# OPC on the Passion of the Christ



## BrianLanier (Feb 24, 2004)

I sent in an email to the OPC website last week after reading the article by Ron Gleason from PCANews.com. They posted there response for those who are interested. It can be found at http://www.opc.org just go to the link at the top of the page entitled, &quot;Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" - a challenge to confessionally Reformed Christians. See this week's Q&amp;A.&quot;

I am glad to see the OPC step up as well.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:b7da6c1840]
I am glad to see the OPC step up as well.
[/quote:b7da6c1840]

Ditto!
:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 24, 2004)

im so sick and tired of hearing about this movie and controversy controversy that i dont even want to see it anymore


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 24, 2004)

Brother Nathan,
It is of my opinion that everyone is missing the point. Simply put, Gibson's Christ is NOT the Christ of the scriptures. The RC Christ is at odds with the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura and protestant orthodoxy. 

There is much to be concerned with here; 
The attack on the 2nd commandment, mysticism, marianism, etc.

As reformed (informed) believers, is it right to climb into bed w/ Gibson, Rome, Dobson and the rest of the mainline compromisers so that we can feel good?
Let us deny ourselves, plant our flag and cry, &quot;no, this is wrong&quot;. 

A half lie is worse that a whole lie........:shocked:

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:e2494a7edc]
It is of my opinion that everyone is missing the point. Simply put, Gibson's Christ is NOT the Christ of the scriptures. 
[/quote:e2494a7edc]

Scott:

Help me understand this. Why is the Roman doctrine of Christology different ? ?
Do not bring up Soteriology, or Mary, or the Pope. Stick to the person of Christ.

How do they see Jesus the God-Man differently than us ? ?

No one here who wants to see the movie is saying Roman doctrines of salvation or how the atonement is applied are correct.

We are saying a historic re-enactment of the last 12 hours of His life speaks for itself. Catholics will interpret it one way, and Protestants another.

I have my tickets and am going to see it tomorrow at 3:45. I will objectively try to see if Gibson is manipulating the story to emphasize any Romish perversions. But as it stands now, no Protestant minister that has seen the movie, has said that the artistic license he took with the film really detract from the orthodox doctrines of the Church, nor the biblical/historical accounts.


[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## turmeric (Feb 24, 2004)

With all due respect, I think it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons. I am starting to think I hear a note of self-righteousness in some of these posts.

I think that God, who is in sovereign control and can defend Himself, has allowed everyone in the United States to be talking about why Jesus died during this particular lenten season. Let's be prepared to engage helpfully in these conversations. As far as the movie goes; let each be persuaded in his own mind.

If this message is too sharp I apologize and accept correction from the moderators.

In Christ,
Meg


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 24, 2004)

Here's some good news! The apostles nullified the 2nd commandment at the same time they nullified the 4th and changed the sabbath to the first day.

Hey, I'm kidding, golly, lighten up!


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 24, 2004)

Dear friends,
After seeing the first trailer for The Passion I took to defending Gibson's movie. I agree that is was much to early to start a defense of it but here is why.

The trailer began with a serpent crawling on the ground and it ended with the foot of Christ crushing it's head. I was moved to tears. Those two images told me that someone behind this move gets it, someone understands the Gospel in it's proto revelation.

I have been very careful not to defend Gibson nor anyone of us with feet of clay. We will fail, we will disappoint someone and God willing we will not hurt the cause of the Gospel when it happens.

The central question has been for me, &quot;Does this movie contain the essence of the Gospel, (Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners) and if so can it be used as a tool for evangelizing. I answer yes to both questions.

Unfortunately, as so often happens, when something picks up so much attention, we all jump on the bandwagon and try demonstrate again why our denomination is the most pure expression of Christianity and why all other segments of the visible body of Christ are slanderous, blasphemous, God-hating, Papist anti-christs. I was reading recently how many young preachers were attacking Whitefield from the pulpit in order to make a name for themselves. We haven't changed a bit.

I shun eccumenicalism. The differences in our doctrine and our worship are very important differences but there are times when we can express where the other gets these things right.

The second commandment deals with worshipping idols, not drawing, painting or making movies. It is a serious matter to try to portray any image of God the Father. God the Father is the fullnes of the Godhead Invisible. Any image attempts to lock him in space and time - that's wrong.

But Jesus is the fullnes of the Godhead Manifest. Jesus was locked in space and time and manifested the revealed image of God to us. The preacher's role is to make people see with there ears. I do want my hearers to &quot;see&quot; images in their minds of the thorns, the blood and the suffering. The movie does not invite us to worship. Some may respond and show up in church as the Spirit (the fullness of the Godhead immediately acting on the creature) moves them to do so. Let us identify the essence of the Gospel in this film and then preach the Word, preach Christ and Him crucified. Let's calm the vitriolic response - that will call no one to repentance. God bless you all richly, In His Mercy
Bob


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 24, 2004)

Sorry Josh, I'm still very new to posting on the board. Haven't even had much time to lurk. I will fill in the rest of the blanks very soon. Thank you for asking.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:df2782c019]We are saying a historic re-enactment of the last 12 hours of His life speaks for itself.[/quote:df2782c019]

It is neither historic nor Biblically accurate. That is the point. Elements have been added. Like an appearance by the devil in the Garden of Gethsemene, etc, etc, etc.

If someone stood up in your church next Sunday and said that an angel had taken them back in a vision to see the crucifixion, and that what they saw was [i:df2782c019]different[/i:df2782c019] then the gospel accounts, what would you think?

A member of a local church here in Austin who had the chance to go to an early screening said this when he came out ( as quoted in the [i:df2782c019]Austin American-Statesman[/i:df2782c019] Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, front page lead article titled &quot;In Passion, a Church Sees for Itself&quot; )

He said: 
[quote:df2782c019]Two words come to mind: powerful and gutwrenching.&quot; He added that [seeing this movie] was necessary to appreciate Christ's sacrifice, because &quot;when we just read it in the Bible we can overlook the reality of it.&quot;[/quote:df2782c019]

Another movie goer said that this film allwed to her to &quot;experience Christ's suffering on a whole new level.&quot;

When we have to utilize a rated R movie to understand what Christ did, and to experience it in a more real way that reading the Bible, then we have replaced the Word of God with the works of a man and declared the Bible powerless, ineffective, and out dated.

Sola Scriptura.......

Phillip


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:1b47a4a70c]
When we have to utilize a rated R movie to understand what Christ did, and to experience it in a more real way that reading the Bible, then we have replaced the Word of God with the works of a man and declared the Bible powerless, ineffective, and out dated.
[/quote:1b47a4a70c]

Two things. 

