Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A Scottish-Presbyterian review of "The Passion" film

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    ... Yes, like those who framed and those who hold to the Westminster Standards. [T]he making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Colin"
      <ctx292@y...> quoted a guy saying:

      > There are those who would argue that it is de facto blasphemous for
      > anyone to portray the Son of God.

      Yes, like those who framed and those who hold to the Westminster
      Standards.

      "[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.

      gmw.
    • Karsten Nordmo
      The Passion of the Christ [film] cleared away a lot of ... Hello, I wasn t able to locate the article I was thinking of or maybe it was in another piece. I
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        "The Passion of the Christ" [film] cleared away a lot of
        > the debri=> s > and helped me to think about Jesus and to love him
        > more. How can that be > wrong? 
        > >

        Hello,

        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.

        FWIW,
        Karsten
      • s.padbury@tiscali.co.uk
        Quoting Colin paste-in from the FC of Scotland:-
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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.">>

          Quoting myself:-

          <<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
          this thing."
          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
          commandment.>>

          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
          anti-Christ movie.

          Metaphorically speaking, you have to be blind not to see this.

          Sincerely,

          Simon Padbury.


          __________________________________________________
          Broadband from an unbeatable £15.99!

          http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/home.html?code=SM-NL-11AM
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.