# The Sufficiency of Scripture



## dswatts (Feb 27, 2004)

I have read with much interest the different threads regarding Mel Gibson's &quot;The Passion of the Christ&quot;, and the various debates, pro &amp; con, regarding seeing this movie.

I just wanted to, first, thank all my brothers and sisters on this board for your insights in this matter. They have been thought provoking to say the least.

Secondly, I just wanted to express why I have finally decided, personally, not to see this movie. Some of you may be surprised that it isn't based on a 2nd commandment priniciple, although I do have to tell you that the many arguments that way have been impressive. The main reason I will not see this movie is really a protest against what I have heard out of the mouths of not only Roman Catholics, but also so called &quot;Evangelicals&quot;. It goes something like this, &quot;This movie allows us to understand the story of Jesus' passion in a way that we cannot get from reading the Scripture.&quot; or, and this one really ticks me off  &quot;This movie will do more for evangelism than the last 2000 years of preaching!&quot; I have heard that very statement during 'man on the street' type interviews of people who have seen this movie.

I just see it as necessary that as a minister of the gospel, I cannot endorse anything that further errodes the proper role of the preaching of the gospel as the ordained means of God to call sinners to repentance, and the sufficiency of the Scriptures to reveal to us all things that are necessary for life and salvation.

Just my :wr50: , for what it is worth!

Grace,

Dwayne


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:5df3a42ebe][i:5df3a42ebe]Originally posted by dswatts[/i:5df3a42ebe]
I have read with much interest the different threads regarding Mel Gibson's &quot;The Passion of the Christ&quot;, and the various debates, pro &amp; con, regarding seeing this movie.

I just wanted to, first, thank all my brothers and sisters on this board for your insights in this matter. They have been thought provoking to say the least.

Secondly, I just wanted to express why I have finally decided, personally, not to see this movie. Some of you may be surprised that it isn't based on a 2nd commandment priniciple, although I do have to tell you that the many arguments that way have been impressive. The main reason I will not see this movie is really a protest against what I have heard out of the mouths of not only Roman Catholics, but also so called &quot;Evangelicals&quot;. It goes something like this, &quot;This movie allows us to understand the story of Jesus' passion in a way that we cannot get from reading the Scripture.&quot; or, and this one really ticks me off  &quot;This movie will do more for evangelism than the last 2000 years of preaching!&quot; I have heard that very statement during 'man on the street' type interviews of people who have seen this movie.

I just see it as necessary that as a minister of the gospel, I cannot endorse anything that further errodes the proper role of the preaching of the gospel as the ordained means of God to call sinners to repentance, and the sufficiency of the Scriptures to reveal to us all things that are necessary for life and salvation.

Just my :wr50: , for what it is worth!

Grace,

Dwayne [/quote:5df3a42ebe]

This does not surprise me in the least. A few years ago it was Left Behind, before that &quot;The Prayer of Jabez,&quot; before that Willow Creek's Sunday seeker service, etc...

Evangelicaldom is going to get a pulled hamstring continually running after the latest fad. I guess God just really didn't know the people He made - since He stuck with the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1-2).


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:4531d349d3]
&quot;This movie will do more for evangelism than the last 2000 years of preaching!&quot;
[/quote:4531d349d3]

That might be true. Because in the movie, the words the actor speaks are in fact the Word of God.

And we live in a time where the internet and movies can transmit a message globally.

Like it or not, this movie contains Scripture. And the Holy Spirit uses Scripture to save people.

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 27, 2004)

But the images and script of the movie change the content of Scripture. They add to the Scripture.

Not a wise choice in light of Revelation 22:18-19.

I agree - this movie at its foundation challenges the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Not a novel thing for a Catholic though, is it?

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:a286be2b8c][i:a286be2b8c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:a286be2b8c]
But the images and script of the movie change the content of Scripture. They add to the Scripture.

Not a wise choice in light of Revelation 22:18-19.

I agree - this movie at its foundation challenges the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Not a novel thing for a Catholic though, is it?

Phillip [/quote:a286be2b8c]

You mean the Bible doesn't say that the apostles followed Mary around? Peter didn't beg for forgiveness from Mary? Mary didn't supernaturally feel the whipping of Christ?