1. We read an 'R' rated Bible.

2. I guess I should not sing hymns that are not in the Bible, or any modern praise songs either, because sometimes they help me realize the truths of scripture in a much more existential and personal way.
(ie. Sitz im leben)

(Not to mention devotions and theology books)

Where is the sin in speculating that Satan might have been there in the garden ?? ? 

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:c7c58d016a][i:c7c58d016a]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:c7c58d016a]
[quote:c7c58d016a]
It is of my opinion that everyone is missing the point. Simply put, Gibson's Christ is NOT the Christ of the scriptures. 
[/quote:c7c58d016a]

Scott:

Help me understand this. Why is the Roman doctrine of Christology different ? ?
Do not bring up Soteriology, or Mary, or the Pope. Stick to the person of Christ.

How do they see Jesus the God-Man differently than us ? ?

No one here who wants to see the movie is saying Roman doctrines of salvation or how the atonement is applied are correct.

We are saying a historic re-enactment of the last 12 hours of His life speaks for itself. Catholics will interpret it one way, and Protestants another.

I have my tickets and am going to see it tomorrow at 3:45. I will objectively try to see if Gibson is manipulating the story to emphasize any Romish perversions. But as it stands now, no Protestant minister that has seen the movie, has said that the artistic license he took with the film really detract from the orthodox doctrines of the Church, nor the biblical/historical accounts.
[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:c7c58d016a]

Mark,
The Roman Christ is one whom cannot save anyone. Men actually are saved by Christ &amp; their works. This assuredly is not the Christ of the scriptures. It is quite possible, based upon this error that Heaven could have possibly been vacant.

I have posted a few reformed reviews here on PB. Unlike J. Dobson, they are critical. Mentioned are mysticism, Marianism, and semi-pelagianism. 
If in fact the doctrines behind the movie are in error, we should stand outside and protest, not join in. I mean, who are we? We are the reformed; we are INFORMED&gt; God has been gracious with us. Our measure has been greater! Let us guide and direct, not join in. Our entertaining the idea can assuredly stumble people and weaken our overall witness. 

We are protestants; Let us protest!
Semper Reformanda!


----------



## alwaysreforming (Feb 24, 2004)

I can sympathise with your opinion on this, Scott; but I'm not convinced that it is &quot;a different Christ&quot; simply because the Roman Catholics interpret WHAT happened differently than we do. Also, I'm not sure we can hold those outside the Church to as high a standard as you're setting. This is not a pastor, an elder, or even a member of one of our churches. This is a secular movie star we're talking about. The fact that he got as much of it right as he did says much. I think we need to allow Hollywood a bit of poetic license because that's their field, and thats their forte'. 

I know that what we're dealing with is something as crucial as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but I don't think we need to protest and cry &quot;foul&quot; when the opponent is not even involved in our same game. Instead, a better witness from the Church would be, simply to remain silent and understand that those with consciences not as sensitive as ours are going to go to the movie, be moved by it, and perhaps really stop to consider WHY Jesus went through the terrible suffering that He did. To protest such a thing would never be understood in the proper light by any of those that we are trying to win, and would only serve for further alienation.

I probably will not see the movie, for other reasons that you have mentioned; however, I will keep my opinion to myself from those outside the Church, and I will hope that some opportunities will present themselves to talk about the other theme of the movie (other than the controversy, that is.)

Just my humble, and not as informed as some other's, opinion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:7237b93253][i:7237b93253]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:7237b93253]
With all due respect, I think it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons. I am starting to think I hear a note of self-righteousness in some of these posts.

I think that God, who is in sovereign control and can defend Himself, has allowed everyone in the United States to be talking about why Jesus died during this particular lenten season. Let's be prepared to engage helpfully in these conversations. As far as the movie goes; let each be persuaded in his own mind.

If this message is too sharp I apologize and accept correction from the moderators.

In Christ,
Meg [/quote:7237b93253]

Hi Meg,
Your message is in fact appreciated. The only problem I have with your statement is the fact that it opens up the floodgates in regards to error. In other words, some things are ok that are technically truly error; it just depends on the circumstances.....is this where you are going? If it is, just because something may resemble truth to us (the reformed), and it is not truly truth (in the way that truth truly is), we should not accept it, just becaus ewe can make truth of it.
:wr50:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:02af07ab8a][i:02af07ab8a]Originally posted by alwaysreforming[/i:02af07ab8a]
I can sympathise with your opinion on this, Scott; but I'm not convinced that it is &quot;a different Christ&quot; simply because the Roman Catholics interpret WHAT happened differently than we do. [/quote:02af07ab8a]

It has nothing to do with the way the RC's have interpreted the event; it is what they make of the event. From it comes their mass. The mass is a calamity that flies in the face of Christs claim that &quot;it is finished&quot;. In the mass, Christ is again crucified for the sins of the world. It is, to Rome, not at all finished.



[quote:02af07ab8a] Also, I'm not sure we can hold those outside the Church to as high a standard as you're setting. This is not a pastor, an elder, or even a member of one of our churches. This is a secular movie star we're talking about. [/quote:02af07ab8a]

&quot;Secular&quot; is the key word! I will give you an example. Gibson could have quelled all the anti-semetic accusations if he had just consulted someone theologically sound. For instance, who killed Jesus? The Jews? Our sin? Actually, Christ said that he &quot;laid down His life on His own accord; no man takes it, He lays it down&quot;.
Why didn't he just tell the jewish accusers this scriptural fact? I agree, we cannot hold the blind to sight. But it is our job as the seeing to clear the fog.


[quote:02af07ab8a]The fact that he got as much of it right as he did says much. [/quote:02af07ab8a]

My opinion, it is not the stages that are important; anyone whom reads the bible can figuire out what occured at Calvary and on the via de rosa. The content, the theological content is where the meat is at. This cannot be misconstrued; it is the gospel. get that wrong and you have it all wrong.



[quote:02af07ab8a] I think we need to allow Hollywood a bit of poetic license because that's their field, and thats their forte'. 

I know that what we're dealing with is something as crucial as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but I don't think we need to protest and cry &quot;foul&quot; when the opponent is not even involved in our same game. [/quote:02af07ab8a]

I disagree. This is exactly why the church is in the position it is in. We have mixed with error and the world.



[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 24, 2004)

Paul writes:
It seems the longer I read these posts that there is a serious misunderstanding of what art and reinactions are. Who is saying that it is the gospel? Not me, maybe others, but unfair to lump me together with them.

