Donations for the month of September


We have received a total of "$75" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 14,021
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,272
Posts53,181
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,021
Tom 4,035
chestnutmare 3,083
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 21
Tom 14
Ruben 9
Robin 2
Recent Posts
All Glory to God
by NetChaplain - Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:40 AM
Rage Against the Unvaccinated!
by tomatoetom - Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:24 AM
Strength via Weakness
by NetChaplain - Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:29 AM
Good News for a Change
by Pilgrim - Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:53 PM
Doxology
by chestnutmare - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:41 AM
John 3:16 – Kosmos refers to "Believers Only"?
by Pilgrim - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:25 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 3
Hop To
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#11907 Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
gnarley Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
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
gnarley #11908 Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
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
MarieP #11909 Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:05 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
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]
MarieP #11910 Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:29 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
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]https://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="" />

#11911 Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:44 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
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]
Pilgrim #11912 Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:47 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
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.)

#11913 Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:16 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
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

#11914 Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
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]
#11915 Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:48 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
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]https://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.
CovenantInBlood #11916 Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:01 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
What's PC?


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Henry #11917 Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
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.
Pilgrim #11918 Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
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 Images
35836-The Suffering Servant.doc (0 Bytes, 161 downloads)
DaveVan3 #11919 Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:22 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
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
#11920 Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:40 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
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]
fredman #11921 Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:56 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
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.
#11922 Sat Feb 28, 2004 7:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 109
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 109
Kalled, if someone slips a copy of All of Grace by Charles Spurgeon into a pornographic magazine and someone reads it and it comes about that he is saved, does that mean we should not condemn the pornography?


In the midst of your sadness and woe, when you are tormented and afflicted, have comfort! God's will is done.
#11923 Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:00 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I'm reading Barcello's book right now. I may read Zaspel's book, but if Barcello's right in what he says about NCT, then I will try to steer clear of it (although that will become more and more impossible in the days to come).

Yes, that was me who initiated that thread, in case you are wondering.


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
MarieP #11924 Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:18 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Marie:

I figured it was you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I won't be reading the books by the pro NCT crowd. If it smells like a duck.....

As I have said elsewhere on this Board, I have had all of antinomianism I want in that dispensational church I was in some 15 years ago. I don't care what label it is "sold" under, if the "active ingredients" are still the same, so will be the effects. I have seen the effects and felt their sting. I want no part of it.

I have been delivered, God forbid that I should return to my vomit,or to wallowing in the mire.

In Him,

Gerry

ReformedThinker #11925 Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:48 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Nathan:

You asked:
Quote
Kalled, if someone slips a copy of All of Grace by Charles Spurgeon into a pornographic magazine and someone reads it and it comes about that he is saved, does that mean we should not condemn the pornography?

Well put!!

In Him,

Gerry

#11926 Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1

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..

Though I am of the opinion that the film 'The Passion of Christ' does indeed break that commandment. I am afraid that among Reformed people I talk to (besides the Highway) don't have a problem with the movie, at least on the second commandment issue.
They believe the sin would be in worshiping and praying to the image.
If I understand correctly that would be the opinion people like James White, Albert Mohler & John MacArthur would take.

Tom

gnarley #11927 Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:11 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
Gil,

I wonder if you or others who think the movie is okay to see have spent any time reading all the many compelling arguments, articles etc. regarding this film.

The film is clearly a violation of the 2nd commandment, both the making of it, and the viewing of it.

Consider the Christ, he was not just a man, but he was also God, the eternal son of God in human flesh. To portray Christ via an actor or art in any way is an attempt to portray God and deny his power and glory.

Also, there is no film that can possibly portray the true meaning of the gospel, that of Christ's suffering the Wrath of God for the sins of His people. The true means of communicating the gospel is by preaching Christ and Him crucified


[Linked Image]
#11928 Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:59 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I respond here cuz I just wanna make one big response and not like 4 little ones.

To be quite honest, I don't know how to respond to what you've said because it just seems to me like you're all saying that because I don't hold your exact letter for letter interpretation of Scripture that I am utterly wrong and deceived. And I take issue with that because, apart from other people's interpretations agreeing with yours, there is nothing that says that your interpretation is the completely right one. And the same holds for me. I know I am not always right. I just honestly don't see the arguement because other, similar, movies have come out and I've NEVER heard these arguements presented. Why now?

Of all the responses to me, Pilgrim makes the most sense because, instead of quoting an article, he gives me Scripture to meditate on. And I will.

And what if I come to a different conclusion? Am I suddenly unregenerate because I don't have the same thoughts on everything as you all here?

I am not mad at what all has been said. I disagree with some of it. But I am not mad. At the same time, though, I think it is important to know the content of the movie firsthand because people in this day want to know about people's personal experiences. Not what they have heard about this or that. And that is where I think the work of God comes into play with this movie.

People are led to ask questions based on what they saw on the screen. And those of us who have watched it will know the scene they are speaking of, and can relate with the person and conversation will start. Opportunity to minister right there.

God works all things according to His will, as I said earlier. And if He wills to save someone using this movie as the means to get them to seek Him, than praise God.

#11929 Sun Feb 29, 2004 1:00 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
I just honestly don't see the arguement because other, similar, movies have come out and I've NEVER heard these arguements presented. Why now?

Perhaps because you were in different circles when those came out? I haven't heard anything about the Second Commandment in relation to this movie except via this board and from a Presbyterian minister whom I know. Otherwise, nothing.

It hasn't been until this movie that I even thought much about the Second Commandment, particularly as it relates to the representation of Christ. I have become convinced of the historical interpretation that has been presented by several people here.

Quote
Of all the responses to me, Pilgrim makes the most sense because, instead of quoting an article, he gives me Scripture to meditate on. And I will.

In my response to you, I did not quote any articles, although I didn't quote Scripture, either.

Quote
And what if I come to a different conclusion? Am I suddenly unregenerate because I don't have the same thoughts on everything as you all here?

Not at all; however, we cannot simply ignore the issue, can we?

Quote
At the same time, though, I think it is important to know the content of the movie firsthand because people in this day want to know about people's personal experiences. Not what they have heard about this or that.

Perhaps people in this day should be redirected to some extent? I think, though perhaps I am being overly confident, that I can respond to questions about "The Passion" without having to see the movie, particularly with the number of reviews and critiques I have read. I do not think it necessarily wrong to view the movie with the intent to learn what is in it, although I think to go for the experience has the potential to be a major problem for Christians, especially those who are still babes.

Quote
God works all things according to His will, as I said earlier. And if He wills to save someone using this movie as the means to get them to seek Him, than praise God.

True enough! But that does not sanctify all means for our use.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#11930 Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:20 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 51
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 51
My Dear Young Brother,

I have read your posts with interest, and whilst disagreeing with the argument you have put forward, I sympathise with you, because I once stood where it may be, you now stand. As a young(er) man, I like you was busy in the Lord's work, anxious to see His Name glorified and His kingdom extended. But I fear that I had a '..zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.'(Rom.10:2)

Over the years, in His love and grace, God has shown me that I loved myself and His work, much more than I loved Him.He has caused me to really believe in my heart that which I always knew in my head,
"... we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isa 64:6)

and

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (Joh 15:5)

And so, Kalled, I have come to the place where, although I realise that God can glorify Himself and save souls in spite of my error, the desire of my heart is to love HIM FIRST, and to obey His commandments, as He has said to us,
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (Joh 14:21)

He will have His work done in His way. And surely if we believe that salvation is altogether His work, then we would never want it otherwise! Could He, perhaps be wanting you to learn this lesson? I write, "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." (Phi 3:12)

Kalled, there is no greater joy or peace that we can experience, than to seek to glorify Him and do His work,out of a heart filled with love for Him alone.

If not already, may that be your experience today, and always.

Yours in Him,
Brian.

Last edited by Saved_n_kept; Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:38 AM.
Saved_n_kept #11931 Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:45 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
If anybody is wondering about MacArthur's view on this, I found this on Grace to You's website:


Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You, had this to say about The Passion of the Christ.

While I have not yet seen the film, I'm troubled by two things about it:


Mel Gibson's sources included the dreams and visions of a couple of Roman Catholic mystics who claimed God revealed more details about the crucifixion than we find in Scripture. Given the fact Gibson himself is a committed Latin-rite Catholic, I feel sure he'll include the "stations of the cross" and other extrabiblical Catholic superstitions. Those things will severely mar the account of the crucifixion featured in the movie, I expect.


I'm uncomfortable with ALL movie portrayals of Christ, because they cannot possibly convey an adequate sense of His glory. They instill in people's minds an image of Christ that cannot possibly be accurate. It seems to me a violation of the 2nd commandment.
In the providence of God, however, the movie will focus attention on the crucifixion and raise questions about the meaning of it. Since the movie itself is merely a portrayal of the event with no explanation of its meaning, I expect it will provide Christians with many opportunities to explain the meaning of Christ's death to those who will inevitably want to understand more than the movie spells out.
For that reason, I think much good may come out of it, and my public comments about it won't focus exclusively on the things I dislike about it, but on the truth that underlies the event it attempts to portray. That's the message I hope unbelievers get from the Christian public's response to the film.

For a detailed biblical examination of the crucifixion I recommend John MacArthur's book The Murder of Jesus.

Link: http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/thepassion.htm


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Henry #11932 Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
I've also been thinking a couple of other things about the Passion:

For all of the evangelical Christians who are viewing the movie, the big response I've heard is that "It showed me what Jesus really did for me." "I fell in love with Jesus again." But could this response indicate an emotional capitulation to a false gospel?

What really happened on the cross? Was it just Jesus enduring physical torment as a demonstration of His love for us? That was part of it, but when we make it all of it, we have abandoned the Biblical gospel and have walked into something resembling Moral Government theology. The real point of the cross was not Mary giving up her son, or Satan tormenting Jesus, or even Jesus' physical body enduring unspeakable pain (although these may have all been parts of it, especially the latter). The real point was the wrath of God being poured out upon His own Son, for our sakes, a horror that no movie can portray. That is why I believe that the Passion may be encouraging a belief in a false gospel already blithely accepted by so many.