And I thought Luke mentioned the fact that Mary gave Jesus the strength to go on to the scourging. And was it Mark or Matthew that included that wonderful Biblical doctrine of co-redemptrix, when Mary says: &quot;Flesh of my flesh, Son let me die with you&quot; ??

:no:


----------



## JohnV (Feb 27, 2004)

Fred:
I think you have some books mixed up. The ones you are referring to with those references are in the ApocryMel books.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:fd86085221][i:fd86085221]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:fd86085221]
Fred:
I think you have some books mixed up. The ones you are referring to with those references are in the ApocryMel books. [/quote:fd86085221]
So, why didn't those make the Canon? :wink1:


----------



## Timothy William (Feb 28, 2004)

Twisting or adding to scripture and violating the 2nd commandment seem to me to have very similar ends; they distort our view of God and lead us to worship something other than God Himself. Interseting then that this movie should do both.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 28, 2004)

After 3 days of showing this movie, after a careful survey of my Scripture texts, no verses seem to be missing and no verses seem to have been added. 

This movie has not added to or taken away from my KJV 1611, my NASB, my ESV, my NIV, I've worked through the Alexdran familie of texts and nothing's changed (that where I most expected corruption). I'm still working through my Byznatine collection (Stephanus) and I haven't found any yet. The canon seems to be holding true and sure since Laodacia. 

This is a movie, a cultural event. There is a discussion that has begun. The question is not whether or not to see it, the task is becoming part of the dialogue because we have the truth, we have been given understanding. Conversations about Christ that were a few weeks ago, taboo, are now everywhere. Let proclaim the true Gospel and stop the snipping and sniping. People already know how to be smug and sling mud. The people who see the face of Jesus in a taco are still going to see him in tacos. 

One girl said, &quot;It's the greatest movie in the world and I dare anyone not to believe after seeing it.&quot; That was ignorant, and she was ignorant before she saw the movie. This movie will not change anyone's life. We know that. But it has opened up countless dialogues that we need to be part of. Not as nay sayers but as proclaimers of Christ (of the Bible) and Him crucified. The harvest is great, but the workers are few.


----------



## dswatts (Feb 28, 2004)

Valid points, Bob. Well said. I do pray that God will use the conversations that this had indeed generated to His glory. I can attest to the fact that my entire office is 'a buzz' with just such conversations, and I have had opportunities to tell people that it's about so much more than the physical suffering of Jesus on the cross, and have been well received. May we be faithful to proclaim His Word, and may that Word truly perform all that He has determined that it shall accomplish in His name and for His glory, Amen.

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## JohnV (Feb 28, 2004)

Bob:
It seems to me that attending the movie and joining in the conversations that follow are two separate things. I do not have see the movie too be in on all the talk about it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2004)

The only conversations that it has created for me are from either weakly taught evangelicals or Roman Catholics who wouldn't know the difference between scripture or their televisions. Ultimately, it has caused me to have to unwind the proverbial ball of yarn..........


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:d68e324846][i:d68e324846]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:d68e324846]
After 3 days of showing this movie, after a careful survey of my Scripture texts, no verses seem to be missing and no verses seem to have been added. 

This movie has not added to or taken away from my KJV 1611, my NASB, my ESV, my NIV, I've worked through the Alexdran familie of texts and nothing's changed (that where I most expected corruption). I'm still working through my Byznatine collection (Stephanus) and I haven't found any yet. The canon seems to be holding true and sure since Laodacia. 

This is a movie, a cultural event. There is a discussion that has begun. The question is not whether or not to see it, the task is becoming part of the dialogue because we have the truth, we have been given understanding. Conversations about Christ that were a few weeks ago, taboo, are now everywhere. Let proclaim the true Gospel and stop the snipping and sniping. People already know how to be smug and sling mud. The people who see the face of Jesus in a taco are still going to see him in tacos. 