Paul,
I can promise you, the makers of this movie, this to include the support of the RCC, see this not as art, but the actual gospel. In your case, you say you see this as art; you may think this is art, but what do you think the scriptures call false gospels? Should the gospel not be accurate? Is there more than one way to God? I know you know that there is not but one way. For the record brother, You show yourself as well educated Paul : I appreciate your participation here on PB. 

You mention the arminians; they also are wrong; possibly dead wrong.

It is not that I have lumped you together with those you have mentioned; I have not. What I have called you on as well as the other informed folk is the fact that this is an innacuracy and based upon that, we should not advocate it. Just like, I am sure, you do not advocate some other items, i.e. certain so called christian books and publishers, i.e. Tim Lehaye, Wilkerson's Prayer of Jabez, etc.......

We must protect that which we hold dear and keep the contaminants out.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 24, 2004)

scott,
I agree with your points I was sickened by tbn's after the show on how much people were affected by this movie from rome:flaming:

especially now since im reading religous affections. so I guess I dont want to be to harsh on people who may have a heart felt realization of the true sacrifice of the Pure and Holy Lamb. But I always found it eerilly oddd when thinkning about actually portraying Christ


blade


p.s. when are we gona hear you preach scott or at least do worship with your 'jig':smilegrin:


----------



## alwaysreforming (Feb 24, 2004)

*I think we're thinking of Hollywood as the Church*

In regards to your last response to my post, Brother Scott, I'm not sure why the emphasis on the Roman Catholic doctrine and the mass. I agree that the RC mass is a gross, horrendous error, but I don't see what connection this has to the movie, per se.

It could be perhaps because I don't know, but is the movie promoting the RC conception of the mass in some way during this movie? I thought all it was was a &quot;portrayal&quot; of the last 12 hours of Christ's life on earth; I was unaware that then there was a theological explanation of how these events work themselves out in RC doctrine.

And as for holding this movie to a high standard: why would we, in light of the fact that the movie is not put out by the Church? We surely don't protest every other movie because it promotes bad theology, or blasphemes the Name of our Lord. Isn't this just like any other form of theatrical art? It is based on a historic event, and appearantly it is MUCH more in line with historical facts than probably any other movie that's come out from Hollywood. Or is your argument that perhaps it is SO close to the truth, that it makes the little error it contains all the more pernicious?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:d802a3e63c][i:d802a3e63c]Originally posted by alwaysreforming[/i:d802a3e63c]
In regards to your last response to my post, Brother Scott, I'm not sure why the emphasis on the Roman Catholic doctrine and the mass. I agree that the RC mass is a gross, horrendous error, but I don't see what connection this has to the movie, per se.[/quote:d802a3e63c]

Because Gibson derived his understanding of this project from the theology of Rome. He is staunch orthodox RC.

Question: What if this movie had been made by the Jehovah's Witnesses, would you feel the same? After all, the JW's have no illicit view of the passion, except possibly for the idea that they believe Christ hung on a tau.
http://www.toad.net/~flc/cross.html



[quote:d802a3e63c]It could be perhaps because I don't know, but is the movie promoting the RC conception of the mass in some way during this movie? I thought all it was was a &quot;portrayal&quot; of the last 12 hours of Christ's life on earth; I was unaware that then there was a theological explanation of how these events work themselves out in RC doctrine.[/quote:d802a3e63c]

I understand that Mary lies at the feet of Christ covered in His blood; offering the idea of co-redemptrix. The apostles all run away from the crucifixion, hence going to Mary begging forgiveness. Christ falls down a number of times, echoing the stations of the cross that RC's pray under. Those with the knowledge of truth and are familiar with RC doctrine will in fact see the implications.

[quote:d802a3e63c]And as for holding this movie to a high standard: why would we, in light of the fact that the movie is not put out by the Church? We surely don't protest every other movie because it promotes bad theology, or blasphemes the Name of our Lord. Isn't this just like any other form of theatrical art? It is based on a historic event, and appearantly it is MUCH more in line with historical facts than probably any other movie that's come out from Hollywood. Or is your argument that perhaps it is SO close to the truth, that it makes the little error it contains all the more pernicious? [/quote:d802a3e63c]

Yes. This is the point. The church has compromised enough. All of these little niceties have covertly infected us like a virus. As I have said, a small lie may be worse than a whole one.


[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## turmeric (Feb 24, 2004)

[quote:7501788417][i:7501788417]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:7501788417]
Hi Meg,
Your message is in fact appreciated. The only problem I have with your statement is the fact that it opens up the floodgates in regards to error. In other words, some things are ok that are technically truly error; it just depends on the circumstances.....is this where you are going? If it is, just because something may resemble truth to us (the reformed), and it is not truly truth (in the way that truth truly is), we should not accept it, just becaus ewe can make truth of it.
:wr50: [/quote:7501788417]

I am suggesting;
1. that we join in the inevitable conversations that will be coming up, hopefully to share the truth.
2. that we remember that it is God who makes us different than the unregenerate, the Roman Catholic, the arminian,et al, and not be so harsh in our speech about them.

Having said this, it's important that we know what we will do about this movie and why. The 2nd Commandment is important. The Gospel is important, and Mel Gibson doesn't understand it correctly. I think Dobson et al do not do right when they do not offer a Protestant critique of the movie, they do like to jump on bandwagons. However it almost seems like we are saying &quot; I thank thee Lord, that I am not like that arminian over there,&quot; and I want to go down to my house justified. I got enough pride as is!

I thank God I'm not a relativist, though I may have seemed like one:biggrin:


----------



## pastorway (Feb 24, 2004)

Mel Gibson said in an interview that he wanted this movie to show people the reality of what happens in every mass!

He said this movie IS the gospel on film.

He made the movie. Does he not know what he is doing? He did not say &quot;This is art.&quot; or &quot;This is entertainment.&quot; He said he wanted people to [i:a05e075b23]see the reality of the mass[/i:a05e075b23].

It is not art. It is Roman Catholic evangelism.

Because this movie adds to the gospel, distorts the Word of God, is Biblically and historically inaccurate, it is presenting another gospel.

What part of anathema don't you guys understand?

