The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Passion

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?

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.

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

Nathan:

You asked:
Well put!!

In Him,

Gerry

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

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

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.

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.


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


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


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.


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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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:

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,

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.