The real reason for taking communion

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Frogman, Mar 11, 2004.

  1. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some quotes by a family member of mine who saw the movie the Passion:

    "The most important thing I got out of the movie is the real reason for taking communion, what it really means to eat the bread of life and drink the blood of Jesus"

    This movie has changed my life more than anything I have ever seen and the life of ****** also.

    This movie should be seen by everyone in the world.

    Not all 'preachers' are preaching the truth. (Reply to a statement made by me regarding the Biblical ordained means of bringing the lost to the knowledge of their sin and repentance and belief in Christ).

    My question is this: How/In what way did the movie portray the Lord's Supper?

    What was done in the movie to cause a Christian (Christian Church member--similar to Church of Christ taking communion each Sunday, but permitting musical instruments in singing) to make a statement like that?

    I asked this person this question, but that is when they told me most preachers don't even preach the truth.

    Can someone here explain to me what could have been meant by the statement, how was this topic dealt with?

    No debate or arguing, I am just wanting to know how the issue was handled by the movie.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  2. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know this must be a difficult question requiring much research to locate the Biblical presentation offered in the film. I do wish someone would answer this for me.

    Remember I haven't seen the film and I don't know the correctness or the incorrectness of its presentation.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  3. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    A good question for you five-timers. I'm sure you didn't miss the presentation for the real reason we take communion.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  4. vaspers

    vaspers
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    My guess is when in The Passion, Mary licks the blood off Jesus' feet, according to Mel maybe, that was the communion.

    Why do Catholics, and you know I'm not anti-them, make such a fuss about "mass" (non-biblical term) being the REAL blood and body of Jesus, then act content to ONLY eat the bread, whilst the Priest drinks the wine? Weird!
     
  5. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure yet. Our Church has bought out our local theater on April 6 to see the movie.

    But it could have been anything. Maybe they never made the connection between the cup and the Blood in their own mind.

    They may be just taking it too far to the literal side because of the stark reality portrayed in the movie.

    Without knowing all that they were thinking makes it hard to speculate.
    That's probably why you started this thread, huh.

    Strange things happen sometimes.
    Growing up, I remember a lady REQUESTING (funny, huh?) prayer for a soap opera Character!!!!

    What a laugh we had that night at home.
     
  6. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't want to spoil the film for you but when you do see it, since you are going to anyway, if you remember see what you can notice.

    I figure it is something to do with the scene with Mary, or thought perhaps even a short commentary after the film, I don't know.

    She is in a Christian church which practices communion each Lord's Day. So, maybe you are right and she had grown so accustomed to it.

    My point is that the movie begins in the garden right? Then the Lord's Supper portrayal was prior to this, right?

    So, I naturally wondered how the movie made a connection. If it is by commentary, then there is a real threat there, not to believers, but think of the non-believers hearing the literal belief of transubstantiation (I cant even spell it and I am a senior in college).

    Well any way, thanks for the comments.

    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]

    BTW, I would get a laugh out of that prayer request too. :D Unfortunately I am not sure I could wait until I got home. I have a sense of humor, even though many of my posts make me appear to be from Salem and wearing a powdered wig [​IMG]
     
  7. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am just working from memory here but I do not recall any scene in the movie where Mary licks Jesus' feet. I think I would have noticed that. Maybe I just forgot.

    The movie opens in the Garden, but there is a flashback scene to the last supper. It shows Jesus breaking the bread and passing the cup. It is clear in the scene that they are drinking wine (not necessary fermented, I won't go there right now) and eating bread not flesh and blood.

    I don't know Gibson's position on that. Remember that his Catholicism is not exactly mainstream.
     
  8. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    But he is a traditionalist so he would, I guess hold to the most conservative view of Catholicism.

    Regardless, the official position of the RC continues to affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation.