Phillip

PS - hear Pastor Al MArtin address the movie to a Sunday School class at his church here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=22204152414 

[Edited on 2-25-04 by pastorway]


----------



## JohnV (Feb 24, 2004)

Every error that creeps in the door comes in the front door looking just like an innocent and inoccuous departure, almost as if it was naturally part of the truth. All it needs to do it point to something and divide the people over it. The next thing you know, the Bible doesn't say quite as much as it used to, because people's subjective opinions make a question mark out of formerly held truths. Now the second commandment needs to be amended because certain people &quot;feel&quot; a different way about it? or because some people aren't convinced by what our mutually held confessions state? I would hope that it would take a lot more than that to change what has been held as true for a lot longer than we have striven with the subject. It is better to acquiesce than to boldly tread new ground against the witness of past generations of faithful men. The only time to be bold is when you know you're right. And I would like to know I have the support of past and present respected leaders just to make sure that my understanding of the Bible is true, so that I do not lean to my own understanding.

We should also ask what comes next. What if the movie houses are filled with renditions of Biblical accounts, just because it sells good? Can you not see how the true gospel gets watered down, even though it has every appearance of being given a greater impact? If Mr. Gibson may do it, then who else may? Is the artistic merit the litmus test for copying Scripture to make a buck? Have we asked ourselves what is left that is sacred, that is holy, that ought not to be made equal to the common genre?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 25, 2004)

James White on The Passion!

His message preached at his home church here - http://www.prbc.org/Sermons.htm dated 12-28-03 titled &quot;Passion - The Movie&quot; 

A good balance about what people will &quot;see&quot; and what we need to be ready to tell them from the Bible!

And he has several statements from his internet broadcast The Dividing Line available here: http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/04.htm

And read about it from him at www.aomin.org 

Now he does say as an Apologist who often debates Roman Catholics that he has to see the film in order to be able to refute its serious errors! But he has serious warnings about the content of the film and the theological slant it provides without any Biblical context.

He summed it up by saying that this movie will boost the ecumenical movement, hide the truth, solidify Catholics in their faith, and obscure the true meaning of the Cross. It will also provide seeker-sensitive evangelical churches with &quot;quick emotional converts&quot; who have no roots! (Matt 13:20-21). 

Phillip

[Edited on 2-25-04 by pastorway]


----------



## BrianLanier (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:613594054b][i:613594054b]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:613594054b]
Now he does say as an Apologist who often debates Roman Catholics that he has to see the film in order to be able to refute its serious errors! But he has serious warnings about the content of the film and the theological slant it provides without any Biblical context.
[/quote:613594054b]

Phillip,

Do you think that it is ok for James White to see the film because he has the proviso of being an &quot;appologist&quot;? If it is a violation of the 2nd commandment as we seem to agree on, then does the end justify the means. Couldn't he just read the script of the movie, assuming of course that one is available? Does James White address the issue on the 2nd commandment in his sermon(s) or articles on the movie. I listened to part of one of his dividing line shows, but he didn't address that issue.

Just curious what you think?

Also, Mark brought up the question about the triangles on most Hymnals (Trinity included) and some Bibles (NKJV). How does this relate to the 2nd commandment? Fred mentioned that the dove was a violation (and I agree), so how does this fit in. Just trying to be consistent.

Brian


[Edited on 2-25-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 25, 2004)

I thnk it could be justified in the sense of how am I supposed to know that the book of mormon is false if i havent read it for myself and tested according to Holy Writ.


blade


----------



## BrianLanier (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:c52376a182][i:c52376a182]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:c52376a182]
I thnk it could be justified in the sense of how am I supposed to know that the book of mormon is false if i havent read it for myself and tested according to Holy Writ.
blade [/quote:c52376a182]

Blade,

Which is exactly why I said White should read the script instead. Reading the Book of Mormon for research and testing it in light of Scripture is much different that directly breaking one of the commandments for research. There is nothing inherently wrong in reading non/anti Christian works (provided that you are mature enough to discern) for research. There is ALWAYS something wrong with breaking God's command to achieve one's end. This is the heart of pragmatism that runs rampant in our day and age.

It would be comparable to someone going to a whore house and watching what takes place so that they can warn others to stay away. Of course this example is extreme, but it conveys (I think) the same logic.

You see my point in the question was not if the movie accurately portrays the Gospel narratives, but that if it is a violation of the 2nd commandment there can be no reason to see it period. Now I think of course that if it does portray a RCC / Mystic twist on the Passion of Christ that is important to note and should be ANOTHER reason not to see it. 

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## BrianLanier (Feb 25, 2004)

You know what is sad about this movie is how you are treated by other Christians if you say that you are not going to see the movie. I have already had numerous run-ins with Christians about this movie. They are usually really jazzed up about the movie and ask if I am going to see it. When I, usually quietly, respond that I am not going to see it, they ask WHY?!?!?!? When I proceed to tell them that I believe that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment, they for the most part look at me like they have seen a ghost and cannot believe there ears. So far, know one has been interested in finding out why I think this, they just brush it off like it is craziness. People always say, &quot;well why are so many Christians and Churches endorsing it if it is not good to see it?&quot; This is the type of response I am getting to my objections. Keep in mind that the objections from people here on the puritanboard are obviously more thought out, but these are from average &quot;joe calvary&quot; Christians.

It is sad that if you want to remain confessionally Reformed you get treated this way. I share my concerns along with Fred: People just throw out the arguments of the reformers and church history on the 2nd commandment with (as it seems) ease. At least people should take the time to read through the arguments of the reformers and the confessions (all of them) and at least wrestle with it.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 25, 2004)

Dr. White has sounded several good solid warnings about the theological content of the film, and he has given good strategies for correcting the false view of the gospel it will present, but I have not heard him address the issue of the Second Command.

I do believe it is a violation of the Second Command. That is just one of the many reasons I will not be seeing it or encouraging anyone else to see it.

Phillip


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 25, 2004)

I used to want to see it but I dont want to see it anymore what will I get form it that I cant read form in scripture?

blade


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:57caecc41d][i:57caecc41d]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:57caecc41d]
You know what is sad about this movie is how you are treated by other Christians if you say that you are not going to see the movie. I have already had numerous run-ins with Christians about this movie. They are usually really jazzed up about the movie and ask if I am going to see it. When I, usually quietly, respond that I am not going to see it, they ask WHY?!?!?!? When I proceed to tell them that I believe that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment, they for the most part look at me like they have seen a ghost and cannot believe there ears. So far, know one has been interested in finding out why I think this, they just brush it off like it is craziness. People always say, &quot;well why are so many Christians and Churches endorsing it if it is not good to see it?&quot; This is the type of response I am getting to my objections. Keep in mind that the objections from people here on the puritanboard are obviously more thought out, but these are from average &quot;joe calvary&quot; Christians.