The second point I wanted to make is this: so many have justified, and justify, the movie, based upon their experience. "Nobody could talk afterword." "It was an experience no words could describe." They therefore say that it was good for them to go see the movie- not only in the sense that it was acceptable, but that it was good for them spiritually. But this argument means nothing. If anybody were to watch a movie of anyone being physically brutalized for 1 1/2 hours, they would be unable to speak afterword- again, no matter who that person was. We would feel deep emotion for them. We would cal it an incredible experience. That is why our response to this movie must not be rooted in our experience of watching it, or the feelings we felt, but upon God's Word.


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Pilgrim #11933 Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:28 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
gnarley Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
"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"

It is said that a man is better known by his enemies than by his assumed friends. Who were the enemies of this film? It was Hollywood, The liberal media, including our pretty boy newscasters , The political liberals, the Sodomite (I try to refrain from using the "gay" tag),along with our mainline church crowd who have long ago left any semblense of Christian orthodoxy. I fear that too many brothers within the reformed movement, inspite of our love of reason have failed to let God's truth move from our heads to our hearts. A proverb that goes something to the effect that the longest journey known to man is the distance from his head to his heart. I saw nothing in the film that smacked of any kind of "Catholic imagery".
I understand that the only appearance in the film by Mel Gibson was the scene where the nails were being driven into Jesus' hands--he insisted that his hands be shown as the ones that drove those nails.
I would suggest, that for two hours, all on this forum would force them selves to view it---and do so as Bereans, opening up their minds with as little prejudicial presupposition as possible. Humbling ones self is hard, but often well rewarding.


gil
gnarley #11934 Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:37 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Have you listened to James White's commentary on the Catholicism in the movie?

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/04.htm

It's on the Feb. 26 edition of the Dividing Line.


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
gnarley #11935 Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:25 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
gnarley,

If you are implying that I am to better known as a friend to "Hollywood, The liberal media, The political liberals, the Sodomite(s), along with our mainline church crowd who have long ago left any semblance of Christian orthodoxy . . ." because I stand opposed to the movie on solid biblical ground, then that would surely make for strange "bedfellows"! For my and so many others of like mind, who oppose this movie have little if anything in common with the reasons those other base groups have. Isn't this nothing more than a fallacious "guilt by association"?

Trust me... the Roman Catholic imagery objections to this movie, which have been voiced by some, and I believe with ample justification, are but ancillary and not the basis for my own objections. Surely, you have read at least some of my personal reasons which I have written in the myriad threads here? In not one of them will you find a reference to the Roman State Church. But, just in case you have not availed yourself of any of these other threads, let me very briefly summarize my total rejection of this movie:
  • It is a direct violation of the Second Commandment of God.
  • It is a clear violation of the Chalcedon Creed; i.e., Nestorianism.
  • It obviates the perfect active obedience of Christ which is imputed to believers.
  • It focuses upon the physical suffering of crucifixion, some of which is fabricated and from dubious sources.
  • If fails to communicate the true reason for Christ's crucifixion; i.e., the means by which God ordained for the redemption of sinners.

Quote
You pleaded thusly:
I would suggest, that for two hours, all on this forum would force them selves to view it---and do so as Bereans, opening up their minds with as little prejudicial presupposition as possible.
Given my reasons above, you are wanting me to deliberately transgress, at least by duplicity, the Second Commandment of God? Allow a display of Nestorian heresy to enter into my mind and effect my affections? Render to the "gods" of Hollywood, agents of the Devil money, which God requires that I be a good steward? And lastly, violate my conscience to somehow satisfy some novel notion that this film is beneficial to my soul? May it never be, D.v. The fact is, I AM being a "Berean", of whom wrote:

Quote
Acts 17:11 (ASV) "Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so."
In other words, it is far more noble to "examine the Scriptures" than it is to go see a movie which one knows is blasphemous to find the truth of God.

1 John 2:16 (KJV) "For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."


In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Saved_n_kept #11936 Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:33 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Thank you. I am glad someone doesn't seem to think I am damned or something for where I stand. And what you say might be right. I did just start serving at a church in october, my first church to serve at. So that is very possible.

gnarley #11937 Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
It is said that a man is better known by his enemies than by his assumed friends. Who were the enemies of this film? It was Hollywood, The liberal media, including our pretty boy newscasters , The political liberals, the Sodomite (I try to refrain from using the "gay" tag),along with our mainline church crowd who have long ago left any semblense of Christian orthodoxy.

The approbation of thousands of evangelicals, most of whom have applauded the movie without a thought as to the implications regarding the Second Commandment and Catholic theology, makes you more comfortable? I don't think anyone here has said not to watch the movie for the reasons espoused by the groups you mention: the charge of "anti-Semitism" is a direct attack on the Gospel itself, and we do not harbor negative attitudes about Christ and the Gospel. We are trying to look at it from a biblical perspective, and we find that images of God are prohibited by the Second Commandment.

Quote
I saw nothing in the film that smacked of any kind of "Catholic imagery".

As I noted to Kalled above, 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
I would suggest, that for two hours, all on this forum would force them selves to view it---and do so as Bereans, opening up their minds with as little prejudicial presupposition as possible. Humbling ones self is hard, but often well rewarding.

Would you suggest we do so against our consciences? The Bereans examined the Scriptures, to see whether these things were so. They did not go and watch a movie or look at a painting.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#11938 Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
I am glad someone doesn't seem to think I am damned or something for where I stand

No one has implied that you are damned for having seen this movie or for defending it, and it is most uncharitable of you to act as though that were the case.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
CovenantInBlood #11939 Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:49 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
That wasn't fully directed at people here on The Highway. I just have not had very many people in general relate to my situation or try to help me out where I am at. Most of the time, with this movie and other random issues, people have just been out to show me where I am wrong. And having someone come and try and counsel me where I am was kind of bittersweet. It was good, but also made more clear all the times people have been [censored].

#11940 Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:20 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
I don't know where John stands on the movie. I know he liked the historical aspect to the film. I mention it, because John is a fantastic model of presuppositional apologetics when confronting an audience that is for the most part radically secular.
It is true that we are not married to the WCF as some infallible, never to be questioned document (I know people with similar convictions who are KJV only), so he may not come down on your particular side of the fence. If that makes us "antinomian" in your mind, then I guess we will have to live with it. I do know that the word "antinomian," is one of those annoying theological buzz words followers of the WCF love to throw out at those believers who dissent from their particular understanding of covenantalism. It is similar to how democrats call republicans racist when they don't agree with democratic welfare policies.

My response to Barcellos is forth coming.

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
RefDoc #11941 Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:37 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Quote
RefDoc said:

The film is clearly a violation of the 2nd commandment, both the making of it, and the viewing of it.

Apparently it's not clear, since Christians seem to be on both sides of the issue.

fredman #11942 Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:00 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
It is true that we are not married to the WCF as some infallible, never to be questioned document (I know people with similar convictions who are KJV only),
Fred, I am NOT going to assume that this little "dig" isn't addressed to us here? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Granted, there are some Presbyterians who are guilty of "married to the WCF" and deem it on par with Scripture, at least in a practical way. However, you being a Baptist are not subject to the WCF. But, the historic Baptist denomination, that which came forth out of the Protestant Reformation is something which, although not infallible, and which every Confession written by the denominations that resulted from the Protestant Reformation also affirm about themselves, i.e., the Scriptures are the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and life, has as its official statement of faith, the London Confession. It too, in total agreement with all the other denominations, e.g., Presbyterian, Congregational, Continental Reformed, German Reformed, French Reformed and Anglican, states that the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments are perpetual and binding upon Christians as a rule of life; not being under its condemnation but the expression of holiness and righteousness which was imputed to them and to which they desire to be conformed, as was the Lord Jesus Christ.

You are free, of course, to dissent and believe what you will. But as has always been the case, those who do dissent own the onus to prove that those statements of doctrine which are contained in those great Evangelical Confessions are in error.

But, returning once again to the original reason why I'm replying to you, charging that we, perhaps, are guilty of setting the WCF or any man-made document above Scripture is unfounded and uncharitable to say the least. ALL professing Christians hold to a "creed", yes, even the "Church of Christ", whose by-word is, "No creed but Christ; no doctrine but life." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> When do you think you are going to write your Confession of Faith? And do you think that it will find enough support to be adopted by a great number of people? And do you think that it will withstand the test of time as have these other Confessions of the Reformation denominations? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11943 Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:34 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
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.

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
fredman #11944 Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Fred,

Personally, I have really no further interest in debating the verity of the interpretation of the Second Commandment which has been held to be true for centuries by men far more gifted than myself. I can tell you, however, that I did not first consult ANY Confession or Creed until AFTER I had come to an understanding of the Second Commandment by my own reading of Scripture. In fact, I had no knowledge of even the existence of the WCF, covenant theology, or paedobaptism; even the word "Calvinism" was unknown to me at the time. There is no denying that when I finally did come to realize the existence of these things, I rejoiced. For I was deemed a "black sheep" in the church I attended which consisted of people who held to Arminianism, credo-baptism, Dispensationalism, had no written creed, and were no less ignorant of the history of the church and of men such as Luther, Calvin, Owen, Goodwin, Flavel, Carey, Spurgeon, Edwards, nor even Gerstner, Sproul and last but not least MacArthur! Oh, by the way, if I would give allegiance to any Confession, it would be the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Practice (1658).

Quote
Fred remarked:
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.
Is this really obvious? In fact, I would suggest that is logically impossible. For what you are suggesting is that God forbid something and then permitted, no commanded the very thing which He just forbidden to be created and displayed upon the Ark of the Covenant in which the very law of prohibition was kept. Perhaps you should reconsider that argument. hehe

Lastly, as you are surely aware, so let me simply remind you, that my adamant condemnation of not only this blasphemous film, but ALL such films, plays, skits, re-enactments, paintings, sculptures, drawings and day-dreaming of an alleged image of Christ not only violates the Second Commandment, but also Chalcedon and in essence denies the perfect active obedience of Christ. In short, 3 strikes and they are all out.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
fredman #11945 Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:20 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Fred:

You said:
Quote
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.

