OPC on the Passion of the Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrianLanier

Puritan Board Freshman
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, "Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" - a challenge to confessionally Reformed Christians. See this week's Q&A."

I am glad to see the OPC step up as well.
 
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, "no, this is wrong".

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

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[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]
 
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
 
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! :wink:
 
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, "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 "see" 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
 
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.
 
[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 "In Passion, a Church Sees for Itself" )

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

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

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
 
[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]
 
[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 & 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> 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!
 
I can sympathise with your opinion on this, Scott; but I'm not convinced that it is "a different Christ" 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 "foul" 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.
 
[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:
 
[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 "a different Christ" 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 "it is finished". 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]

"Secular" 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 "laid down His life on His own accord; no man takes it, He lays it down".
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 "foul" 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.

:bouncing:

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
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]
 
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:
 
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 "portrayal" 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?
 
[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 "portrayal" 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]
 
[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 " I thank thee Lord, that I am not like that arminian over there," 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:
 
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 "This is art." or "This is entertainment." 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]
 
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 "feel" 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?
 
James White on The Passion!

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

A good balance about what people will "see" 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 "quick emotional converts" who have no roots! (Matt 13:20-21).

Phillip

[Edited on 2-25-04 by pastorway]
 
[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 "appologist"? 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]
 
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][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]
 
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, "well why are so many Christians and Churches endorsing it if it is not good to see it?" 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 "joe calvary" 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]
 
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
 
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
 
[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, "well why are so many Christians and Churches endorsing it if it is not good to see it?" 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 "joe calvary" 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
"The Passion of the Christ"
3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
14K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
regswrb
  • Locked
Idolatry & Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ Movie
Replies
1
Views
4K
pastorway
P
cupotea
  • Locked
For those who've watched the Passion
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
pastorway
P
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
James Durham on the offices of Christ
Replies
1
Views
491
Regi Addictissimus
Regi Addictissimus
Reformed Covenanter
Amandus Polanus on the person of Christ
Replies
0
Views
557
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Back
Top