It is sad that if you want to remain confessionally Reformed you get treated this way. I share my concerns along with Fred: People just throw out the arguments of the reformers and church history on the 2nd commandment with (as it seems) ease. At least people should take the time to read through the arguments of the reformers and the confessions (all of them) and at least wrestle with it.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by BrianLanier] [/quote:57caecc41d]

Chronological arrogance and creedal ignorance.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:0507ea3f89][i:0507ea3f89]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:0507ea3f89]
[quote:0507ea3f89][i:0507ea3f89]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:0507ea3f89]
Now he does say as an Apologist who often debates Roman Catholics that he has to see the film in order to be able to refute its serious errors! But he has serious warnings about the content of the film and the theological slant it provides without any Biblical context.
[/quote:0507ea3f89]

Phillip,

Do you think that it is ok for James White to see the film because he has the proviso of being an &quot;appologist&quot;? If it is a violation of the 2nd commandment as we seem to agree on, then does the end justify the means. Couldn't he just read the script of the movie, assuming of course that one is available? Does James White address the issue on the 2nd commandment in his sermon(s) or articles on the movie. I listened to part of one of his dividing line shows, but he didn't address that issue.

Just curious what you think?

Also, Mark brought up the question about the triangles on most Hymnals (Trinity included) and some Bibles (NKJV). How does this relate to the 2nd commandment? Fred mentioned that the dove was a violation (and I agree), so how does this fit in. Just trying to be consistent.

Brian
[/quote:0507ea3f89]

[u:0507ea3f89]IF[/u:0507ea3f89] one views the film as a violation of the second commandment, as it appears White does, then he ought not to see it in order to &quot;refute&quot; it. It is then the equivalent of stealing or whoremongering or anger or idolatry in order to &quot;better understand&quot; something.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2004)

I will not lie. I am going to see it for the artistic expressions of music, acting, and cinemetography. I will see it because it is the story of all stories whether true or not. I will see it because the more I can realize the suffering of Christ and the ultimate humiliation and sacrifice of the cross, the deeper my love will be towards God. 

And until someone can really answer any of the questions Paul or I asked above, I cannot see dramatic re-enactments of anything Christ did, as any violation of the commandment to not make statues and think they represent God in His eternal power and being, and decide to pray to them and burn incense to them.

This is the very issue of the Baroque period in response to the Reformation. So I hope those of you who oppose what I am saying do not listen to any music by Bach or Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Palestrina, etc. . . . Because the very music they wrote was for the same artistic end as this movie.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 25, 2004)

*Mark...*

[quote:a6bebbe36e]And until someone can really answer any of the questions Paul or I asked above, I cannot see dramatic re-enactments of anything Christ did, as any violation of the commandment to not make statues and think they represent God in His eternal power and being, and decide to pray to them and burn incense to them.[/quote:a6bebbe36e]

To be fair, I think we have answered them adequately. But, I think you already had your mind made up, so our answers were not adequate for you. I am not saying that you are intentional in your sin, but know this: I am praying every day, as long as this movie is in the theatres, that God will convict all who see it, according to His perfection - that He would chastise those who should be chastised, save those He has chosen by the true gospel and not this false one, and thwart the effort of the enemy in regards to making converts for the perverted churches. 

[quote:a6bebbe36e]This is the very issue of the Baroque period in response to the Reformation. So I hope those of you who oppose what I am saying do not listen to any music by Bach or Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Palestrina, etc. . . . Because the very music they wrote was for the same artistic end as this movie.[/quote:a6bebbe36e]

You are very wrong about this music. Although music may break the first commandment if not given its proper place, music cannot break the 2nd commandment, as that is visual. I don't really care what it was written in response to. The fact of the matter is that it is not a visual art.

So, I can still enjoy my Bach organ pieces.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:bafe9fd85b]
To be fair, I think we have answered them adequately. But, I think you already had your mind made up, so our answers were not adequate for you. I am not saying that you are intentional in your sin, but know this: I am praying every day, as long as this movie is in the theatres, that God will convict all who see it, according to His perfection - that He would chastise those who should be chastised, save those He has chosen by the true gospel and not this false one, and thwart the effort of the enemy in regards to making converts for the perverted churches. 

[/quote:bafe9fd85b]

You should pray to that end. And woe is me if I am wrong. I also pray that any converts will not be to RC.



[quote:bafe9fd85b]


You are very wrong about this music. Although music may break the first commandment if not given its proper place, music cannot break the 2nd commandment, as that is visual. I don't really care what it was written in response to. The fact of the matter is that it is not a visual art. 

[/quote:bafe9fd85b]

I did not mean to imply music was a visual art. (Although we could enter into the realm of synesthesia now if I felt really argumentative . .  )

I simply meant the spirit of that music or [i:bafe9fd85b]zeitgeist[/i:bafe9fd85b] was unto the end that all art should be to the glory of God, which to those artists, meant Religious art as well as secular, and they had the support of the Church behind them.

Taking from Shaeffer here of course.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## JohnV (Feb 25, 2004)

Mark: 
Just so we all know, Schaeffer did not say that all art was to the glory of God. He was referring to the ability, the talent, that aspirations that evoke the creative spirit in man, (creativity being something that copies God's attributes ), all these things being demonstrative of the image of God in man. He did not say that this justifies all art or all that goes by that name, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2004)

There is no need to take everything I say as a universal maxim. I was speaking specifically of those Baroque artists who found support in the Church. Of course not ALL so called art is to the glory of God.
One might even be able to argue that art that does not glorify God is not truly art at all.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:6fddc5cb70][i:6fddc5cb70]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:6fddc5cb70]
There is no need to take everything I say as a universal maxim. I was speaking specifically of those Baroque artists who found support in the Church. Of course not ALL so called art is to the glory of God.
One might even be able to argue that art that does not glorify God is not truly art at all. [/quote:6fddc5cb70]
Sorry, Mark. I didn't mean for it to come out that way. I'm sorry if I offended you. Sometimes I get type-happy, just to write something.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:3e24e1901a]

Because Gibson derived his understanding of this project from the theology of Rome. He is staunch orthodox RC.

[/quote:3e24e1901a]
I thought Gibson was part of some offshoot of the RC? and not a true RC? Or was that his dad?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 25, 2004)

*Should James White see this flik, even if others shouldn&#03*

Yes, he should. And I wouldn't even consider seeing it for a mili-second. Now let me (try!) to defend this seemingly contradictory position. 

