My intentions was not so much a dig at you and other presbys here, but more so at Gerry's insistence that John is some sort of lesser Christian, because he may have some positive remarks about Gibson's film, and thus is to be shoved over into the group of heretics that real Christians are to beware. It is not my purpose to be offensive, so please forgive my former remarks if you thought they were uncharitable.

That said, what I am about to say may be the equivilant of throwing a live squirrl in amongst 100 German Shepherds, I do think our traditions can blind us to the plain exegesis of scripture, and if that exegesis cuts against a favored tradition, and the WCF is a noble tradition, I believe the tradition is to have deference to the plain exegesis of scripture. All Christians have their creeds, but as I stated previously, I do not want to be so married to those creeds that I allow what the creed states to influence my understanding of the Bible. And I say this with all humble sincerity, I can see this displayed here among the posts at times.

The second commandment debate we have been having is a good example of this. Even looking at Exodus 20, the prohibition against making engraved images is defined as making them for the purpose of worship, to bow down to and to serve. Obviously, the cheribum on top of the ark, which are images of things in heaven, were not made for the purpose of worship in the way the 2nd commandment prohibits. Hence, because a movie about the historical figure of Jesus Christ, a real, living person, is not meant for inspiring worship (though I would lean toward your all's criticism of Gibson's film due to the interviews he has given stating the purpose of making this film), I do not believe the condemning any movie about Jesus, or passion play about Christ, or any other biblical event as a violation of the 2nd commandment is scripturally sound. The WCF interpretation of the 2nd commandment is what is driving people's passion (pun intended) against movies regarding Christ.

You state that it is the burden of proof to show where such creeds are in error, and I believe historic baptists have done that with the WCF in relation to paedobaptism. There would be no 2nd London Confession if they did not willing and compellingly shoulder that burden. Still, I believe the slogan of always reforming should stand true, and if that means reforming one's creed, and in this case according to my opinion, WCF/CT hermenuetics, I hope Christian would do so.


"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