One girl said, &quot;It's the greatest movie in the world and I dare anyone not to believe after seeing it.&quot; That was ignorant, and she was ignorant before she saw the movie. This movie will not change anyone's life. We know that. But it has opened up countless dialogues that we need to be part of. Not as nay sayers but as proclaimers of Christ (of the Bible) and Him crucified. The harvest is great, but the workers are few. [/quote:d68e324846]

Bob,

Help me here. Exactly where in the text (any version would be fine) does it have Mary saying: &quot;Flesh of my flesh, Son let me die with you&quot; ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:f551334a0e][i:f551334a0e]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:f551334a0e]Bob,

Help me here. Exactly where in the text (any version would be fine) does it have Mary saying: &quot;Flesh of my flesh, Son let me die with you&quot; ?

Thanks in advance. [/quote:f551334a0e]

Perhaps the Catholic version? You know, the one they added to after the Reformation? ;-)


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 28, 2004)

You're absolutely right Fred. The movie departs from the biblical narrative. That's my point. Gibson say's it is based on the gospel of John and I don't deny that. I believe he said that to placate the evangelical. He certainly needed them to sell this movie. 

What I'm trying to point out is that the movie is trying to be a verbatum rendition of text. It's a movie, an artistic rendition based on the narrative. Yes it contains Gibson's bias. 

I feel we are debating this with such hyperbolic expressions that we begin to see the context within which we, God's ambassadors, minister's of reconciliation have been place. 

No one here has said anything I would disagree with. You folks are the cream of the crop and I am learning so much from you. In a theological debate I would gladly yeild to your great learning and ability to teach it. But coming up with lists and lists of why this movie is faulty is like shooting fish in a barrel. We know this isn't how the Gospel ought to be propagated. 

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I guess the question is, can this movie be used as a tool for evangelism, cuz it's out there. Like the Prayer of Jabez and the Born Again movement and Left Behind series it's become a gigantic cultural event. I think we need to be like Paul on Mars Hill.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:d1b611ebe6]A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still[/quote:d1b611ebe6]
Brilliant new play on words (names), Bob; Pope and the pope.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:18c578f830]_Originally posted by fredtgreco
You mean the Bible doesn't say that the apostles followed Mary around? Peter didn't beg for forgiveness from Mary? Mary didn't supernaturally feel the whipping of Christ?

And I thought Luke mentioned the fact that Mary gave Jesus the strength to go on to the scourging. And was it Mark or Matthew that included that wonderful Biblical doctrine of co-redemptrix, when Mary says: &quot;Flesh of my flesh, Son let me die with you&quot; ??

:no: [/quote:18c578f830]

Is that garbage really in the movie?_


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:c2e4a009b0][i:c2e4a009b0]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:c2e4a009b0]
You're absolutely right Fred. The movie departs from the biblical narrative. That's my point. Gibson say's it is based on the gospel of John and I don't deny that. I believe he said that to placate the evangelical. He certainly needed them to sell this movie. 

What I'm trying to point out is that the movie is trying to be a verbatum rendition of text. It's a movie, an artistic rendition based on the narrative. Yes it contains Gibson's bias. 

I feel we are debating this with such hyperbolic expressions that we begin to see the context within which we, God's ambassadors, minister's of reconciliation have been place. 

No one here has said anything I would disagree with. You folks are the cream of the crop and I am learning so much from you. In a theological debate I would gladly yeild to your great learning and ability to teach it. But coming up with lists and lists of why this movie is faulty is like shooting fish in a barrel. We know this isn't how the Gospel ought to be propagated. 

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I guess the question is, can this movie be used as a tool for evangelism, cuz it's out there. Like the Prayer of Jabez and the Born Again movement and Left Behind series it's become a gigantic cultural event. I think we need to be like Paul on Mars Hill. [/quote:c2e4a009b0]

Bob,

The two items are mutually exclusive. Of course this is an opportunity for evangelism. So is a death in the family. So is an overdose on drugs. Paul makes it clear that telling others about Christ is THE priority in the ministers life (2 Cor. 5) - &quot;knowing the fear of the Lord, I persuade men.&quot;

Here is a portion from an article I wrote for the seminary weekly &quot;newsletter&quot; in which I made many of the same (abbreviated) arguments against seeing the movie:

[quote:c2e4a009b0]Finally, one thing that we should be thankful for is an opportunity afforded to us to tell about Jesus. We should not miss an opportunity to answer questions about Christ simply because The Passion violates the 2nd Commandment, or because it has bad theology. I won't be seeing the movie, but I won't be emphasizing its unbiblical nature to unsaved friends either. We should use all sorts of situations to witness for our Lord - sad occasions like deaths, happy ones like births, perplexing ones like unexpected sickness, obvious ones like the question why we believe in God. But that doesn't mean we are at liberty to ignore God's law. The One Who kept it perfectly would not want that.[/quote:c2e4a009b0]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2004)

Maxdetail writes:
&quot;It's a movie, an artistic rendition based on the narrative. &quot;

max,
When it comes to issues that affect life and death, we reformed are more than DEAD serious. Scripture is not a wax nose that can be fashioned or rendered in any praticular way someone believes it should be rendered; to us, it is heresy and criminal; and because of this, you see our arms in the air.:sad:

[Edited on 2-28-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:2444fb11f5][i:2444fb11f5]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:2444fb11f5]
I guess the question is, can this movie be used as a tool for evangelism, cuz it's out there. Like the Prayer of Jabez and the Born Again movement and Left Behind series it's become a gigantic cultural event. I think we need to be like Paul on Mars Hill. [/quote:2444fb11f5]

I dont think it should be used as a tool. It presents an opportunity, but I certainly wouldnt use it as a tool. I wouldnt tell my unsaved friends to go out and see it and use the film for preaching. If they do decide to go see it, I will certainly make ready for the chanbe to preach the truth after they see it. I will certainly make ready to have the mistakes cleared before they see it and I will make sure they know the gospel before they see it.

But I will not use the film as the gospel like most of the evangelical churches are doing.


tool = No 
oportunity = Yes

The Lord used a Black Sabbath song to peak my intetrest in the truth. Go figure. God will use anything He wants to call us. The enemy may try to screw things up, but the Lord will even use their garbage as tools to his own good. They cant win for trying.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 28, 2004)

While the topic perains to scripture.

I was thinking od compiling a list of Old Testament prophecies that forshadowed the gospel. Things that pointed to Christ. Especially direct prophecy related to Him and His death on the cross.

That was I can have a quick and easy reference to those who see the flick may be interested in fulfilled prophecy and show scripture that forsaw it.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 28, 2004)

For a listing of those prophecies, check out the book [i:c336fcef7e]All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible[/i:c336fcef7e] by Herbert Lockyer. 

It is a good idea to dig them out of Scripture for yourself. But realise how monumental a task it will be! Jesus is all over the Old Testament, and when you list every prophecy about Him in the Scripture you find out why Lockyer's book is 525 pages long!!

Phillip

PS - the issue with using this movie as a tool is that it is a faulty tool and in telling the truth of the gospel you have to explain what is wrong with the gospel this movie presents. I agree. It is not a tool, but an opportunity that we MUST take advantage of and use for the glory of God.


----------



## dkicklig (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:90918c5b8c][i:90918c5b8c]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:90918c5b8c]
[quote:90918c5b8c][i:90918c5b8c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:90918c5b8c]
But the images and script of the movie change the content of Scripture. They add to the Scripture.

Not a wise choice in light of Revelation 22:18-19.

I agree - this movie at its foundation challenges the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Not a novel thing for a Catholic though, is it?

Phillip [/quote:90918c5b8c]

You mean the Bible doesn't say that the apostles followed Mary around? Peter didn't beg for forgiveness from Mary? Mary didn't supernaturally feel the whipping of Christ?

And I thought Luke mentioned the fact that Mary gave Jesus the strength to go on to the scourging. And was it Mark or Matthew that included that wonderful Biblical doctrine of co-redemptrix, when Mary says: &quot;Flesh of my flesh, Son let me die with you&quot; ??