It is a matter of calling, in particular, calling that has to do with church office.

In America, we are used to the idea that everybody is the same, same, same, in every way, way, way. Individualism run riot. It is a cultural misfortune to have lost almost completely the concept of distinctions [i:a8fc21015d]and[/i:a8fc21015d] the freight distinctions carry biblically (e.g. Male/Female, youth/age). The short answer is that JW may be obligated to go see this movie precisely because of who and what he is (despite his inherent objections--see Ezekiel 4:14). 

This, may I add, is virtually the only argument I know that can modify the clear, biblical injuction against MAN-MADE images. So, if you believe God has obligated you to go see this movie AND you are horrified at the very thought of being subjected to the evils of rank idolatry, but in submission to your calling you go, 

May God be your shield and defense.
And I hope, for the sake of your spiritual well-being and conscience, you are right.


----------



## BrianLanier (Feb 25, 2004)

[quote:496ad11399][i:496ad11399]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:496ad11399]
Now, why don't those who are of the &quot;hard line&quot; view re: 2C, condem White? This is yet another inconsistancy on these adherents part. If you are correct he should be called out. If he thinks that it is a violation, but that he is especially called, then he would fall by the above reductio.
-Paul [/quote:496ad11399]

Paul, that is exactly what I was getting at! Also, just a thought: Why would God not CLEARLY reveal what the 2nd commandment teaches, since, as I believe, reflect his Holy character as the summation of the moral law. I mean why such cloudiness surrounding JUST 10 commandments. I do agreee with Vos that we who are of the 'hard line' view of the 2nd commandment should be patient, though NOT silent, with those who disagree. I liken it to the weak and strong brother. We are to strive with them, but the desire is for the weaker brother to become stronger and not remain in his weakness. So with patience I will continue to defend the 'hard line view'. By the way I agree that we all need to at least be consistent with our convictions.

Brian

(P.S. Please don't take offense at the weak/strong brother analogy, it was just helpful for me regarding the patience issue....I welcome corrections)

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## Radar (Feb 25, 2004)

*James White and 2nd commandment*

to the best of my recollection from Tuesday's Dividing Line, James says he does NOT consider the film to be a violation of the 2nd commandment. If you don't like that, don't talk about him here. Please call him on the Dividing Line, Thursday morning at 11 am MST, 12 noon CST, 1 pm EST. Ask him, let him actually respond to you, and I will enjoy listening in. Phone 877-753-3341

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Radar]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 25, 2004)

*Responding to the Reductio*

Let us be a little more exacting with the analogy. 

Has &quot;James Black&quot; been ordained as a minister of the Gospel to march into the strip club and denounce the sins therein? 
And assuming he was, was he obliged to do &quot;research&quot; by ogling the dancers? 

Naturally, I think the point of my post was missed. 
Please interact with God's conversation with Ezekiel in chapter 4, and offer a counter-interpretation. I would enjoy responding much better to someone dealing with the substance of my post and any relevant Scriptures.

Actually I thought JW did NOT have 2nd Commandment objections to the movie UNTIL I read on this site that he did. I thought I was formerly in error. So, do we have to drop him from the example? Not really, since I was defending his going. 

As for inconsistencies, well, I defined my conscientious objections and won't violate them. And I said don't violate your own. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Radar (Feb 25, 2004)

*I look forward to hearing you on the program, Contra*


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 25, 2004)

Here's what you said Paul in your first response: 
By Bruce's logic JB &quot;can go watch girls at a strip club&quot;

What you seem to be declaring is a functional equivalence to viewing salacious material and viewing idolatry. I reject that as a flawed analogy. 

Because I am on a shared computer I have to duck out now. I will try to come back shortly. I would like to address Ezekiel . . .


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 25, 2004)

*How Ezekiel 4 relates to this*

Paul, 
You seem to be saying that what one believer can do or can't do according to the precepts of the Word, is therefore the same for everyone. Let me point out two texts that plainly teach otherwise

Mt. 12:5 &quot;Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?&quot;

Here Jesus points out that the priests objectively did that which, on the face of it, violated the prohibition from work (4th commandment). But as they were [i:ef1b9b0b9c]authorized[/i:ef1b9b0b9c] to do it, they were, in fact not guilty of such violation. So an act could be both a sin or not a sin, depending on who was doing it.

And Ezekiel 4. God commands Ezekiel to eat a cake cooked with human feces, which thing would make the food unclean and his action sinful (contrary to the Law; cf. Deut. 23:10-14; Lev 5:3; 7:21). But God had commanded it, and though he modifies his charge at Ezekiel's objection, Ezekiel must still go through with what would ordinarily be an act of defilement, cooking with cow's dung.

(The point of his prophetical illustration was to demonstrate that Israel would be reduced to eating defiled food--God would see to it that Israel was defiled as a people on every level, not even able to please Him outwardly. Calvin: &quot;For a cake cooked in the dung of oxen was [also] unclean according to the Law )

So, Ezekiel obeys the Lord, and what he does cannot render him unfit to be a priest (Lev. 22:8-9). But this action, performed by God's minister under his authorization, was not a blanket sanction for simply any Israelite to do what was and remained forbidden.

I believe that for practically every Christian, whether he's a layman or an officer (compare an OT Israelite or a priest) the 2nd commandment is a plain precept. 

And I know that you don't agree with that interpretation. 

No, we don't live in an era of special revelation, so I don't think God is ordering his agents by direct revelation. He leads us by Scripture alone. I'm willing to give to men--whom I judge the church to have rightly called into positions of responsibility--the benefit of the doubt when they tell me that the conduct of their office may require them to do something distasteful or dangerous spiritually. That something may be sinful under any other circumstances than the one under consideration. Which is why I said in my first post it is my responsibility to pray he is right, and not wrong.

Your positive argument that all Christians are called in I Pet. 3:15 makes no alowances for being called in different ways, or called with respect to office. 

No time left today. Back tomorrow, DV.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 26, 2004)

*(by the way, thanks for sharpening my iron)*

We are really talking past each other, and not to each other . . . 
[quote:8b58bfa9e1]unfortuantely you missed my entire challenge. All my reductio showed is that someone who is &quot;specialy called' to do something, can therfore violate a law of God?!?!? [/quote:8b58bfa9e1]
[i:8b58bfa9e1]My[/i:8b58bfa9e1] statement from the beginning was that in a particular case (the &quot;hypothetical&quot; apologist), a biblical argument might be made that would justify his doing something that fell under a general biblical prohibition. 

