The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Passion

"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="" />

"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.

"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.

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,

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.

Hello Flyboy:

You rightly said:
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

When the relationship developes to that point, I'm sure it will come up.

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,

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

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.

Tom-

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

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/.

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

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!

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.