastors and onto what Jesus did, and they can't handle that.


What an accusation to make! Do you think that so many of your brothers and sisters here, who have expressed disapproval of the movie, do so to prevent glory being taken away from men? Or, rather, to prevent glory being taken away from the Word revealed in Scripture?

Quote
I have a lot of respect for White and the others who are so adamant against this film, but at the same time, being fallable men, they are not right on everything.


White is not "so adamant against this film"; he has expressed his concerns about it, and has warned that there are some people who should not see it. But he does not recommend one way or the other in general.

Quote
I think it is sad when people, especially Christian pastors, are so intolerant of anything other than reformed preaching and dry hymns that when someone does something radical, suddenly it is seen as some sort of damnable thing.


What exactly is so RADICAL about this film, except that people more and more oppose anything that mentions Jesus positively? There have been images of Christ, even bloody images of Him, for 1,700 years!

Quote
And from a truth standpoint, more of the church, reformed and otherwise, needs to stop being so PC and start using their GOd-given abilities and go out and share the Gospel in boldness and love.


When virtually the entire American church is flocking to see this movie, hardly even beginning to question it, what on earth is so P.C. about not seeing it for theological reasons and for reasons of obedience to God?


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: The Passion [Re: CovenantInBlood] #11916
Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:01 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:01 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
What's PC?


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Re: The Passion [Re: Henry] #11917
Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:03 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Henry,

"P.C." is a common abbreviation for "political correctness" or "politically correct." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: The Passion [Re: Pilgrim] #11918
Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:49 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
Lenexa, Kansas
DaveVan3 Offline
Member
DaveVan3  Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
Lenexa, Kansas
Quote
Pilgrim said:
I know, worship and obey HIM whom God has revealed in His inspired, infallible and inerrant Word which He ordained to proclaim Christ and Him crucified, and which is the "power of God unto salvation".


I have been sending out this attachment to some of those in my address book. In my e-mail subject line I type: “ In Lieu of Mel Gibson”

For those who have seen this movie I would suspect as they read these verses that they now see, “JC” Jim Caviezel instead of Christ our Lord. Even myself, from just the TV trailers I’ve seen,...when I read Isaiah 52:14”..his visage was so marred more than any man..”.. I’m seeing the Gibson TV trailers. Hopefully this will abate in time.

Regarding the attachment: Isaiah says of His word (55:11)”...it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

Dave

Attached Files-Click on Image to view full size.
Re: The Passion [Re: DaveVan3] #11919
Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:22 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:22 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
fredman Offline
Addict
fredman  Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
just as side note. Some of you may be interested in the following announcement I received:

Because of the positive response to Pastor John MacArthur's appearance this week on Larry King Live he has been asked to appear again on Larry's show. The subject on Monday, March 1st will be the movie, The Passion of Jesus Christ. Larry King Live is shown on CNN at 6 PM and again at 9 PM.

Note that the time of airing is PST (California) I trust that the rest of you all can cipher the time zone difference.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Re: Philippians 1:15-18 #11920
Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:40 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:40 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,434
NH, USA
I forgot to make comment on the text you quoted from Philippians 1:15-18, which you prefaced with these words,

Quote
I know that the movie Jesus is not THE Jesus, but just an inadequate portrayal. But if it is wrong to portray it there, then it is also wrong for us to portray Jesus in our preaching, because that is inadequate as well.

It seems that you are wanting to imply that there were those who were preaching Christ "inadequately", yet Paul was thankful despite that fact. But let's look at the text again, shall we to see if that is really what Paul wrote:

Quote
Some indeed preach Christ [color:"red"]from envy and rivalry[/color], but others [color:"blue"]from good will[/color]. The latter do it [color:"blue"]out of love[/color], knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ [color:"red"]out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment[/color]. What then? Only that in every way, whether in [color:"red"]pretense[/color] or in [color:"blue"]truth[/color], Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Philippians 1:15-18 (ESV)

Now, what seems clear to me, is that Paul is contrasting the MOTIVES of those who are preaching the Gospel and not the CONTENT or METHOD OF PREACHING of the Gospel. It is more than reasonable to assume, that if these individuals who were wanting to cause Paul to suffer some anxiety, loss of respect, etc., had been distorting the Gospel in any way, he would have made no little to do about it as he had done in other places, (cf. 2Cor 11:3, 4; Gal 1:6-9). But we don't read of any warning and/or anathema here in regard to these who were preaching Christ. In fact, Paul rejoices that Christ was being preached.

Let's be careful that we "rightly divide the word of truth", especially when we are trying to defend something which Scripture itself condemns. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: The Passion [Re: fredman] #11921
Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:56 PM
Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:56 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Dear Fred:

How about a clear heads up on this?

Is Pastor McArthur clearly for, or against, the viewing of the Passion, based on the clear teaching of the historical Reformed Faith's Position on the Second Commandment, as evidenced in the confessions already referenced on this board?

Or, on the other hand, because of the position I have heard espoused on other sites with respect to NCT, has a softer, more "tolerant" and "flexible" approach been adopted toward the Second Commandment and the "boogy man" of antinomianism?

See here:

http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm1.showMessage?topicID=478.topic

for more on the "boogy man" where we find statements like the following from fred:

"Critiques like Barcellos's tend to be one sided and he attacks boogey men, like the false charges of antinominism, rather than dealing with what are really the core issues of the significance of the New Covenant."

and from Rich Barcellos:

"The book does not mention the "boogey" man of antinomianism. I dealt with that in the Table Talk article. Before the article was sent to Table Talk, I asked three PhDs in 17th century Reformed theology to read it. They did, and each one agreed with my assessment, at least from the historical point of view. My claim in the article is that NCT is doctrinally/theologically antinomian. That is, though they certainly don't teach nor live as practical antinomians (i.e., lawless), their doctrine ends up advocating a view which is against the Moral Law as understood in Reformed Theology."

Thanks, in advance, for being clear on this, because I for one don't want to waste my time if John is going to steer his hearers away from the historic reformed faith as evidenced in the Confessions, and indeed in the Word of God itself as it is quoted here:
Quote
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..


In Him,

Gerry

Last edited by acts2027; Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:27 PM.
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (Tom), 27 guests, and 129 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes, Dutch Michael, Ray
927 Registered Users
Shout Box
June
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
766,987 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.060s Queries: 17 (0.005s) Memory: 2.9952 MB (Peak: 3.3054 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-06-19 15:51:53 UTC