I did [i:8b58bfa9e1]not[/i:8b58bfa9e1] say that the 2nd commandment was an Absolute prohibition that covered every conceivable case. Others have. Please re-read my original for verification. 

My argumentation has been focused on one [i:8b58bfa9e1]exceptional[/i:8b58bfa9e1] circumstance. There may be others, but I'm not tracking them. You seem to argue that my reasoning [i:8b58bfa9e1]in this case[/i:8b58bfa9e1] establishes a false general rule--one that is contrary to Scripture. But that argument is a logical fallacy itself--arguing from the [i:8b58bfa9e1]particular[/i:8b58bfa9e1] to the general. I am certainly not arguing that one exception 1) obviates a general rule which I believe (my 2nd commandment interpretation) or 2) establishes a general rule.

Another difficulty we face I aluded to in my first post. Since I never made a categorical assertion (all, every, none, etc.), and since my argument has not yet been overthrown sylogistically, your alternative example is reasoning by analogy. Such reasoning is difficult because my example is a particular case. Hence my focus on the particulars of your analogy, and where I thought they broke down (which you attributed to parody--sorry, not intended). You cannot simply &quot;plug in&quot; different subjects, objects, etc, and call that my argument and [i:8b58bfa9e1]reductio absurd[/i:8b58bfa9e1] it. That's a straw man.

I also have not claimed that [i:8b58bfa9e1]anybody[/i:8b58bfa9e1] who thinks he's &quot;called&quot; to a particular &quot;ministry&quot; is in fact so called.
Who is doing the calling? 
&quot;Self-ordination&quot; is a species of lone-rangerism from which I utterly recoil. Furthermore, can you name one [i:8b58bfa9e1]reputable, meaningful[/i:8b58bfa9e1] church (small, large, presbytery, denomination, association, etc.) that would recognize the &quot;call&quot; of a man to the ministry you described, and then ordain him thereto?
[quote:8b58bfa9e1]Jim Black is called to defend the faith and is especially gifted at bringing men out of the p0rnography slavery. Therefore, since Black is &quot;called&quot; to do these things he can go watch girls at a strip club...because of his &quot;special calling&quot; and other christians should not. This is obviously absurd.[/quote:8b58bfa9e1]
I know I can't.
But I do know of decent churches that would recognize the call of a man to an apologetics ministry, and who [i:8b58bfa9e1]might[/i:8b58bfa9e1] recognize biblically based arguments as to why he [i:8b58bfa9e1]should[/i:8b58bfa9e1] go see a (hypothetical  ) movie that is a danger to the souls of most everybody else, hence under a general injunction.

Re. Special Revelation: The Bible is Special Revelation. If an argument can be made BIBLICALLY that our Hypothetical apologist may or is obligated to go see the movie, then he can or he must.

I am not arguing for relativism at all. I am arguing for Biblical Authority over Generals and Particulars, over Callings and Ordination, over Churches and Individuals. 

Back to you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 28, 2004)

Well, I hardly deserve the advantage . . . 
If God (in the judgment of the church, and according to Scripture) has authorized JW to see this movie, then he may go see it. He has so authorized him. Therefore he may see it. 
(if p, then q; p (affirming the antecedent) therefore q. Mixed hypothetical syllogism, no formal fallacy)

I said early on that I hoped White was right, and that he was not sinning in going to see the movie. This is true whether or not he thinks the movie generally violates the 2C. The temptations to individual viewers' idolatry in this movie visually portraying the crucifixion of Christ are tremendous, given the subject matter involved. JW seems to have gone in to see it with an appropriate (I think) antagonism, whatever his 2C views.

At www.aomin.org White disclaims any effect of seeing Jesus portrayed, "Will I [now] envision Jesus as Jim Caviezel? No. Not for a moment. Not once during the film did I make that connection. That was Jim Caviezel up there, not my Lord." He also says, "Will I think of this film at the next Lord's Supper? Probably." What he means exactly by that last statement, . . . ?

I think White is an extraordinary man with a special calling-like a Green Beret commando in God's army. I'm positive the vast majority of people going to the movie are going without proper spiritual preparation, i.e. a putting on of the whole armor of God as a defense against sin's use of this cinematic experience. JW's foray into enemy territory to gather intelligence will help inform those of us in the wide world (actually the subset who actually cares :sniff: ) for whom the strictest application of the 2C unquestionably applies.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 29, 2004)

Paul,
I know you may not see this.
I wish you would respond, because I think we have had a good exchange going. 

In going back to your reductio, you have constructed an argument of your own, and not mine. Your use of FORM is not proper. I will do the same thing with the FORM, and perhaps you will see what I mean. You chose the 7th commandment. I choose the 4th.

[b:5b349d054e]Matthew 5:12 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?[/b:5b349d054e]

If God (in the judgment of the church, and according to Scripture) has authorized the priests to profane the Sabbath, then they may profane it. He has so authorized them. Therefore they may profane it.

Do you agree with Jesus argument? I'm sure you do. Have I misrepresented Jesus words? You be the judge of me. I find the FORMs identical.

I will not attempt to prove my assertion that JW has been authorized to see the movie except to say that he is a minister in subjection to his brethren, who have (I will charitably assume according to Scripture) judged him so authorized.

Naturally I have no dispute with your categorical syllogism. We are all to be ruled by the Word of God in everything.

I'm sorry our exchange was not more amicable. My purpose from the beginning was to try and defend a difficult position on the face--Why a conscience-bound believer like myself could never go see this movie, and yet see in SOME person(s) biblical warrant to see it. It hasn't been easy . . . :wr9:

Yours sincerely,


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 1, 2004)

But since I can put an argument you AGREE with (re. 4th commandment?) into the same FORM, doesn't mean that attacking my contention by appealing to the FORM is invalid? Doesn't that force you away from simply creating an argument I never made (re. 7th commandment) and knocking it down? Let's grapple with the Second Commandment, its implications, its applications, when and where and how.

Don't you have to demonstrate that my conclusion (re. 2nd commandment) does not follow from premises I do hold?

You have put up several categorical syllogisms (all formally valid), well and good. Most of them I'm sure we both deplore, being occasions of gross sin. 

None of them, as far as I can tell, have been reconstructed from anything I have actually written. The one that you constructed on 2C I suppose we could begin to dig into, even though it was not my contribution, and makes no prima facie case for or against the position I have taken.