I respond:

That is totally uncalled for Fred. There isn't anything in my post, which I went back and reread before posting here, that would cause you to make such a statement. I don't think John is "some sort of lesser Christian, because he may make some postive remarks about the Gibson film". But I do think he is mistaken if he embraces the postion that the film is not a violation of the 2nd commandment. That is what I was implying and I think that is clear from my post.

I also think it is clear from my post that the position you have espoused with respect to NCT, if that is the consensus in the McArthur camp, would make it reasonable to assume, or surmise, that John might take a more tolerant view of violations of the 2nd Commandment. Thus, my question was based on a reasonable assumption about the possibilities and I was asking for a clear statement from you in that respect. While your response wasn't clear, it was directionally what I expected and I will make other plans for the time slot.

I will just add that having come from an antinomian environment, and having seen the effects such a belief can have on a congregation, it seems unwise to use the term "boogy man" to describe this heresy. I have chosen my view of the case entirely apart from the WCF statements on the issue, having as my authority the scriptures and having seen the outworking of a softening of position on this critical doctrine. As I have said elsewhere, it was evident to me that there was something very wrong long before I knew that there was a "boogy man" called antinomianism that was responsible.

So for me the issue is far more important that Democratic vs Republican politics. But then, to many professing Christians, nothing is really more important than politics, for in their heart of hearts, that is where their trust and faith really lie.

In Him,

Gerry

Last edited by acts2027; Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:25 PM.
vince_kieff #11946 Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
If it makes you feel better, I will rephrase...It is clear to me that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment.

And, here's some food for thought:

Acts 17 nkjv
29Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.


John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 4)
And it is to be observed, that the thing forbidden is likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise. This disposes of the frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church. They think they do admirably, because they have no sculptured shape of Deity, while none go greater lengths in the licentious use of pictures. The Lord, however, not only forbids any image of himself to be erected by a statuary, but to be formed by any artist whatever, because every such image is sinful and insulting to his majesty

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 5)
This at least I maintain, that when we teach that all human attempts to give a visible shape to God are vanity and lies, we do nothing more than state verbatim what the prophets taught.

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 6)
Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other teacher than images.

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 7)
But, I ask, whence this stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine which was fit to instruct them? The simple reason why those who had the charge of churches resigned the office of teaching to idols was, because they themselves were dumb. Paul declares, that by the true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3:1.) Of what use, then, were the erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, viz., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to any heavenly instructor.

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 9)
Not contented with spiritual understanding, they thought that images would give them a surer and nearer impression. When once this preposterous representation of God was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded every now and then by new impostures, they came to think that God exerted his power in images


[Linked Image]
#11947 Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:43 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Gerry

Quote
That is totally uncalled for Fred. There isn't anything in my post, which I went back and reread before posting here, that would cause you to make such a statement. I don't think John is "some sort of lesser Christian, because he may make some postive remarks about the Gibson film". But I do think he is mistaken if he embraces the postion that the film is not a violation of the 2nd commandment. That is what I was implying and I think that is clear from my post.

(Fred) Gerry, forgive me if I came across rather curt toward your post, but the remarks you made did appear to be saying that you think John is muddle headed because he takes a different conclusion on the 2nd commandment than you do, or the Reformed faith does. These are your concluding remarks from your initial response to me:

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

Maybe it is just my wounded sensibilities, but I read that statement to be saying something like: "John is going to be leading people into theological error, so thanks for the warning so I can make a point not to watch CNN all day just in case I may accidently see him making positive comments about Gibson's movie." It is as if John has nothing valuable to say in defense of Christianity and that it might as well be James Dobson doing that interview. My thought is that such thinking is unnecessary separation akin to the attitudes displayed in the very fundamentalist church that you deride.

Quote
I also think it is clear from my post that the position you have espoused with respect to NCT, if that is the consensus in the McArthur camp, would make it reasonable to assume, or surmise, that John might take a more tolerant view of violations of the 2nd Commandment. Thus, my question was based on a reasonable assumption about the possibilities and I was asking for a clear statement from you in that respect. While your response wasn't clear, it was directionally what I expected and I will make other plans for the time slot.

(Fred) John is not NCT. My convictions are my own, so let us make that clear so as to not have any further confusion. I would never think to speak for him in any official capacity, unless I knew what he believed for certain.

Quote
I will just add that having come from an antinomian environment, and having seen the effects such a belief can have on a congregation, it seems unwise to use the term "boogy man" to describe this heresy. I have chosen my view of the case entirely apart from the WCF statements on the issue, having as my authority the scriptures and having seen the outworking of a softening of position on this critical doctrine. As I have said elsewhere, it was evident to me that there was something very wrong long before I knew that there was a "boogy man" called antinomian that was responsible. So for me the issue is far more important that Democratic vs Republican politics. But then, to many professing Christians, nothing is really more important than politics, for in there heart of hearts, that is where their trust and faith really lie.

(Fred) I believe "boogey man" is a truly appropriate term, because like I have stated in previous posts, the convictions displayed here concerning the 2nd commandment are creedal traditions, not the application of biblical exegesis. Granted, it is a noble creedal tradition, but it is not the infallible interpreter of scripture. Everyone is good about quoting Exodus 20:4, but ignore the clarifying statement of verse 5, which says you shall not bow down to them nor serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God The issue is not the making of graven images, but the use of those graven images in worship and as a replacement for God. If it was the making of graven images that is the violation of the 2nd commandment, then, like I stated elsewhere, how does the cheribum on top of the ark fit into your understanding of the 2nd commandment? They are images of things in heaven, are they not? I don't believe God contradicted himself. What about the bronze serpent God tells Moses to make in Numbers 21? It is an image of an earthly creature, is it not? It comes down to the intent of those images: were they for worshipping God faslely or serving false gods? Later, in 2 Kings 18:4, that same bronze serpent was destroyed by Hezekiah because the Israelites had transformed it into an object of worship. It had become a relic of sorts.
I feel what you are saying when you speak of those congregations that are weak on conviction and have no theological anchor because they are not taught scripture by the pastors. All of their knowledge of the Bible comes from shallow quarterlies that rush the sunday school class through the Bible on some 3 year jet tour schedule. The depth of the sermons preached are 3 point evangelisitc presentations that are really just 30 minute torture session of a passage cruelly removed from its context. The convicition the people convey are legalistic and ascetic vice based upon a list of supposed dos and don'ts derived from misapplied verses and personal preferences elevated to the authority of scripture. Honestly, I have heard just as much negative reaction toward Gibson's film from the fundamentalist, antinomian crowd and they base that reaction on the 2nd commandment. However, just because you come across other Christians who believe you are misapplying the 2nd commandment and do not conclude the same thing as your personal convictions, does not mean they are antinomian, don't respect creeds and confessions, nor are they to be equated to those anemic congregations you escaped from. I believe Christians should have a standard to which to hold them accountable, and creeds and confessions do a fine job of that and I would readily receive them as a doctrinal statement. But, our ultimate doctrinal statement is the word of God rightly interpreted, and when any creed or confession wrongly applies a Bible verse or promotes priniciples that are misapplied due to a certain reading into the Bible, then that is where the creed and confession should be laid aside.

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
fredman #11948 Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:16 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 109
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 109
Well said, Fred.


In the midst of your sadness and woe, when you are tormented and afflicted, have comfort! God's will is done.
fredman #11949 Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:31 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Fred:

Thanks for the response. I do appreciate it and also the candor.

You said:
Quote
Maybe it is just my wounded sensibilities, but I read that statement to be saying something like: "John is going to be leading people into theological error, so thanks for the warning so I can make a point not to watch CNN all day just in case I may accidently see him making positive comments about Gibson's movie." It is as if John has nothing valuable to say in defense of Christianity and that it might as well be James Dobson doing that interview."

It is your wounded sensibilities, Fred. What I said is what I meant. You read way too much into what I said, but I appologize if the wording was what led you to take it that way. I respect John as a godly man who acts on the strength of his convictions and one who loves the Lord and has done much in service of The Savior.

Thus, I do believe John has valuable things to say, and for some that value may actually over ride the damage done, IMO, if he doesn't clearly support the 2nd Commandment in his statements about the movie. But for me, the time would be better spent in reading and understanding what these men of past generations whose views you have cast aside on this issue, had to say with respect to the second commandment and other aspects of the Christian life. To me the issue is more than trivial, and John's "being a model for apologetics" is not as important as recognizing the value of obedience to the clear instructions of God on this issue. It't that simple, for me, as it was apparently for men like Owen and Ursinus.

Quote
My thought is that such thinking is unnecessary separation akin to the attitudes displayed in the very fundamentalist church that you deride.


I haven't been deriding fundamentalist churches, you have. But I agree with you on the shallow nature of fundamentalism. That is why I was never a member of a fundamentalist church. The church I spent the most time in, and which I have mentioned here as an antinomian church, was a intellectualist church that derided fundamentalism, and prided itself on not being fundamentalist, another trap to be avoided in my view <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Everyone that accepts the currency of the older confessions with regard to the second commandment is not automatically a fundamentalist.

Quote
John is not NCT. My convictions are my own, so let us make that clear so as to not have any further confusion.
Thanks Fred for making that clear. I don't follow John's minstry closely so I had no idea where he stood on this and so I appreciate your clarity on it.

Quote
I believe "boogey man" is a truly appropriate term, because like I have stated in previous posts, the convictions displayed here concerning the 2nd commandment are creedal traditions, not the application of biblical exegesis.

Correction, as has been stated in previous posts, the convictions concerning the 2nd commandment are indeed the application of biblical exegesis. The creeds you mention, and they include more than the WCF, as Pilgrim has pointed out to you, were developed by the best biblical scholars of the times in which they were written, many if not most, of whom are considered by todays best scholars to have attained heights of wisdom and insight into God's word that simply hasn't been surpassed in the succeeding centuries. I'm thinking here of men like Owen, T. Goodwin and so on. It may not be YOUR biblical exegesis, but it most certainly is biblical exegesis.