:no: [/quote:90918c5b8c]

Any thoughts on how this may muddy the waters around ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) controversy? There was so much good work done by Sproul, Kennedy, and MacArthur over this, and I have a bad feeling that this film will once again gray that line between Evangelicals &amp; Catholics.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2004)

[quote:1876af03cd]
Help me here. Exactly where in the text (any version would be fine) does it have Mary saying: &quot;Flesh of my flesh, Son let me die with you&quot; ? [/quote:1876af03cd]

No it is not in the Bible. Who cares ?
It does not change the gospel, and Mel does not say the movie is the Bible. It is merely a movie. Scripture still does, and always will, stand alone.

Protestants need to &quot;Get Over It&quot; when it comes to certain things regarding Mary. The above quoted phrase does not imply any coredemption. He was born of her, and what mother would not want to die in place of her child ? ? ? Mary suffered in a unique way as His earthly mother that no one else in history can fully comprehend. Why do Protestants want to dehumanize her so much ? ? ? She must have struglled in many ways with knowing who He was and what He had to do, yet still loving Him as her own flesh and blood. What is so wrong about that ?

Actually, in the movie, when she runs to Christ after He has dropped the cross, she does try to comfort Him, and the scene flashes back to when he fell as alittle boy and she comforted Him. Now, rightly we could say, &quot;How could she comfort Him, and doesn't that make Him weak and needy of her, as if she had some divine capability or power of her own ? ?&quot; But I again ask, &quot;Why interpret it that way ??&quot; Mel instead brilliantly has Christ look at her, and not clinging to her as His mother any more say, &quot;Behold, I make all things new.&quot; WOW ! ! ! 

What an insight if you know where that statement actually comes from:

Rev 21:4,5 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, [b:1876af03cd]Behold, I make all things new.[/b:1876af03cd] And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 

Totally synonymous with &quot;Do not weep for me, weep for yourself&quot;, in that setting.

I was actually shocked that Mel had the insight to interpret any natural desire of a mother in that context so doctrinally right on.

So, really, what difference does it make that the actual event never happened ? ? ? Mel is speculating on what the Scripture has not mentioned. Spurgeon does this all the time. Mel is not saying all of it is from the Bible. He admitted taking artistic license in many parts.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2004)

Mark,
Much like Christmas, as long as everyone leaves Christ out of it, I am fine. If Mel wants to humor his artistic hunger, I am also fine with that, as long as he leaves Christ out of that also!

It runs much too close to the truth. However, if it is not truth, it is a lie.

:wr50:


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 29, 2004)

Mark,

With all due respect, you obviously have not seen first hand the pernicious and devastating effects of Mariolatry. Protestants do not need to &quot;get over Mary.&quot; The Romish whore needs to stop liying about who she is and was.

Again, with all due respect, you really need to spend a month or two (at least) in a short term mission in Central or South America and see where this has been taken to.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 29, 2004)

Gibson said this movie was his presentation of the gospel. He said his gospel was according to Scripture (oh, and that mystic book by a demon led nun). He said in that gospel Mary is co-mediator. He said in that gospel that the Bible is not the authority, but the Church of Rome is. He said in that gospel that people can get to heaven without even knowing the Name of Christ. He said in his gospel that the Bible is incomplete.

What gospel is He presenting?

He added to the Word of God and has said on numerous occassions that his movie is an accurate portrayal of the gospel. It is not.

And, no, I will not get over the fact that he has in this movie CHANGED THE WORD OF GOD and ADDED TO THE GOSPEL.

Whatever emotions are stirred and whatever lies are overlooked, this movie will reveal exactly what one believes about the Word of God and the exclusivity of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Was Mary blessed among women? Yes indeed. Was she conceived in grace without original sin, always and forever a virgin, co-redemptrix with her Son, and assumed bodily into heaven where she reigns as queen even to intercede for those who pray to and worship her?

She was blessed among women. She is not an eternal sinless virgin who suffers with Christ to redeem his people.

Perhaps we have indeed blurred the lines and think that Rome has the gospel after all. Undo the reformation. Back to the Dark Ages. Burn your Bibles. It matters not that men distort and add to it and deny the truth revealed by the Spirit of God. It matters not the countless martyrs who have died to ensure our right and freedom to even own a copy of the Scriptures written in a language we can read and understand. It matters not that Paul says one who presents another gospel is damned. It matters not that John writes that anyone who adds to or takes away fromn the prophecy of the Book will have the curses and plagues therein heaped upon them.