    Thanks for the Reply,
    Bro. Dallas
     
  9. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Frogman,
    I have seen the movie twice.
    I don't know why your relative made those comments.
    I saw a beautiful portrayal of Christ with His disciples in which He washes feet, brings bread to the table, gives them bread and wine (or grape juice if anyone is worried, it doesn't say). ;)
    It is not all shown at once but is in a series of flashbacks as Christ goes to the cross.
    In my mind it was used to show that Christ took up the cross and gave Himself for us. Those scenes do not, in my opinion, show Catholic theology other than many Catholics would agree that Christ took up the cross and gave Himself for us.

    Vaspers repeatedly talks about Mary and Jesus' feet. I saw NO connection between her kissing His feet and some kind of desire to get blood in her mouth, etc, etc, etc. I saw the portrayal of a mother who was overwhelmed with sorrow at what her Son was going through and was wanting somehow to comfort Him. There was NO hint I saw in the movie of tying this to Communion.
    On a merely human level, you see this in tragedies in which people are able to deal with things they would not normally be able to. Partly because they are in shock.

    Vaspers, you need to be careful in your zeal that you do not come across sounding like some variant of a Docetist. In which you sever the humanity of Christ away and make it of no import. In the Incarnation, Jesus, truly God, became truly Man, yet sinless, and He suffered for us in ways that we, in this Christian generation, are perhaps eager to gloss over in our presentation of the Gospel. We want the cross to be empty and to get to Easter Sunday NOW! We (generic)don't like the stark reality that our Lord and Saviour suffered and died for our sins. Yes, the prime way in which He suffered was in the spiritual separation from God the Father.

    So back to your question, Frogman. I thought the scenes beautifully portrayed Communion and did not see "Catholic problems". Your relative MAY mean simply that she has an increased awareness of Jesus' love for her. That of course leads back into all the discussions of isn't it a shame she didn't just read the Bible and get that.

    Karen
     
  10. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Movie doesn't really deal with any theology of Communion except show some short flashbacks to the Last Supper as Jesus is going to the cross. There are basically 5 positions on the Lord's Supper in Christianity

    1. Roman Catholic position - The Bread and Wine are mysteriously and literally transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus.

    2. Eastern Orthodox Position -The Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood of Jesus but we are not to define how and it is a mystery.

    3. Lutheran position - The Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood of Jesus but it remains Bread and Wine.

    4. Calvinist or Reformed view - The Bread and Wine remains Bread and Wine but one does partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus spiritually by faith when partaking.

    5. Zwinglian view - The Bread and Wine is Bread and Wine and is simply a memorial and nothing more.

    One will leave the movie with neither of these views being distinctly expressed. Your own background will probably determine how you view it.

    As far Vaspers...I would suggest he actually go see the movie before giving a review. There is no licking or drinking of Jesus blood by His mother anywhere in this movie.
     
  11. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote:

    I am just working from memory here but I do not recall any scene in the movie where Mary licks Jesus' feet. I think I would have noticed that. Maybe I just forgot.

    S&T:

    She states "Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you". She then grabs his feet and it appears that she is kissing them. When she comes away there is a shot of her with blood on her lips and face. This remains there for the rest of the movie.
     
  12. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Mother would not want to die in their Son's place? The great fear of most Parents is out living their children. That has nothing to do with Communion. Sure, she has blood on her face for Jesus feet are bloody. Yes, it remains there for the rest of the movie since it is near the conclusion of the movie that this happens.
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kiffin and all others defending this movie I wish to tell you each that I respect your beliefs and your position but I also want to ask you a question.

    Mel has openly stated this film contains Marian doctrine. Mel has openly stated this film was inspired not by scripture accounts alone nor personal experience alone but by the accounts recorded in from visions of several nuns (3). Among these is the work of Ann Emmerich. Of this work Mel stated that in reading this he first got the inspiration to make this film and many ideas to include were resulted from reading Ann's work, these he identified as ideas he would not have gotten otherwise.