Quote
The issue is not the making of graven images, but the use of those graven images in worship and as a replacement for God.
Yes, you have made this statement before, but unlike your assertion here, it has not been ignored. It has been answered. Apparently not to your satisfaction, but it has been answered. Your interpretation of the purpose of the Cherubim and the bronze serpent, as well their application to the issue at hand, not to mention the Lords purpose in providing vs 5 of the context to the 2nd commandment is lacking in my view, as has been pointed out in other posts on this subject. 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.

Quote
I feel what you are saying when you speak of those congregations that are weak on conviction and have no theological anchor because they are not taught scripture by the pastors. All of their knowledge of the Bible comes from shallow quarterlies that rush the sunday school class through the Bible on some 3 year jet tour schedule. The depth of the sermons preached are 3 point evangelisitc presentations that are really just 30 minute torture session of a passage cruelly removed from its context. The convicition the people convey are legalistic and ascetic vice based upon a list of supposed dos and don'ts derived from misapplied verses and personal preferences elevated to the authority of scripture. Honestly, I have heard just as much negative reaction toward Gibson's film from the fundamentalist, antinomian crowd and they base that reaction on the 2nd commandment.

Fred, you must have me confused with someone else. I have told you what my convictions are based on, as have others on this site. It seems you are trying to say that either our (my) covictions are based on shallow fundamentalism or "creedal tradition", and you reject the fact that I and others have told you that we have studied the scriptures too, have applied biblical exegesis to them and come up with a different postion than you. As I said before, I did not come to my place of belief, soley on the basis of observing the results of antinomian error in various contexts, nor have I blindly swallowed a "creedal tradtion".

Quote
However, just because you come across other Christians who believe you are misapplying the 2nd commandment and do not conclude the same thing as your personal convictions, does not mean they are antinomian, don't respect creeds and confessions,

I have already given the basis of my suspicion that your views are considered by some as tending toward antinomianism in the form of direct quotes from respected scholars that say that NCT has that tendency. Thus your attempting to to imply that my view is based on a lack of analysis or simple difference in convictions conveniently avoids the issue, does it not?

Quote
nor are they to be equated to those anemic congregations you escaped from.


Those "anemic congregations I escaped from" are very similar to those that you, by your own admission, escaped from. But you keep refering to this as the basis of my current views, which it is not, and thus I can't help but wonder if you have really escaped to the extent that you believe. In other words, Fred, not everyone disagrees with you on this issue because they are shallow fundamentalists.

Quote
I believe Christians should have a standard to which to hold them accountable, and creeds and confessions do a fine job of that and I would readily receive them as a doctrinal statement.

Agreed, and on the issue at hand, I do indeed accept the WCF and the Heidleberg Catechism as good doctrinal statements.

Quote
But, our ultimate doctrinal statement is the word of God rightly interpreted, and when any creed or confession wrongly applies a Bible verse or promotes priniciples that are misapplied due to a certain reading into the Bible, then that is where the creed and confession should be laid aside.

Agreed again, and in the case of the 2nd Commandment, I believe the creeds in question rightly apply the Biblical teaching on this subject and I refuse to lay them aside.

In Him,

Gerry

Last edited by acts2027; Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:31 PM.
#11950 Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:18 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
I meant to get back to this earlier, but work has prevented me. I would imagine this overall discussion is winding down any way, but I wanted to respond to Gerry's last post.

Quote
I haven't been deriding fundamentalist churches, you have. But I agree with you on the shallow nature of fundamentalism. That is why I was never a member of a fundamentalist church. The church I spent the most time in, and which I have mentioned here as an antinomian church, was a intellectualist church that derided fundamentalism, and prided itself on not being fundamentalist, another trap to be avoided in my view Everyone that accepts the currency of the older confessions with regard to the second commandment is not automatically a fundamentalist.

(Fred) I evalutated your comments as directed toward fundamentalist minded churches based upon the following statement you made in a previous post in which you wrote:

I have had all of antinomianism I want in that dispensational church I was in some 15 years ago.

I am unaware of an intellectualist minded church that would be dispensational, but deriding of fundamentalism. Perhaps there are some. As a rule of thumb, fundamentalism and dispensationalism usually fit together like Ed McMahon and Johnny Carson.
At any rate, I believed I was secure in my assumption that your comments about antinomianism and dispensationalism was aimed at a typical Independent Baptist churches, because usually, when Covenant Theologists employ words like "antinomian" and "dispensationalism" to describe negative attributes of bad Christianity, those words can be code for "fundamental baptists" as I pointed out in my previous post.
That being said, I still believe that even though one may come from a liberal Methodist background, or a Calvary Chapel background, or even a mega-seeker-centered SBC background, they all share the similar characteristics that I pointed out and to equate the "antinomianism" of these typical Churches with the theology of NCT proponents, is in error.

Quote
Correction, as has been stated in previous posts, the convictions concerning the 2nd commandment are indeed the application of biblical exegesis. The creeds you mention, and they include more than the WCF, as Pilgrim has pointed out to you, were developed by the best biblical scholars of the times in which they were written, many if not most, of whom are considered by todays best scholars to have attained heights of wisdom and insight into God's word that simply hasn't been surpassed in the succeeding centuries. I'm thinking here of men like Owen, T. Goodwin and so on. It may not be YOUR biblical exegesis, but it most certainly is biblical exegesis.

(Fred) I appreciate your love for those men who drafted the WCF; I myself would agree with their ability and scholarship and would have equal admiration for them. It is important to keep in mind, however, that they are men as fallible as us. This is similar argumentation used by KJV onlies when they insist that the KJV is the superior translation because it was translated by superior scholars. We want to make sure the we are not unduly elevating people to a level beyond what they truly were to which I am sure you would agree. That being said, the men who framed the WCF were not with out their social-religious biases. Their stance on the second commandment, particularly what is outlined in their answer to the 109th question of the larger catechism, is reactionary of the Puritan Reformer's dissent from Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Church. Hence the reason they detail their answer with statements like: all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense. Their answer is meant to convey clearly, and I would argue, rightly so, that the worship presented in the RCC and the Anglican Church of their day (and our day as well) is a violation of the 2nd commandment. I would also point out that the WCF rightly emphasizes the use of images in worship, where I believe the biblical second commandment condemns such uses. That would fall under that category of praying to or bowing down to, etc. I believe that is the intent of their words when they address the issue of making representations of all three members of the Trinity: It is the use of such representations in the purposes of worship.
Thus, drawings of circles and triangles and the like that are found in theological works designed for the purpose of helping to clarify, with the use of illustration, the biblical teaching of the Trinity, is not worshipping an image prohibited by the 2nd commandment. The same can be said about a group of 1st graders in Sunday school looking at a flannel graph cartoon of Jesus feeding the 5,000; they are not engaged in idolatry or the breaking of the 2nd commandment. Granted, the flannel graph Jesus could look way more Jewish than the pale faced, high foreheaded, slicked back hair Jesus often portrayed, but still, the image is not meant to direct the heart in worship to a false idol.

Quote
Yes, you have made this statement before, but unlike your assertion here, it has not been ignored. It has been answered. Apparently not to your satisfaction, but it has been answered. Your interpretation of the purpose of the Cherubim and the bronze serpent, as well their application to the issue at hand, not to mention the Lords purpose in providing vs 5 of the context to the 2nd commandment is lacking in my view, as has been pointed out in other posts on this subject. 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 am completely aware of the various responses some folks have made, but those responses, I have to say, are not born from the entire text of Exodus 20:4-5 and do not adequately answer my pointing out of the Cherubim on top of the ark. Are you telling me that the high priest dripping blood on the ark during the day of atonement is not worship? Did not Jesus Christ point to the serpent lifted up in the wilderness as a type (an illustration) of what he was to do on the cross to bear sin? The distinction concerning the prohibition of images is not in the image itself, but the worship of that image. The Israelites were guilty of taking the Ark into battle as some sort of good luck charm in 1 Samuel 4-6. They were in essence worshipping the actual box, the image so to speak, not God. The serpent is also another prime example. Because it was turned into an icon by the Israelites, Hezekiah destroyed it. If it is images themselves being condemned, then I hope we are all prepared to burn our copies of Pilgrim's Progress, particularly the illustrated versions that show Pilgrim taking on Apollyon and him crossing the river into the Celestrial City, or perhaps our copies of Moby Dick, where Melville pictures sinful man (Ahab) fighting against God (the White Whale).
Now please, don't misunderstand me; I am not suggesting that we have pictures of Jesus in our Churches or statues of saints and angels decorating the corridor leading down to the fellowship hall. But I am saying that an artistic expression of the children crossing the Red Sea and the fire burning behind them to separate them from Pharaoh's army is not violating the 2nd commandment. Nor is the famous painting of Jesus and the apostles in the sea storm that depicts the disciples freaking out and Jesus calmly seated in the rear of the boat. Those painting only capture historical events and are not designed, nor intended, to be worshipped.
As for my point of view cutting against the majority view of orthodox Christianity, I would say that it may cut against the majority view of Covenant Theology and its application of the 10 commandments, not necessarily the whole of orthodox Christianity. If the historic majority is the determiner of orthodoxy, then we need to go back to Rome.

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
fredman #11951 Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:06 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Fred:

In response to my statement as follows:
Quote
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.

You made the following statement:
Quote
If the historic majority is the determiner of orthodoxy, then we need to go back to Rome.
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.

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?

In Him,

Gerry

Pilgrim #11952 Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:52 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
This is not addressed to anyone in particular, but I am looking for information that Mel Gibson has revealed about the film himself. I.e. the Anne Catherine Emmeriche book etc...
I also understand he is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, I am wondering what he has personally said about that aspect.

Although there is a lot of information out there, sometimes the most telling comes from the horse’s mouth.

Tom

gnarley #11953 Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:05 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
From the London Times today:

Roman Catholic bishops in Germany have expressed concern over Mel Gibsons film ;The Passion of the Christ. The bishops said the film's graphic violence reduced "in a problematic way the message of the Bible" and could mislead viewers who were not familiar with Christianity. "We believe that accompanying information to better understand the film is needed," they said in a statement after their plenary meeting in Berlin.

