Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Mar 9, 2004.
Commentary by one Baptist Fundamentalist Pastor:
Thanks for sharing another perspective. Seems like reaction to this film has been polarizing even the strictest fundamentalists (sad).
I also highly recommend the movie to everyone!
Chuck and I disagree on another one .
Chuck Baldwin wrote:
That is a Very Disappointing and factually inaccurate conclusion.
It might be instructive for Pastor Baldwin to read some of the many reviews of this movie, which point out the unscriptural additions and the Roman Catholic embellishments Mel made to the scriptures.
Let's put Chuck Baldwin's comments in context.
1. Chuck Baldwin enjoys watching movies.
2. Over the approximately 30 years of his ministry in Pensacola, he has considerably softened his views on Catholicism.
IMH Opinion, that is due in part, to the fact that a prominent Catholic businessman named Joe Patti, was a paying advertizer & listener & guest on his Talk Radio show.
Joe Patti is now serving time in federal prison for income tax fraud. Pastor Chuck Baldwin is in no way connected to Joe Patti's lawbreaking but Joe Patti's financial support of the Talk Radio show several years ago, is the only reason I can think of that Chuck Baldwin would back off from expressing a scriptural view of Roman Catholicism.
When Latin-rite Catholic Mel Gibson's movie, THE PATRIOT, came out, Pastor Baldwin rented the local theater and offered his Talk - Radio show listeners free admission to see that movie.
He stated in his email newsletter and on his radio program (at that time) that every Christian should see THE PATRIOT.
As far as I am aware, he has not rented the theater to offer anyone a free viewing of THE PASSION.
However, he may well do that at some point...
I used to be a frequent caller to Chuck's Talk-Show when it was broadcast on the local radio station here in Pensacola.
We had on-air disagreements a number of times when Chuck made glowing comments about Pope John Paul II being a great moral leader.
I opined that a great moral leader (when referring to a religious leader) would be someone who took the great commission seriously, who made a serious effort to get lost folks to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior, who didn't allow people to bow down to him or kiss his ring or address him as 'Holy Father' since that is a title reserved for God in the scriptures.
On another occasion, Chuck effusively praised Mother Teresa as a great Christian.
I called him and questioned, based on her own writings and speeches, whether she had ever been saved and born again.
He got irrate with me and went on to the next caller.
I have read a fair amount of Mother Teresa's writings. I have three books on my shelf now, which were written by her.
I see nothing in her writings to indicate she ever was saved in the scriptural sense of being saved.
Mother Teresa was a hard-working lady who invested her life helping the poor. But any Bible-Believer knows that works do not save you and human works do not convey God's saving grace in any way.
Mother Teresa insisted that the purpose of the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta was not to make Hindus into Christians...
Her theological belief was a strange blend of universalism and Catholic dogma, not scriptural and not geared toward getting anyone saved.
For some reason, even Independent, Fundamental, Soul-Winning Pastors, from time to time, throw their mind out of gear and defend the indefensible.
I think THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST movie may offer born-again Christians the opportunity to present a scriptural witness to lost folks who've heard about or seen the movie.
The movie might stir conversation about the Crucifixion and we can then take the opportunity to explain why Jesus died and resurrected and how that makes salvation available today.
We ought to use every opportunity to witness for the Lord Jesus Christ.
However, to promote, defend and support Hollywood Catholic Heresy, and to call it scriptural and to call it Biblical is just NONSENSE, no matter which Christian celebrity it comes from.
And, it should be mandatory for all public school curriculum, too!
So, rbrent, tell us how you really feel about Chuck Baldwin, LOL.
Sad, the BB must be used to spread character assassination or cast aspersion on someone whose opinion is disagreed with. Typical, but sad, nonetheless.
[ March 09, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]
rbrent - I will agree with ladyeagle here that this was a big a "stretch" of guilt-by-association as I've seen lately.
What motivates a man is almost impossible for anyone to discern. We only see surface ripples on the pond and don't know what is running deep.
Let's all be reminded to be careful with attributing motives to another.
To answer LadyEagle's question, I have long been an admirer and supporter of Chuck Baldwin.
I believe he is an honorable, God-fearing man who is sincere in his beliefs and in his efforts to win the lost.
You may have noticed that I've posted several of his recent columns on the BB.
But I part company with him in his support of Mel Gibson's movie THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.
I first met Chuck back in 1977 when I was doing street ministry in downtown Pensacola. I met a bunch of sailors off a ship from India and took them to Chuck Baldwin's church to see a movie he was showing.
Several of the sailors got saved through their exposure to the gospel that night.
I am not an enemy of Chuck Baldwin by any means. I have supported his radio ministry with my financial gifts and will probably do so in the future.
