Re: A Scottish-Presbyterian review of "The Passion" film
- --- In email@example.com, "Colin"
<ctx292@y...> quoted a guy saying:
> There are those who would argue that it is de facto blasphemous forYes, like those who framed and those who hold to the Westminster
> anyone to portray the Son of God.
"[T]he making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three
persons" is forbidden in the second commandment, and I don't frankly
care to hear from anyone else in this forum either pretending to hold
to the Standards but in reality arguing contrary to them, or outright
disagreeing with them concerning this issue.
- "The Passion of the Christ" [film] cleared away a lot of
> the debri=> s > and helped me to think about Jesus and to love himHello,
> more. How can that be > wrong?
I wasn't able to locate the article I was thinking of or maybe it was
in another piece.
I would like to throw this out, though. How is the above quote any
different from icon worship ? Really. I can't believe the reaction to
this film ("historically and scripturally accurate" being the
oft-repeated phrase, when it's not) and the setting aside of the
Second Commandment and the means of worship from most in the Reformed
community, it seems.
- Quoting Colin' paste-in from the FC of Scotland:-
<<"The RP statement [against Mel Gibson's film] then goes on to declare
that the message of the film is that of `Roman Catholicism, not Biblical
Christianity' and attacks `Mel
Gibson's non-existant pseudo-christ' as contrasted with `the Christ who
really saves, the Christ of the Scriptures'. I find such language ill informed
and deeply offensive. If it is accurate then I am a Roman Catholic and
I believe in the same Christ as Mel Gibson.">>
<<The Second Commandment does not merely cover worship that take place within
public acts at stated times, but it covers *any* man-graven image that is
intended to portray God. Never can we accept a man-made depiction of anything
in the universe, adopting as our own belief concerning that man-made thing,
"This is indeed a representation of my god. My god is (even somewhat) like
It is because we always, men always, misrepresent God (Christ Himself alone
excepted); and by however much we do so, by that much we dishonour God.
And besides this dishonour that is always done, the artist (metal-worker,
painter, actor) and the approver thereof are also violating God's revealed
I say moreover:-
It is obvious from that FC member's own words that he thinks Mel Gibson's
portrayal of Christ is the Scriptural Christ, indeed he agrees that the
film is Scripturally accurate in most places at least.
Besides this, and moving on from the Second Commandment to further discuss
this movie which I have no intension of seeing:-
(1.) We Reformed Christians have no hesitation to say that the teachings
of the Romish church concernig the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ are
not the true, Scriptural gospel.
(2.) Mel Gibson obviously would not have betrayed his own thinking concerning
these matters, or his beloved hard-line form of the doctrines of Rome concerning
the sacrifice of their version of the Lord Jesus Christ, or his own priest(s),
or his pope.
(3.) We know that there are many high ranking Romanists who are on record
as giving this movie their approval. And that's an understatement!
(4.) Therefore we can do no other (I intentionally echo Martin Luther here)
than conclude that this is an heretical, blasphemous, anti-Christian and
Metaphorically speaking, you have to be blind not to see this.
Broadband from an unbeatable £15.99!