#11954 Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:07 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Hey again Gerry,

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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
fredman #11955 Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:55 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
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.
Fred,

I can appreciate, although I find it indefensible, your NCT view, i.e., because of it you reject the perpetuity and binding character of the Ten Commandments. However, regardless of whether the overwhelming majority of Christians and nearly every single denomination which came out of the Protestant Reformation worldwide held to the interpretation and application of the Second Commandment, which you are want to throw out the door for something "new and improved", if we were to set that aside for the sake of argument, your objections still do not address my other reasons why any and all depictions of any of the three Persons of the Godhead are blasphemous and should be avoided completely. As a reminder, they are:

- Chalcedon Creed: the separation of the two natures of Christ.
- The perfect holiness and righteousness of Christ in His humanity.
- Diminishing or even denial of the perfect active obedience of Christ.
- Specific to the movie: the emphasis upon the physical suffering (much fabricated) against the Scripture's emphasis upon the spiritual character and nature of Christ's death, i.e., as a vicarious substitutionary sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the elect.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11956 Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:29 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
gnarley Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Hmmm, Could it be that there is such a thing as Pharisiac Calvinist? Try this on for size:

Zwingli, movie critic:
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />
We had Luther the movie critic, so it is only fair to let Zwingli have his say on "The Passion." Zwingli was an iconoclast, but his argument here speaks not of doing away with images entirely (what was not allowed in church could be quite permissible outside of church, as in Rembrandt's paintings of Christ), but of the necessity of the Word. This is from Charles Garside, Zwingli and the Arts (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1966), pp. 172-173):

To begin with, we can learn nothing of the content of God's Word from an image. "Why," Zwingli rhetorically asks, "do we not send images to unbelievers so that they can learn belief from them?" Precisely because we would be required to explain what they mean, which in turn requires knowledge of the Word. "If now you show an unbelieving or unlettered child images, then you must teach him with the Word in addition, or he will have looked at the picture in vain." For if "you were newly come from the unbeliever and knew nothing of Christ and saw Him painted with the apostles at the Last Supper, or on the Cross, then you would learn nothing from this same picture other than to say 'He who is pictured there was a good-looking man in spite of it all."
"The Passion" does have the Word in the subtitles, including strong Gospel statements about how He is bearing sin and dying for his friends. There is even the crucial text, in this relativistic age, that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). These are all the way through the movie.

Still, the challenge for the Church will be to take advantage of this particular cultural sensation, taking people who have been moved by these visual images and bringing the Word to them. After all, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17).

Posted by Veith at February 27, 2004 06:35 AM


gil
gnarley #11957 Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
gnarley,

Sorry, but all that quote by Veith accomplished was to affirm pragmatism, if anything. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> Let's also not forget that Huldrych Zwingli was the man who reduced the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism to ordinances and simple memorials and who neither Calvin, Luther, or Bullinger was overly pleased for doing so.

And, at the risk of being accused of rank redundancy, as I wrote also to Fred and others many times already, there are far too many things of fundamental importance, e.g., the deity and dual nature of Christ, et al, which this movie denies. It is hardly a valid comparison to put the "Luther" movie along side of "The Passion of Christ". Martin Luther was not the incarnate Son of God before Whom we are to bow. Could it be that those who are so passionate about "The Passion" have a too low view of Christ that they would applaud having Him portrayed in such a profane manner on a movie screen? How can anyone make such mockery of the exalted Christ of God? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11958 Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:25 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Pilgrim,
I will let you have the last word on this issue. We can all bicker back and forth about this until cows come home. Just as a final note, I don't have a contention with you and the others opposed to my convictions about the specific movie, "The passion of the Christ." I have similar concerns as you all do, though I believe my concerns are more along the lines of the encroaching Roman Catholicism portrayed in the movie, rather than the breaking of the 2nd commandment. Perhaps you see both of those classifications as being one and the same; I do not.
At any rate, let us grant the validity of your other reasons you list. I still do not think it violates the 2nd commandment if a movie portrays Christ as perfectly holy, shows his active obedience, and emphasizes the spiritual character of Christ's substitutionary and propitatory sacrifice. I believe those are truths that can be portrayed in a movie if the film's creators so deemed it.

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
fredman #11959 Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:53 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
Fred replied:
At any rate, let us grant the validity of your other reasons you list. I still do not think it violates the 2nd commandment if a movie portrays Christ as perfectly holy, shows his active obedience, and emphasizes the spiritual character of Christ's substitutionary and propitatory sacrifice. [color:"red"]I believe those are truths that can be portrayed in a movie if the film's creators so deemed it.[/color]
Well Fred, I am totally aghast that you would state such a thing as you have here. I simply cannot fathom that a man of your education and profession could possibly even think this. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> As for your gracious offer to let me have the last word, I'm afraid I can't fulfill that because to be frank, I have no words that could adequately express my shock and dismay.

As for myself, you should have been able to plainly see that I have hardly if ever brought up the issue of the Roman Catholic influence that this movie contains. Thus, the idea that I might see both the issues of the 2nd Commandment and the RC influence as being one of the same is actually quite silly. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But what I will do is try to approach this pro-movie position from another perspective, by first asking this simple question: What is hoped to be gained or gleaned from viewing this movie? The question is of course open to all to answer.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11960 Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:25 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Pilgrim

I can tell you that among Reformed Baptists Fred's position on the 2nd Commandment is probably the majority position.
I feel like the odd man out when it comes to the 2nd Commandment among Reformed Baptists.
Though I will say, I refuse to let this issue become one that separates me from my Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters.
Something that Albert Mohler said that I think is wise advice is: (from memory) "Let this issue be an in house debate among Christians, don't let it affect your witness to the world around you."

Tom

Pilgrim #11961 Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:15 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
The ONLY reason that I wont go and see the film is because it is nothing more than popery <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />

gnarley #11962 Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:23 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I just read the following on USA Today internet news re: The Passion movie:
Quote
Couple Arrested After 'Passion' Debate

March 20, 2004 11:57 AM EST


STATESBORO, Ga. - A couple who got into a dispute over a theological point after watching "The Passion of the Christ" were arrested after the argument turned violent.

The two left the movie theater debating whether God the Father in the Holy Trinity was human or symbolic, and the argument heated up when they got home, Melissa Davidson said.

"It was the dumbest thing we've ever done," she said.

Davidson, 34, and her husband, Sean Davidson, 33, were charged with simple battery on March 11 after the two called police on each other. They were released on $1,000 bail.

According to a police report, Melissa Davidson suffered injuries on her arm and face, while her husband had a scissors stab wound on his hand and his shirt was ripped off. He also allegedly punched a hole in a wall.

"Really, it was kind of a pitiful thing, to go to a movie like that and fight about it. I think they missed the point," said Gene McDaniel, chief sheriff's deputy.

Sounds like the movie is having quite a "spiritual" impact in the lives of this couple <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

In Him,

Gerry

#11963 Sun Mar 21, 2004 2:12 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Fom the London Times 20/03/04:

A bank robber has turned himself in after watching Mel Gibsons "The Passion". Police in Palm Beach ,Florida ,said James Anderson gave himself up after being stirred deeply by the film depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus's life.
Mr Anderson, who admits stealing £14,000 from a bank in 2001,said the movie inspired him to come clean.

gnarley #11964 Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
Hello Gil
I did go and see the movie, "The Passion". I was deeply moved. What a wonderful Lord we have. Thank God for His mercy and grace. This movie has caused a great deal of
stirring in this country. Mel Gibson was hammered by the movie industry. God has blest him in the return of his investment. But as an outreach tool, I believe this movie deserves a Crown.
A Friend In Christ
vmhodges

Last edited by vmhodges; Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:19 PM.
gnarley #11965 Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
Hello,
I did go and see the movie. Speaking for me only,The movie did move me deeply. I gould not hold the tears back. I sobbed as I seen how the story told of Jesus suffering for my sin. I can only thank God for my salvation. As I watched the movie, I could help to think what an Awsome God we have.
No matter how you cut it,There would be no salvation without
God's mercy and grace. There would not be any salvation witout Christ coming to die for my sins. Jesus was the perfect sacrfice. No other under the Sun was worthy to die
for the sins of man. This is how I viewed the movie. I did
not look at the movie as the person in the movie was Jesus.
I simply listen to the story told for it's accurices.

#11966 Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:28 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
gnarley Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Matthew 10:34 (ESV)
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.


Jesus


gil
#11967 Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:26 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Mark & All

To me the whole point on whether or not good or bad comes out of the movie is not the point.
If it is used to get Christians off their duff, then praise the Lord, but that is God’s business not ours.
The point to me is should this movie really have been made and should Christians endorse it?

I have read enough information about this movie even reported by those who endorse the movie, that I can't in good conscience go to see it. That isn’t even taking into consideration that I think it breaks the 2nd commandment.
They reported all the extra biblical scenes in that movie that came from Roman Catholic sources and the list was quite long.
They even reported how these scenes were not meant as artistic license, but were true to form to what Mel Gibson actually believes.
I find it quite ironic that these people after finding all these Roman Catholic scenes could come out giving the movie a thumbs up. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
It wouldn’t have surprised me if these people didn’t have a fair amount of Bible knowledge or were Roman Catholics themselves. But the fact is some of these people are Reformed pastors and theologians.

Tom

Tom #11968 Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:53 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"They reported all the extra biblical scenes in that movie that came from Roman Catholic sources and the list was quite long.
They even reported how these scenes were not meant as artistic license, but were true to form to what Mel Gibson actually believes.
I find it quite ironic that these people after finding all these Roman Catholic scenes could come out giving the movie a thumbs up. "

I've never been Catholic. So it shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't know some of the scenes were Catholic. Maybe that's whats happening. Yes, I knew mel Gibson is devout-ortodox, and that the movie probably would have a Catholic bent. But Not knowing the specifics of Catholic theology, most of it was just scenes in a movie.

When I came out of it I didn't want to be a Catholic. (Just as after watching "The Matrix" I didn't want to convert to Zen Buhdism) All I wanted to do is go home, get by myself and worship the Holy Son of God who gave His life for me.

