Saved through the Passion of the Christ

AMEN! Well said!

 

You need to think about this remark! It was enough for the thief on the cross. </font>[/QUOTE]True, but did you consider that there were two thieves? One died lost and went to Hell. And, he saw the real thing, not the movie. So, there is more than the superficial physical (i.e. human body), material (i.e. matter), narrative (i.e. events) aspect of this incident. It requires an understanding, not emotion or feeling, of right-wrong (i.e. sin), repentance, and faith. Read and consider what the thief said. As I have argued until my fingers are numb, it's all about theology and doctrine, not truthfulness to the story-line of the Gospels or details of events.

 

Diane, you are certainly passionate over this flick. Have you ever thought about comparing Bible doctrine, not narrative, with the Roman Catholicism in this film? Is doctrine important or do you run on your religious feelings? It's funny that I can't get the supporters of this thing to talk about truth and doctrine. What about you? Does Roman Catholic doctrine bother you?

 

Jim, kudos! You have very poignantly and fairly debunked this silliness. Thank you for standing firm for sound doctrine.

 

Are you not concerned that it gives it the wrong meaning?

 

There are extravagant claims and predictions of thousands being won to Christ by Mel Gibson’s brilliant and passionate production. From a Biblical Christian perspective, such claims are suspect. Even though the movie depicts a generally accurate story of the events (i.e. death, burial, and resurrection) comprising the Gospel, it does not present a distinctive Gospel message for salvation per se. Other movies, such as Ben Hur, have portrayed the crucifixion, although with considerably less graphic realism and details, without a clear presentation of the Gospel message leading to salvation.

The hype of this flick is found in the cinematic and artistic qualities that produce intense emotions and religious feelings, not the Biblical and doctrinal content. In this age of spiritual junkies, who seek any momentary religious feeling, this movie is custom made to gratify these religious-experience seekers who discern no heresy. After all, our current religious scene in America downplays doctrine and exalts experience with the attendant sensations and passions.

Whereas we cannot discount absolutely all professions of salvation from this extravaganza, we must be leery of accepting wholesale salvations based on an intense emotional experience such as the movie provides. After all, Bob Dylan supposedly became a Christian from watching a beautiful sunset in Colorado. Subsequent events and statements bring his true conversion to Christianity into doubt.

Throughout history, many have undergone mystical and religious experiences but time has proven the error of accepting these experiences as true Christian conversions. In fact, the history of the cults shows the origins of many to be founded on someone’s religious experience. For example, Actress Shirley MacLane bases her chic and pagan views on experiences. Thus, we must beware here.

It is not surprising that modern religious seekers find their hype in Mel’s celluloid reality. It provides a quality that their materialistic, driven lives lack. Even success and wealth are spiritually empty and they seek their solace in the religious emotions of the unreal world of Hollywood.

Like the unreal world of Hollywood, many of these so-called salvations will be make-believe. These poor souls will have confused genuine conversion with a counterfeit religious experience. Lovers of God should be heartbroken that poor sinners may be confused and souls lost to Satan through counterfeit conversions. Such false hope lulls sinners into complacency until they slide through the gates of Hell for eternity.

In sum, this movie hype is more about what moves me than what pleases God.

 

Neither does the Biblical account but you don't seem to have a problem with that.

 

dianetavegia--I just crawled out of my Bible musings, and now say this about the thief on the cross who was promised paradise:

That thief believed as much of the Gospel as was available at that moment. Called Jesus Lord, acknowledged He had a Kingdom, and humbly asked to be in it. Must have been repentant too, as Jesus preached for people to repent.

For people today, we must also believe that God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9). The crucifixion alone is not enough. The resurrection is required as a matter of saving faith (1 Corinthians 15).

 

You need to think about this remark! It was enough for the thief on the cross. </font>[/QUOTE]SORRY... You're changing your story AGAIN!

 

Neither does the Biblical account but you don't seem to have a problem with that. </font>[/QUOTE]WHAT? I seem to miss your point and you certainly missed mine. Since some so-called evangelicals were making wild claims for this movie as a tool for evangelism, I made a pertinent point. So, what's your point?

No, I don't have a problem with the Biblical account but it is the whole of Scripture that is sufficient. I do believe in the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

 

You need to think about this remark! It was enough for the thief on the cross. </font>[/QUOTE]SORRY... You're changing your story AGAIN! </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, Diane, but this was reality, not Mel Gibson's Hollywood effects with his own spin on interpretation. You're confusing an A-V experience with the real thing. Come back to earth.

 

Check out this website:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Vindicat.htm

 

Actually the gospel was clearly there, Jesus' death was for our sins, death, and resurection, satan was clearly defeated. We actually saw all of this. No reading between the lines needed.

The resurection was included.

When you witness do you use all of scripture, or just some well choosen verses.

 

My point is that it's hypocritical to knock the movie on the grounds that "it does not present a distinctive Gospel message for salvation per se" and then accept the Biblical narrative it's taken from, which also does not "present a distinctive Gospel message for salvation per se".

 

My point is that it's hypocritical to knock the movie on the grounds that "it does not present a distinctive Gospel message for salvation per se" and then accept the Biblical narrative it's taken from, which also does not "present a distinctive Gospel message for salvation per se". </font>[/QUOTE]No, it's not. There's no contradiction here. How in the world did you arrive at such muddled thinking? There's no comparison between the status of Mel's movie and the Gospel account--the Scriptural account is out of Mel's league.

 

[quotethe Scriptural account is out of Mel's league.

[/quote]

How do you know this? Have you seen the movie?

 

Actually, it's not "muddled thinking" at all. It's a perfectly reasonable question and the fact that you can't answer it tells me that you know you're wrong.

You're avoiding the question. If you would put half the thought into answering the question as you do trying to weasel your way out of it, we might get somewhere.

 

Well I haven't read all 7 pages of this post, I'm responding to the title.

I encouraged everyone in my Wednesday evening Bible study to read the gospel accounts of the "passion" before seeing the movie --- even so as soon as I returned I found myself running to re-read the accounts. Sure, I found a few theatrical (mis)interpretations, but I thought the movie was an effective tool for Christians to use to encourage questions about the gospel. The movie was less than I expected, which is to say, I think the Book is better than the movie.

Before the movie, in the theater, there were advertisments, bought by local businesses, There were two ads by churches (one of them was the church I attend).(see www.passionchrist.com) The whole theater was packed (about 600 seats). Many were visitors brought by other church members.

This Sunday's service was up by about 25 people, quite a few of them were first time visitors. The gospel was presented in an effective way.

Our evening Home Bible groups are preped to begin to answer questions that people may have. We are using a prepared DVD format with study guide provided by another evangelical ministry (haven't seen it yet).

We are praying for a harvest and working hard to honor the Lord in His endeavor to reach the lost.

Rob

[ February 29, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

Deacon:

I encouraged everyone in my Wednesday evening Bible study to read the gospel accounts of the "passion" before seeing the movie --- even so as soon as I returned I found myself running to re-read the accounts. Sure, I found a few theatrical (mis)interpretations, but I thought the movie was an effective tool for Christians to use to encourage questions about the gospel. The movie was less than I expected, which is to say, I think the Book is better than the movie.

S&T:

Deacon my brother. Can good fruit come from a bad tree? I read this very disturbing article, and after seeing the movie twice, I have to agree with the author:

http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm

 

Again, I'll say I did over all like the movie, as a movie, it is not scripture though.
For those who say they saw nothing catholic in it, how about this=
http://www.cptryon.org/prayer/child/stations/06.html
look familiar? Not biblical, but very catholic.