You called on me to do the work of recharacterizing my own argument into a syllogism for the purposes of clarification. So, naturally I did it in a way (formally valid) that at least gave me a fighting chance to argue. All I have been doing since is asking that your side prove (use the Bible of course) that my premise, [b:414a17613b]mine[/b:414a17613b], is wrong. 

If you can, then I have lost my attempt to justify this view (that [i:414a17613b]someone[/i:414a17613b], not me personally, might be warranted biblically to see the Passion movie) against cries of &quot;Inconsistency!&quot; and will have to confess that NO ONE should see it, under any circumstances.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

To both sides in this discussion (with charity) :

Forget the forms already and just tell us what the Bible says or does not say.

We are not here to win by being more &quot;formal&quot; than those with whom we debate. It is not logic (smoke) and form (mirrors) that converts the soul and renews the mind. It is the Word of God.

Just answer the Scriptures on the matter!

My :wr50:
Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

I am not anti-logic.

I am anti-logical absurdities that are used to try to make a point or deny a point about Scripture.

We could all put up our little syllogisms but that changes nothing of the truthfulness of the Scripture.

Logic is not the foundation. Scripture is. And when logic runs in circles it obscures the truth.

Phillip


----------



## Gregg (Mar 1, 2004)

Does anybody think it's logical that a little smiley face could really bounce like this?

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by Gregg]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

In re-reading this thread I think that the syllogisms are doing two things:

presenting hay with which to build straw men

talking past each other

So I am not against forms. I just want a little clarification in the debate.

From Contra's side, does his point about the priests being &quot;excused&quot; for profaning the Sabbath have any merit to it in regard to this movie?

Yes or No? Why or Why Not? Answer with Scripture!


----------



## Gregg (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:8a47e6bee1][i:8a47e6bee1]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8a47e6bee1]
[quote:8a47e6bee1][i:8a47e6bee1]Originally posted by Gregg[/i:8a47e6bee1]
Does anybody think it's logical that a little smiley face could really bounce like this?

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by Gregg] [/quote:8a47e6bee1]

yes,....hey Gregg, is that AWOL bouncy

-Paul [/quote:8a47e6bee1]

Reply...

Last I heard of him, he was workin as a cook in a logging camp up North.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 2, 2004)

*Bringing it all together*

To prove: That God authorize a certain minister with relevant calling to go see the Passion movie.

With respect to the issues raised thus far:

1. Any challenges to my contention by an appeal to the validity of my argument fails on formal grounds. The argument is properly constructed.
2. Any challenge to my contention by an appeal to the Form, in which both premises and conclusions have been altered fail on two grounds:

a. Those arguments are now straw men
b. Jesus used the same Form to refute his accusers in re. The 4th commandment-see Mt. 12:5-validating the use of the Form where appropriate.

Additional Issues
3. How to determine if any specific person has a call by ordination to any ministry whatsoever?

a. Cannot be by an appeal to specific Scripture, because our names are not therein. 
b. Must be by application of Scripture principles-positive precept (interpreted), approved example, the deductions of good and necessary consequence-and the discernment of the Church exercised through its government.

4. Whether God ever authorizes his minister to operate in spheres denied to the common person?-Established by an appeal to I Cor. 4:1; Heb 5:4; etc. (see WCF 27.4; WLC #158, 169, e.g.)
5. Whether God ever authorizes ministers (or anyone else) to operate exceptionally to general maxims? Established by Mt. 12:5, Eze. 4:12-17, etc.

And Finally
6. Has God ever authorized the slightest deviation from the express command of 2C by approved example?

[quote:4d8da35761][b:4d8da35761]II Kings 5:18, 19 "In this thing the LORD pardon (excuse) thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, LORD pardon (excuse) thy servant in this thing. And he (Elisha) said to him, Go in peace."[/b:4d8da35761][/quote:4d8da35761]

Naaman here asks for Jehovah's exception to the 2nd Commandment out of necessity for the duties of his SECULAR office. And it is granted. 

Objection: But Special Revelation was given to Naaman, or Ezekiel, or the priests.

Answer: The Bible is Special Revelation. Since God no longer speaks extraordinarily it is to the Bible we must turn. The issue is necessity in conjunction with calling. 

Does the church recognize and approve by Scripture application (positive precept, approved example, or good and necessary consequence) the right, necessity, or obligation for Someone to go see the Passion movie? I conclude that they may, and they have.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 4, 2004)

Straw man arguments replace the entire argument. This is simply the definition of a Straw man. I won't debate it definitionally.
Paul's reformulated premises are clearly not mine.
Paul's restated conclusion
--therefore, JB can profane the 7th commandment
is not the same conclusion as
--therefore JB can profane the 2nd commandment
nor is it the opposite conclusion (which if proved from premises I do hold would be a bona fide reductio ad absurdam), i.e.
--therefore JB can NOT profane the 2nd commandment

Paul has made zero connection to the Second commandment except to say that:
if JB could profane 2C, then in follows he could profane 7C too. 
To which I rebut: 
if the priests could profane 4C, it does NOT follow that they could profane 1C, 2C, 3C, 5C, . . . any precept outside their exceptional authorization.
To insist that my argument must follow the former instead of the reasoning of Jesus (Mt. 12:5) or that Jesus' reasoning is actually the former is a true absurdity.
[quote:1a1d636c98]finally, i anticipated your move. i have shown by special revelation that all christians are called to defend the faith (I Pet 3:15), therefore, your argument allows all Christians to see the movie.[/quote:1a1d636c98]
This verse tells us that the least well-versed Christian is able and responsible to God to tell the faithless what great things God has done for him.
The issue here jumps to the matter of Ecclesiology. Are all &quot;callings&quot; the same? Or are they all equally valid when they are claimed? Is it OK for anybody to preach and adminster the sacraments? After all, arent we all called to spread the gospel? What is the definition of &quot;Ministry&quot;? The 21st century definiton? Or the classical one? Just because Naaman was excused to &quot;bow down thyself before them&quot; (Cf. Ex. 20:5 and 2Ki. 5:18) in the house of Rimmon, was everyone, everywhere, to any god?

How do we know that Pastor X is called to the ministry of First Church of Y? How do we know First Church of Y should even be in existence? The church exercises biblical discernment in calling its pastor. It exercises discernment in calling someone to be a minister in apologetics (for example). In each case there are necessitites to be determined for the conduct of the job. Every case is not spelled out in so much simple language in the Scriptures.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 5, 2004)

TGIF
[i:402dd25bdc]Thank Goodness Its Friday[/i:402dd25bdc]

We can take this up at a later date, but for now, let's take a break.


----------