And that's what I did.

#11969 Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:54 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
I've never been Catholic. So it shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't know some of the scenes were Catholic. Maybe that's whats happening.
One doesn't have to have been a Catholic. And, I would suspect that 90% of the Catholics who went to the film didn't recognize anything particularly "Catholic" in it either as could also be said for most everyone who went to see the movie. Why? Because they don't know their Bibles, which is the inspired revelation of God and the ONLY source of truth concerning the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. People who are well-versed in the Scriptures would be able to pick out which scenes and even words which not in accord with the Scriptures or were not to be found in the Scriptures. Bible illiteracy is that which I am sure the Devil delights in and uses most effectively for his own cause. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Quote
When I came out of it I didn't want to be a Catholic. (Just as after watching "The Matrix" I didn't want to convert to Zen Buhdism) All I wanted to do is go home, get by myself and worship the Holy Son of God who gave His life for me.

And that's what I did.
I'm so glad you made this statement because I have asked people who have gone to see this movie to tell what their personal reaction was afterward. But none were willing to do so. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

For yourself, this movie did what for you? In other words, did it give you a clearer? better? new? understanding of Christ's crucifixion?

You said, "All I wanted to do is go home . . . and worship . . .". So, what did the movie do to motivate you to worship? Did you find that the movie moved you to worship more so than when you hear a sermon on the crucifixion? Can you say that seeing an actor portray Christ in His alleged final hours increased your desire to worship over anything else you have read or heard?

Thanks in advance for your candid answers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11970 Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:42 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"People who are well-versed in the Scriptures would be able to pick out which scenes and even words which not in accord with the Scriptures or were not to be found in the Scriptures. Bible illiteracy is that which I am sure the Devil delights in and uses most effectively for his own cause. " I knew which scenes were not Biblical, just not which ones were Catholic tradition and which ones were artistic license. "I'm so glad you made this statement because I have asked people who have gone to see this movie to tell what their personal reaction was afterward. But none were willing to do so. " I've never been one to back away from a candid answer. "For yourself, this movie did what for you? In other words, did it give you a clearer? better? new? understanding of Christ's crucifixion?" For the most part, it drove home the magnitude of my unworthiness. NOt so much the unworthiness of the suffering, of which I am - but my unworthiness of the Grace of which he has given me. "You said, "All I wanted to do is go home . . . and worship . . .". So, what did the movie do to motivate you to worship? Did you find that the movie moved you to worship more so than when you hear a sermon on the crucifixion?" It has been said that a picture paints a thousand words. I have been a believer for many, many years (presently I hold the office of Deacon at a PCA church) and have heard no telling how many sermons on the crucifixion. None of them had the impact that this did.(and that doesn't mean none of them I heard never ahd an impact) Even now, weeks later, the thing that rings in my mind is the soldiers counting the stripes. The sound echoes, and each one was for me, and I deserved all of them and more. "Can you say that seeing an actor portray Christ in His alleged final hours increased your desire to worship over anything else you have read or heard?" In this case, yes.

#11971 Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:21 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
It has been said that a picture paints a thousand words. I have been a believer for many, many years (presently I hold the office of Deacon at a PCA church) and have heard no telling how many sermons on the crucifixion. None of them had the impact that this did.(and that doesn't mean none of them I heard never ahd an impact) Even now, weeks later, the thing that rings in my mind is the soldiers counting the stripes. The sound echoes, and each one was for me, and I deserved all of them and more.
Thanks for sharing this. Indeed, the inherent ability of a picture or a "moving picture" to impress the mind is well known. And I, for one among many of my forbears, am often impressed deeply how it is that the Lord God has ordained that His written Word and it preached was the means by which He calls sinners to repentance as well as the means by which the saints are upbuilt and sanctified rather than through idols, pictures, plays or movies. I believe this is what the Second Commandment forbids and which the Reformers and Puritans often railed against in their writings. Since the Word of God is the ONLY source of true truth; the very revelation of God and His will, and that which the Holy Spirit works in, with and through to accomplish the purposes of God, it is dangerous at best to ignore it, circumvent it, add or take away from it or substitute it with any other means of communication than that which God has ordained.

Quote
I asked: "Can you say that seeing an actor portray Christ in His alleged final hours increased your desire to worship over anything else you have read or heard?"

You replied: In this case, yes.
Again, I am grateful for your candid answer to this question. As I have argued from so many different perspectives; e.g., biblically, doctrinally, historic Creeds and Confessions, and sound reason, that actor which people see on the screen is an idol, a false Christ and an abominable blaspheme in that he is representing not the true Christ of God Who was both God and man; inseparably the incarnate Son of the Most High God. When people are moved to worship after watching this man's alleged portrayal of the biblical Christ, for indeed that is exactly the point of the movie (any such movie), they are moved by an image (idol), a false Christ which due to the very nature of a motion picture is embedded into their mind whether consciously or unconsciously. I dare say that you will perhaps never be able to erase the images you saw and which you admit "moved you to worship".

I find all this to be of no surprise whatsoever. And it only serves to impress upon my own heart once again the subtlety and dangers of the Evil One's methods in drawing people away from the biblical and historical Christ to which I must ever love, serve and worship in "spirit and truth".

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11972 Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:59 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
And it's probably that kind of response, given over and over that keeps people from answering you candidly.

I happen to believe differently.

#11973 Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:52 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Flyboy

Sinse you have endorsed the movie, perhaps you can tell me how you can do so after reading the following information written by Steve Camp after he had watch the movie three times.

DOES THIS FILM DIFFER FROM THE BIBLICAL RECORD
2. The gospel account of our Lord’s last hours does differ significantly from the film. Some points of interest are as follows:

*When Jesus declares “I AM He” in the garden the soldiers do not fall back on to the ground; (the biblical record states that this has happened twice—why wasn’t it included?).

*Satan and Jesus are presented as being in spiritual conflict in the garden. This again is never mentioned in Scripture. What the Lord was wrestling with in the garden were not the sub-conscience whispers of Satan, but drinking “the cup” and submitting to the Father’s will. The agony of Gethsemane was between the Father and the Son—not between Satan and Christ.

*Demons plaguing Judas after his betrayal are depicted as little children. They chase Judas out into the desert where he eventually hangs himself after the little demons vanish. Their faces change throughout from an innocent child’s face to that of a hellish or goulish demon. This is very perplexing and certainly not part of the biblical account anywhere.

*”The Cup” that is presented in this film is the cup of scourging and dying.
That is not the cup of Scripture that Jesus struggles “to drink” to the point of sweating great drops of blood (something that wasn't explicit in the movie). Wicked men had been scourged and crucified before. Wicked men had given their lives for a cause and received the torture appropriate as Rome determined. Wicked men deserved to die for their crimes and some did so willingly. However, the cup that only the Lord Jesus Christ could drink was the cup of the Father’s wrath that burns against our sin. Christ was our propitiation, which means to avert wrath, before the Father on behalf of the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). Jesus was not wrestling with the reality of dying or being beaten and scourged—as physically painful and excruciating as those things were. He was wrestling with being forsaken as the wrath of the Father was being poured out on Him as our divine substitute.

*The film shows Christ before the scourging begins as praying to the Father saying, “I am ready now; my heart is ready now…” (Not exact words, my paraphrase—but nonetheless not in Scripture); giving the impression that this was what He did not want to embrace. It was a spiritual conflict that disturbed Him in that insufferable supplication before the Father.

*Mary Magdalene is presented as an adulterous woman in this film—not true according to the Scriptures.

*Mary, the mother of Jesus, is elevated beyond the biblical record. In the film she could telepathically communicate with Christ; was the nemesis of Satan during the scourging and the walk down the Via Del a Rosa; when the Lord was dying she runs up to the cross and says, “My son, I wish I could die with you.” Then kisses His feet and is shown with blood on her face referencing her as co-redemptrix with Christ and not as a sinner in need to be saved by grace. She also runs to Christ when He falls to almost assist Him in carrying His cross with Him. The apostles refer to her as “Mother” and not as Mary.

*Jesus’ words to the women of Israel is omitted on the road to Calvary as well; but strangely, St. Veronica is included (non-biblical) – the young girl who wipes the face of Christ when He has fallen down while carrying the cross. She offers Him a drink of water and gives Him a clean white towel to wipe His face with. As per Romanist tradition, His face is imprinted on the towel, which she acknowledges in the film, and was considered to be a relic of the Roman church.

*At the scourging, Satan is mulling toward the back of the crowd carrying a baby boy that has the head of a grown man which, sadly to say, looks like Mini-Me right out of Austin Powers. According to Gibson, the baby was to represent the anti-Christ--part of the unholy trinity (anti-Christ, the false prophet and the beast). It was also to give the impression Satan was taunting Jesus portraying that he could "care" for his son, but God was seemingly not caring for His Son. This again is found nowhere in Scripture and who knows the exact origin of such magical mystery tours?

*The scourging was exaggerated in the film by Gibson’s own admission. He wanted to bring the audience to the edge of despair, give some relief (the purpose of the flashbacks), and then bring them back to the edge again. (The whip used for scourging had a short wooden handle, to the end of which were attached several leather thongs. Each thong was tipped with very sharp pieces of metal or bone. The man to be scourged was tied to a post by the wrists high over his head, with his feet dangling and his body taut. Often there were two scourgets, one on either side of the victim, who took turns lashing him across the back. Muscles were lacerated, veins and arteries were torn open, and it was not uncommon for the kidneys, spleen, or other organs to be exposed and slashed. As would be expected, many men died of scourging before they could be taken out for execution. We do not know the full extent of Jesus’ wounds, but He was so weakened by them that He was not able to carry His own cross (Mark 15:21)).

*The scourging and beatings were also out of balance with the suffering on the cross and the resurrection. Out of a two hour film, only about thirteen minutes was given to the cross and less than one minute to the resurrection. This is in keeping with Romanist views of the Mass. The focus is on the scourging not on redemption. (Point of reference: Jesus is shown as coming out of the tomb with no clothing—this is not in keeping with the biblical record and definitely not the way to end this film.)