But I do find it disconcerting when Bible-Believing Baptists go out of their way to support, recommend and defend Catholic Heresy, in whatever form.
Dr. Bob - you frequently and regularly post on this board about the "heresy" of believing the KJV is the infallible word of God.
Your language is excoriating in those posts and it certainly sounds like you question the motives of those who hold that position.
I don't know Chuck Baldwin's motive for recommending Mel's Passion Movie but as someone who has been acquainted with his ministry and with his sometimes offputting comments about Catholicism, I posted the above.
You folks who defend and support Mel's Movie leave those of us who refuse to accept or defend or support Catholic Heresy in the position of trying to figure out what could possibly motivate you to take such an unscriptural position.
rbrent, have you seen the movie?
No, I have not seen the movie. I'm not inclined to see it or support it.
But as stated earlier in this thread, I think it may provide a good opportunity for witnessing Christians to lead lost folks to the Lord - folks who have seen the movie and/or who are talking about the crucifixion.
My problem with the movie is the multitudes of believers who seem to have spiritual discernment in other areas but who, IMHO, lack spiritual discernment when analyzing THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.
Catholics are using this movie to lead people into the Catholic Church. They have no doubt at all about the Catholic emphasis and Catholic nuances throughout the movie.
They've even put out a study guide to help Catholics steer discussions about the movie into discussions about Catholic doctrinal beliefs.
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Lady Eagle but it seems we should send this guy some interesting reading instead of reading his views. "Nothing unscriptural" Now I am not familiar but didn't you list him as a baptist pastor, he should know better. Is this a good film, yes. Is it touching people for Christ, yes. Is there anything unscriptural in it, YES!!! Call it what you will but in all honesty please don't call it scripturally error free, because it is not.
Murph, you know I think the world of you, so assuming you've seen the film, will you please list ONE unscriptural thing. (not including the vulture/crow, cause I view that as historical, not unscriptural) If you did already on another thread, there are so many threads, I'm sure it's buried.
I have not seen the flim but I have heard that in the movie that Joesph (Jesus' Stepfather) is present at the cruixfition. This is not biblical.
Kayla, I did not see him there. John was standing with Mary (scriptural), but her other children were not there in the movie.
Not the appropriate forum, but will fuss at you a minute. I have NEVER used the word "heresy". I have and use a KJV1769 revision regularly (did tonight in the college class I taught). I do not attack the KJV; I attack vehemently the liberal KJVO as a divisive and schizmatic sect of fundamentalism.
I don't question their motives; I deplore their actions. I don't doubt their salvation; I dispise false doctrine.
Hope that clarifies my actions. I really do try not to be holier-than-thou. But I am a recovering Pharisee so it is deeply ingrained.
I'd say "hold my feet to the fire", but since I have to feeling below the knees, that won't help!
We are back to this? rbrent, or I, do not have to see the film to have an opinion. There are PLENTY of reviews from every angle out there.
Does Veronica not wipe Jesus's face and the image of His face remain on her cloth? Is that Biblical?
Isn't there an image of Satan with demon babies or something like that?
It is not necessary to go to a movie to be opposed to it.
I read a very interesting article on this topic. The web site was http://www.seekgod.ca/printgibson.htm
This article showed quite a few unBiblical parts of the movie.
Just thought Id share.
And no I havent seen the movie nor do I have any desire to.
Dr. Bob, I stand corrected. I had read the old thread that got resurrected this week by new posts, which contained your statements below.
You did not use the term “heresy” - sorry for my faulty memory of your words.
Dr. Bob Griffin wrote (on 4-30-2003)
Dearest LadyEagle, I am flattered that you think the world of me. Same to you sister
No I haven't seen the film yet, I am however confident that the event I referenced does occur there. The discussion can be followed here:
But basically it concerns the fact that Mel shows the stone rolling away and Jesus emerging from the tomb in that order. matthews gospel says otherwise. Is it a big deal, maybe not but for Mel to follow much of the Bible so closely what motivated him to alter this. Whether it is a effort to make some other statement or just a simple mistake I don't know but IMO it is enough to make void all the claims of error free. Don't you?
p.s. as you follow the thread I think it will interest you that even Daniel David admitted he was wrong after first calling it error free. Can you believe that!!!!!
Murph said: it concerns the fact that Mel shows the stone rolling away and Jesus emerging from the tomb in that order...
Murph, you don't SEE the stone roll away and Jesus steps into the light. You do not see him leave the tomb per se. It's implied. The stone rolling away is implied by a sound only. The light in the tomb was the presence of God NOT light from the outside as first mentioned. Just wanted to clarify that this is not SEEN.