No, it matters not. For we can now see and feel what Christ suffered. We can experience the art of crucifixion. We can deny the truth and feel good and Godly about it because it is just a movie.

We can spit in Christ's face, He who is the living Word, and denounce Him before men, accepting this falsehood out of the Whore Rome.

Why? Because it just does not matter, does it?

God forgive us. God give us grace. God give us men. Men like Luther and Calvin, Wycliffe, Hus. men who would die before deny You and Your Word. God give us men like Whitefield and Spurgeon, men like Edwards and Knox. Men who FEAR You.

God give us men.

All for now, 
Phillip


----------



## Guest (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:71f0603a71]
She was blessed among women. She is not an eternal sinless virgin who suffers with Christ to redeem his people. 
[/quote:71f0603a71]

I agree. And the movie does not portray her as such.

I am not saying we should reverse the Reformation. I am saying some of our good and orthodox stands against Marioloatry lead us too far in not recognizing the special role she did play, and what that &quot;Blessedness&quot; really means.

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## cupotea (Feb 29, 2004)

Visigoth,

When Christ fell and then said, &quot;Behold, I make all things new,&quot; I felt so very moved. It was a nice moment to reflect on his true glory, so easily obscured within the horror of his sufferings.

That was easily my favorite part of the film's presentation, when Christ uttered those words through his gasping breath. Just brilliant.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 29, 2004)

Oh, wait, I forgot!

Part of becoming a Christian is no longer feeling!

Thanks for that little reminder that I was actually not created to be an emotional being. I almost felt moved for a second, there.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 29, 2004)

I just have to ask:

The writers of the gospel accounts who carefully recorded what Christ said and did in this time of His life and death did not record this occurence. So is it not adding to the Word of God, indeed, putting words in His mouth, to display such a scene?

Then you and others find as your favorite part of the movie a part that departs from the Biblical narrative?

You were moved by a modification made to the Word of God?

David wrote:

&quot;Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.&quot;

Emotions are not wrong. David here expresses great love and emotion toward God and His Word. But he also hates (an emotional response) every false way, every lie, every deception. Every departure from truth.

Would that I, and that we all, had the same emotional compass as David.

Phillip



[Edited on 3-1-2004 by pastorway]


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 1, 2004)

I have learned more about Roman Catholic symbolism from my refrormed brethren here than I learned in 12 years of Roman Catholic cathechism. 

Visigoth I thank you for saying so much better what I was trying to say Saturday. My daughter was hurrying me to, of all things, go see &quot;The Passion&quot;. 

I was impressed with the film, in a theological vacuum the film of course had flaws - but so little of the theology I have learned in the last 3 years has happened in a vacuum. 

For the biblical ignorant this film will define the gospel and it's our job to bring them to the Christ of the Bible. I would be ashamed if my church rented a theater to use this to teach the gospel.

I regret that thousands of folks wll watch this movie and then a pastor will ask them to &quot;accept Jesus into your heart by praying this simple prayer with me.&quot; I regret that the movie will be used as a method.

I am pleased to hear the dialogues and conversations that are taken place in forums and from people I thought I would never hear speak of things spiritual.

I thought the suffering of the movie was placed in a proper context by the opening caption from Isaiah 53 regarding the &quot;stripes&quot;; and then ironically by a terrific piece of movie making in which Satan gives the basis of the Gethesemene agony. Also displayed in this scene was the powerful image of Christ's foot crushing the head of the serpent. 

I thought the physical suffering was overdone on the one hand, but on the other hand I thought of how many times I have taught about Christ &quot;standing in the naked flame of God's holy and infinite wrath&quot; and seeing the inability of my hearers to grasp that truth. How does one get their mind around such an amazing thought? As with all of God's attributes we say, &quot;This is God and neither is this God.&quot; So the visual brutality at least allows us a point of reference to which we can add, this is nearly negligible to the agony Jesus suffered as the Father turn his back to Him.

God's grace to you all.


----------