*The reason that the cross and the resurrection took second place in the totality of the film, is that this is what "The Mass" represents in Romanism--a perpetual bloody sacrifice for our sins. The emphasis of the movie is therefore in keeping with the practice of Catholicism rather than with biblical Christianity. The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ is a "once for all sacrifice" for our sins--complete lacking nothing (Hebrews 9:12ff). Christ is the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world and through His sacrifice there is a "sabbath rest" for the people of God from all our dead works (Hebrews 4:9). All our righteousness--our religious practices, ceremonies, feast days, laws and traditions, etc. are nothing but filthly rags to our holy God (Isaiah 64:6).

*Pilate in this film is depicted as a benevolent governor of the Praetorian court; almost to the point where you feel compassion for his judicial and political dilemma on what to do with Christ. Again, this is pure fantasy. In fact, historically, Caesar had sent two edicts to Pilate commanding him to stop his bloodlust of more crucifixions or the same would happen to him. This was a wicked mad-man and he weighed no conscionable objections about pleasing the crowd. He was concerned only for his own preservation—not the Lord’s well being.

*The fourteen Stations of the Cross were clearly presented throughout the film; but yet veiled enough that most evangelical Christians would not have noticed them if not previously familiar with them. In fact, in most cases, Romanist theology was subtle rather than overt. But make no mistake about it: this is the gospel according to Rome and not according to the Scriptures.

*The real suffering of the atoning work of Christ was not shown in this film. The real work of atonement and agony began once He was placed on the cross. This is where every sin, ever committed, by every one, that would ever believe, was imputed or credited to Him. The guilt and penalty of our sin was also placed on Him. But the most excruciating torment that we can never fully understand in this life was that the eternal wrath of a holy God that you and I deserve in an everlasting hell as the just punishment for our sin, was compressed into time and poured out in unmitigated fury and gall with unrelenting force by God. It was this suffering that the Lord went through to redeem His people from their sins that was the great weight of torment and affliction—-not the physical lacerations, but spiritual separation. Out of the last twelve hours of our Lord’s life before He died on the cross, six of those twelve hours was spent on the cross (from 9am-3pm). God’s righteousness, justice and holiness had to be satisfied so that we could be redeemed. Christ became our divine substitute. This, again, was the cup no one could drink except Him. Why? It took a faultless life lived; an unblemished Lamb sacrificed, and a perfect High Priest to satisfy God. All three of those things are contained in Jesus Christ the Righteous—and God was satisfied.

*There was no divine substitutionary sacrifice described in this film. This movie by Mr. Gibson’s own words was his penitence for his own sins. In a very real way, this movie is what Mr. Gibson would consider to be his out of purgatory early card. This is the religion of human achievement—works righteousness—rather than the faith of divine accomplishment.

*The Roman soldiers at the cross did not acknowledge, “surely this man was the Son of God.” Why leave such an important declaration of Christ’s deity out of script?

*In the movie, the temple veil was not torn when Christ declared “It is finished!” In fact, He didn’t declare it is finished in this film, but it is accomplished. This has a different meaning altogether than the biblical phrase, but again is more consistent with Romanism than with true Christianity. There was no showing that the sacrificial system of the old covenant was virtually fulfilled and thus nullified at this moment. This would have been an affront to the Mass and what it represents.

*As my dear friend, James White has said, “Relics, relics, and more relics (straight out of Emmerich). Stations of the Cross, "St. Veronica," the whole nine yards.

*Lastly, many key phrases were left out that are in the biblical record. They are too numerous here to mention and list, but a thorough reading of the Scriptures in the following texts will reveal them to you: Matthew 26-28; Mark 14-16; Luke 22-24; and John 13-21.

Tom

#11974 Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
Flyboy said:
And it's probably that kind of response, given over and over that keeps people from answering you candidly.

I happen to believe differently.
Obviously, you took offense, which is unfortunate, for if anything one might have hoped it would cause some serious reflection upon the profundity of the issue(s), which I and so many others have raised in opposition to this film. It was not my intention to offend, but rather to provoke one to think carefully about what God's Word says this film is and and what going to can do in contrast.

So, once again, thanks for being "brave" enough to respond. Our sins are not determined by what we "feel" they are, but according to the propositional truths found in the inspired record.

Deuteronomy 5:8-10 (ASV) "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, [nor] any likeness [of anything] that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I, Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."


In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Tom #11975 Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:11 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Look, I never said I thought the entire film was biblically accurate. It's not. All I said was I am not, and have never been Catholic, so a lot of the Catholic imagry went unnoticed. Most of the questions in your lengthy exposion should be directed at the makers of the film. I had no control over the content.

But that being said, it is a MOVIE and movies do one thing, they tell a story as the director sees it or wants it told. It is a MOVIE, not scripture.

Pilgrim #11976 Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:16 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
What makes you think I've never reflected upon scripture? How can you sit there and pass judgement on my relationship with God because I happen to dissagree with your interpretation of the 2nd commandment as it relates to film?

#11977 Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:46 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
Flyboy said:
What makes you think I've never reflected upon scripture? How can you sit there and pass judgement on my relationship with God because I happen to dissagree with your interpretation of the 2nd commandment as it relates to film?
Never implied anything of the sort! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Cool your jets! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But since you brought it up, what IS your interpretation of the Second Commandment? Since you are a Deacon in a PCA congregation, I would have assumed that you would hold to the interpretation given in the WCF, WLC and WSC?

I would also like to hear your reasoning how you justify the film against the Creed of Chalcedon and the active obedience of Christ?

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#11978 Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:49 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Flyboy

You have missed my point.
My point was that you seem even after even acknowledging the movie's biblical short comings, to be endorsing the movie.
I don't understand how you could do this as a Protestant.
Perhaps now that you do know a little more about the Roman Catholic teaching in the movie, you have changed your mind?

I have no wish to dirrect these questions to the makers of the film. Why? Because those things that I mentioned are very consistant with the beliefs of the makers of the movie.
Mel Gibson has said himself that he made the film as part of his penance. This is in harmony with Roman Catholic teaching.

You also said: "But that being said, it is a MOVIE and movies do one thing, they tell a story as the director sees it or wants it told. It is a MOVIE, not scripture."

Like I said, this is much more than just a movie. It was made as penance to Mel Gibson. To him and to most of the makers of the movie, it is an accurate depiction of the last few days of the life of Jesus.

Sorry just looked at my watch, I have no time at the moment to check for errors in this post. Got to run.

Tom

#11979 Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:51 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
But that being said, it is a MOVIE and movies do one thing, they tell a story as the director sees it or wants it told. It is a MOVIE, not scripture.
But, it is a movie that purports to be an accurate representation of the trial and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, it has an actor who is allegedly imitating the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Should not professing Christians be concerned that a mere man, an unregenerate man at that, is representing Him? Is God "fair game"? And should Christians give their approval to this representation if it is not 100% accurate, aside from the Second Commandment issue?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#11980 Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:56 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Flyboy,
You have happened on to one of the hottest topics we've had here, so don't be surprised if everyone doesn't agree with you!
I had never even heard this view of the 2nd commandment until I attended an OPC some years ago and it was a very strange teaching to my ears. I still have some reservations about this because I love Rembrandt's depictions of Christ, but I can see the wisdom of holding to the Westminster view of the 2nd Commandment now and would have probably seen this movie if I had not read such convincing and convicting arguments here about why not to see it.

Pilgrim #11981 Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:57 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered

#11982 Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:04 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"You have happened on to one of the hottest topics we've had here, so don't be surprised if everyone doesn't agree with you!"

Thanks! I had read the forum afew days before joining. I knew what most people here believed.


"I had never even heard this view of the 2nd commandment until I attended an OPC some years ago and it was a very strange teaching to my ears. I still have some reservations about this because I love Rembrandt's depictions of Christ, but I can see the wisdom of holding to the Westminster view of the 2nd Commandment now and would have probably seen this movie if I had not read such convincing and convicting arguments here about why not to see it."

The arguments to me, are not convincing. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim #11983 Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:06 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"But since you brought it up, what IS your interpretation of the Second Commandment? Since you are a Deacon in a PCA congregation, I would have assumed that you would hold to the interpretation given in the WCF, WLC and WSC?"

The key word here is interpretation.

Tom #11984 Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:51 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"You have missed my point.
My point was that you seem even after even acknowledging the movie's biblical short comings, to be endorsing the movie.
I don't understand how you could do this as a Protestant.
Perhaps now that you do know a little more about the Roman Catholic teaching in the movie, you have changed your mind?"

No. If Mel Gibson is lost, he needs the Grace and love of Jesus Christ, not our hatred. You see, to me, being Protestant doesn't mean "Hate Catholics, or anything remotely resembling Catholicism". Our Lord said that the Greatest Commandment was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul - the SECOND is like unto the first - to love your neighbor as yourself"

I have 2 good neighbors that are devout Catholics. I talk to them often, have been to dinner with them. They need the love of Christ and they won't see it if I walk into their homes and start spouting the evils of the church.

#11985 Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:20 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
Flyboy said:
I couldn't say it any better.

http://www.prpc-stl.org/articles.html?cm_id=197
That's unfortunate! Meyer's "defense of limited use of pictures of Jesus" is based upon a diminished view of God's transcendence. And truly, this is the ONLY way people can attempt to justify any form or representation, for whatever purpose, of God. Several of his rebuttals of Barnes arguments were illogical and not even relevant. In fact he is guilty of what he charges Barnes' argument with; i.e., Barnes uses "extra-biblical" arguments to make his case, and Meyers uses rank pragmatism and sophistry to try and force his presupposition that pictures of Jesus are allowable if not for devotional purposes. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

Interesting reading, but hardly a convincing argument to abandon the biblical and historical view, which he as an ordained minister in the PCA, violates and teaches against, even though he has sworn an oath of subscription to uphold.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11986 Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:00 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
Pilgrim said,Interesting reading, but hardly a convincing argument to abandon the biblical and historical view, which he as an ordained minister in the PCA, violates and teaches against, even though he has sworn an oath of subscription to uphold.

