Hey again Gerry,

You are of course entitled to another view, but you are rejecting the majority view of the orthodox Christian community for centuries, and I find your basis for doing so quite unsubstantial, if what you have provided here is the whole of it.

(Fred) I think you are looking past the gist of what I am pointing out. What I said was that I am rejecting (I would be better to say, biblically modifying to conform to scripture) the majority view of CT and the followers of the WCF and the London Baptist Confession. That particular position has not been a "majority" opinion of all orthodox Christian communities.

I would respond that I thought it would be obvious to you that when I say "majority view of the orthodox Christian community" I am refering to orthodoxy, which Roman Catholicism is not. Your statement appears to be an attempt to say that following the teaching of the historic creeds and confessions of the orthodox Reformed faith is no more than following Rome, which I know you don't believe.

(Fred) Again, you are missing my thought. You insist that we should, without hesitation, renounce any passion play, movie about Christ, picture of Christ, etc, because it is a direct violation of the 2nd commandment; and that any person, wittingly or unwittingly, who sees a movie about Christ, looks upon a painting of Jesus, etc, will be breaking the 2nd commandment. It appears to me that your firm conviction is based upon the belief that the "orthodox historic majority" equates CT and it proponent's application of the WCF for Presbyies and the LCF for Baptists. However, before 1517, the "historic orthodox majority" was equated with the Roman Catholic Church. My point is to merely show you that if you are going to use the historic orthodox majority argument as the determiner of what is true, then if we are to be consistent, your argument fails at this point. Please, I am quite aware that the RCC is an apostate form of Christianity and it cannot be compared to the historic creeds of the Reformed faith. However, just because one thinks a particular system is in the "historic majority" does not mean the system accurately handles scripture. The creeds do a good job of handling scripture, but I believe they stumble at the application of the 10 commandments, and I believe I can demonstrate that biblically.

I am saying, which ought to be more than obvious, the exact opposite of that, Fred, for the movie the Passion, is a PRODUCT OF ROME, is ENDORSED BY ROME, teaches ROMES DOCTRINES, and is designed to draw the unwary to ROME. What could be clearer?

(Fred) And I have never argued otherwise. In fact, at least 2 weeks or so before this movie opened I lectured on the blatant Rominism of this film and warned the folks who volunteer for me that if they see it, they need to beware of what is being played out in the movie, Gibson's intentions in filming some of the specific sequences, and that they need to be prepared to answer inquires about it.
My overall objections in these posts, however, is the insistence that any movie about Christ, or painting, or flannel board cartoon, is a violation of the 2nd commandment. I do not believe such images are, because the 2nd command prohibits the worship of those images.


"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