Dear Pilgrim,

Not always. It is quite common in the PCA for ministers, upon their ordinations, to take an exception to this particular provision of the Westminster Standards. I agree with Westminster on this issue, but the PCA does not require such agreement of its ministers.

#11987 Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:16 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hello Flyboy:

You rightly said:
Quote
I have 2 good neighbors that are devout Catholics. I talk to them often, have been to dinner with them. They need the love of Christ...

I couldn't possibly agree with you more. But as I study the Gospels of Christ, and think on his words, his actions and his feelings, there is not one time that He shrank from telling those who were deceived by the Religion of their day the truth of that false religion.

He usually did it gently at first, but even then not always, witness the cleansing of the Temple, and He usually did it with kindness and love at first. But I notice that as those whom He had kindly and repeatedly corrected continued to come to him and try to accuse bear false witness against Him, He could be quite caustic, especially toward religious leaders (such as yourself) calling them vipers and so on.

All this is written for our instruction, as you know we are told, thus to use the argument of the love of Christ indiscriminatly is, to me, a red flag. I do not say that you do this, but I do wonder about it.

Christ's love, seen in the scriptures, and felt really in the soul is the most wonderful and precious of all blessings, being a foretaste of heaven, but I can also say that I have at times been most aware of His love when it came in the form of chastisment from a loving Friend, which I sorely needed. Love takes on more forms than sweetness and light for fallen and fallible creatures, and especially when those creatures are in open rebellion.

So, would it not be better, I ask, to gently and lovingly tell your devout Roman Catholic friends about the words of the Holy Spirit in Deuteronomy that forbid images of Christ, images that rob them of a true conception in their minds and HEARTS, for the mind is the portal to the heart, and any fact or truth left to dwell alone in the mind without the love and feeling of the heart is dead logic.

I argue that you do your Catholic friends no favors by depriving them of this most precious of truths. And to do so in the name of Love, while this may be your genuine belief, is in my opinion a delusion.

The scriptures speak of "the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit", Romans 5:5. That is the love of Christ that I want my Catholic friends to know about, and I have several and they are wonderful people. But unless they turn from their idols to the living God, I fear that they may never know the love of Christ that is spoken of in the scriptures.

In Him,

Gerry

#11988 Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:29 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
When the relationship developes to that point, I'm sure it will come up.

#11989 Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:47 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Flyboy

Where in any of my posts did I indicate that I hate Catholics? I talk to Catholics quite a bit and for the most part we get along fine.

Tom

Tom #11990 Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:15 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Tom,

I apologize for the error! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

#11991 Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Have you told them the true Gospel and why the Catholic gospel is a false one? Remeber, false gospels ARE our enemies.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,
4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ


Galatians 1:8-10

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

2 Timothy 4:1-4

1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.


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
Tom #11992 Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:15 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Tom-

I'm wondering who Steve Camp is?? Does he have a website?
Thanks.

janean #11993 Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:20 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Janean,

I don't know if this is the same Steve Camp, but this is the one I've heard of: http://www.stevecamp.org/.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
CovenantInBlood #11994 Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:45 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Yes that is the same Steve Camp.
He is an assistant pastor in a Baptist Church and also holds to the doctrines of grace. He speaks very highly of John MacArthur, in fact if I remember correctly gives a lot of credit to him, for his views on the doctrines of grace as well as his views concerning the Christian music industry. Those views can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/nwcricket/theses/thesmain.html

He is also a frequent guest of his friend James White.

Tom

gnarley #11995 Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Besides this movie being against the 2nd commandment, (which I am sure someone below has already stated) I see some other difficulties:

1. Embracing what is clearly Catholic Theology---another Gospel. There are sects of the Catholic religion that stress the physical sufferings of Christ. This fact and the fact it is based on The Dolorous Passion (a collection of the meditations of an 18th Century, mystic nun by the name of Anne Catherine Emmerich as she received direct revelation from the Virgin Mary) should cause some serious concerns IMHO. Does this bother anyone? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

2. The Gospel writers themselves go into VERY little detail of the sufferings of Christ at Calvary. IMHO this is significant! They were eyewitnesses, WHY did they leave out such details that the film embraces--and merely guessed at? IMHO if the Holy Spirit desired to tell us we could have known much more, but apparently His emphasis on the suffering of Christ was elsewhere-- <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/doah.gif" alt="" />

3. It may be surprising for the SBC folks here to know that even though the film was endorsed by the SBC, the individual who heads the Cult Awareness Division of the SBC (sorry I forget his name) was (1) kept from having his letter to the editor against the Passion printed by the SBC top dogs, because they had already endorsed the film!!! (2) is presently looking for a new position. This is indeed sad for the denomination and more so for the Kingdom of God! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

4. May God's people stop embracing golden calves!

May God Help Us Discern TRUTH!


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #11996 Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I'm absolutely appalled at how so many people are taking this movie to be the "best witnessing opportunity in 2000 years."

I didn't know we had a cult awareness division in the SBC (for those who are wondering, I'm still looking at churches...I still really want to go to the Reformed Baptist church.) Of course, knowing how the convention creates committees at the drop of a hat, I'm not surprised.


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
MarieP #11997 Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:06 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Cult Awareness was my abbreviation for Interfaith Evangelism (IE) of the North American Mission Board (NAMB) of which there I know exists an Interfaith Evangelism Director (Specialist in Jehovah’s Witnesses and Roman Catholicism), Interfaith Evangelism Manager (Specialist in Cults & Sectarian Groups), IE Associate for American Christianity and Esoteric Movements, and an IE Associate for World Religions and the New Age Movement. It was just easier to say Cult Awareness. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

P.S. there are good Reformed Baptist Churches (independent) and good reformed SBC churches as well.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #11998 Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:25 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Almost all the Reformed SBC churches around here subscribe to NCT. The Reformed SBC churches that don't subscribe to NCT are twenty miles away from me, and I have to either rely on someone to drive me or on the bus routes (which are greatly limited on Sundays).

The Reformed Baptist church is 12 miles away, and I already know of some people who could drive me, but so far it is a big job to get my parents to be comfortable with me doing that (they say I'm being narrow-minded and pharisaical to not go to the one nearby, which subscribes to NCT. They keep asking me to explain to them what I don't like about the NCT church and what I like about the Reformed Baptist church, but, as expected, they being nominal and Biblically illeterate, they can't understand.


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
MarieP #11999 Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:32 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Well NCT is a monster you should stay away from....maybe you can find a good Presbyterian Church to attend that is closer?

For more on NCT do a search here on the forum...there has been plenty said...


Reformed and Always Reforming,
MarieP #12000 Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:38 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Marie, Forgive me for instructing you on doing a search here....I did not know it was you...you have changed your username since the last time I was here and thus I thought you were a newbe... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #12001 Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I actually found an Associate Reformed Presbyterian church that is about six or seven miles away. Of course, I'd have to clear it with my boss first, since I work in a Baptist seminary and all. Right now I think God wants me to stay in that job, although as I learn more about the seminary I see some things that concern me. I'm still a credobaptist, although not as adamant of one as I used to be.


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
J_Edwards #12002 Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:45 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
LOL! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

That's ok, bro.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />


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
MarieP #12003 Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:48 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
You can become a little more paedo by watching Richard Pratt's video on Baptism (select videos >> Why Do We Baptize Our Children? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #12004 Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:40 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Joe

A lot of what you said in your post has been discussed in some of the threads on this topic. But I was not aware that the SBC had endorsed the film, as well as the information about the cult awareness division. That is indeed a sad piece of news. If you know where to find more information on that aspect, I for one would be interested in reading it.

As you are probably aware however, most Reformed Baptists don't believe the film violates the 2nd commandment. I am in the minority on that one.
So for the most part (not that I haven’t talked about it) when talking to other Baptists I stay away from the 2nd commandment issue.
I have not seen the movie myself (for obvious reasons), but with all the research I have done on it, I certainly feel like I have seen it. My research comes from both the films critiques and those who have endorsed it.

When I talked to most of my friends about the issue, although most of them respected my right not to want to see it, they never the less made it known that they will reserve judgment until after they see it.
I am fairly happy to report that many of them that saw it, they recently told me that I was correct about the movie being full of Roman Catholic theology.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:43 AM.
Tom #12005 Fri Apr 02, 2004 7:34 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
But I was not aware that the SBC had endorsed the film
After watching the film, Chapman said, "I prayed for God to do something in America, ... some kind of spiritual catharsis that would change America."

Urging Southern Baptist leaders to follow the example of many churches that are seeking to use the movie as an evangelistic outreach tool, he said, "We can get busy and prepare to become a soul-winning force like the nation has not seen in our lifetime."

Distributing a written report about the movie, Chapman wrote, "I hope every Southern Baptist pastor will train his people to be ready with an answer! The film will teach them what Jesus did. We must teach them why He did it. Start praying now that hundreds, even thousands in your city will come to Christ."

"My prayer is this," he concluded, "Lord, make your passion my passion."

SBC's Chapman describes his passion about Mel Gibson's "Passion" movie


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Tom #12006 Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
You might want to listen to this sermon by Dr. Jim Orrick at Southern Seminary. He is one of two professors who has problems with the Passion movie, and he makes a very good point about the 2nd Commandment issue:

If those who say "Well, Jesus was man too, so that commandment doesn't apply" are consistent, then they won't object to people saying the name in Jesus in vain. They wish to say the third commandment applies to Christ, but not the second!

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/audio/Fall2003.php

It's the message dated Thursday, November 20, 2003


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
Tom #12007 Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:26 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
As you are probably aware however, most Reformed Baptists don't believe the film violates the 2nd commandment.

Tom, Tom, Tom there you go making generalities again. What research do you offer that proves this statement? I mean did you do a poll? Has the ARBCA given the film a thumbs up vote? Did The Founders say "Yes, this film is the best thing since the 4 laws put out by Bill Bright everyone should go to it!"

So Tom you don't mind if I ask for some proof, real proof, not just hearsay.

gnarley #12008 Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:57 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I think that a critic said it best when he described Gibson as creating a new genre the "religious splatter" film.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 102 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
September
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
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,283,848 Gospel truth