    Now, how can you not see the danger in this film that these things are openly stated, concerning the inspiration of the film, the film is supported by evangelical protestants, so you know nothing about the Bible and can't understand it anyway, what do you read for understanding of these things?

    Any mystical superstious account provided by anyone who has put their superstions into print.

    I don't see any great evangelical tool in this film, I see nothing good at all.

    Not all Christians who view it are even in places where the teaching is solid enough founded upon scripture that they too are not in danger of being decieved, not eternally lost but deceived.

    There is no Biblical reason that can be offered to support so grand conclusions about this movie that it is as is commonly heard the greatest evangelical tool in the last 100 years. Or that everybody should see this film.

    The Bible, the word of God, the preaching of the cross, the gospel, what these ordained means all being of one source has not accomplished according to the will and purpose of God to our present day this film of emotional imagery will not and cannot accomplish.

    God is not the author of confusion and where the admission of the author readily states the source and body of the images and any portion of these do not align with scripture, there is found confusion.

    Is this just a movie? If so, stop assigning the power of God to it, let it be just a movie.

    If that was the reaction of Christians, I would probably have gone and seen the film myself and even taken my children one of which is already saved. But to put this film on an equal level as the ordained means of God, that is going too far in assigning to so much error a power which it can only possess in the minds of men.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  14. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Mother would not want to die in their Son's place?

    The problem with this is the book which this film is based on (Emmerich's writings) states that Mary's spirit was united with the spirit of Christ in his sufferings and desire to redeem mankind.

    This is making the reconciliation worked in Christ less than reconciliation because it is entered into with his mother.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  15. vaspers

    vaspers
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Karen, thanks for your replies on this topic, and yes we must always keep Jesus' humanity and His divinity in harmony in our minds and practices.

    Karen, hear this odd concept now: is Job both literal and a parable about Christ? Did Satan go up to God, after Luciferian fall from heaven, and act jealous of The Word, who was to be born as Jesus, and say to God, "Doth your Son obey You for all the blessings you bestow on Him? If He were a fleshly material entity, I'd tempt and seduce Him away from You!" And God said, "Well, that incarnation is going to happen, after I make Adam and Eve, and a few other things occur, so we'll see about that!" Just a strange idea I had whilst shaving or something yesterday.

    I'm always curious about the humanity/divinity synergy symbiosis osmosis or whatever theologians like to call it. Mite make a good new thread, huh?

    Bless you Karen. You're nice.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  16. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that would be a very good and important thread. I believe that this subject of Christology is neglected often in one direction or the other.

    It would be good to study this Biblically and perhaps historically compare what Baptists have believed.

    The primary differences I think are the considerations of both the eternal and the timely natures of Christ.

    Isaiah says a 'son is given' so was he the son from eternity?

    The Bible says he stood as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, so does this make connection to his eternal being?

    The Bible says He was in the beginning with God? Is this limited to his eternal nature?

    The Bible says he emptied himself. Does this mean of his eternal divinity until at the time of his baptism he received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit without measure?

    Or did was he conceived and possessed in the womb this outpouring?

    As he is the only Begotten Son of God was he begotten in eternity therefore brought forth, or is this humanity he possessed also eternal?

    Just some questions. I am going down to the Theology forum and throw rocks at that hornets nest :D

    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
  17. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Dallas, Always appreciate your comments even when I disagree. [​IMG] I have no doubt Gibson included his Catholic theology in this. Certaintly Gibson's Catholicism influences the scenes. It's a mixture of the Gospels and the DOLOROUS PASSION. In the in, It's a Movie! Just like The 10 Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth etc....


    Gibson I believe also left it open for both Protestants and Catholics to interprete these scenes by their own traditions. I have no problem Mary being called Mother in that I see it as respect for a godly older woman though no doubt Gibson's Catholic beliefs are there but Baptists often have Mary phobia and I like the emphasis on Mary and Mary Magdalene. If the emphasis had been Peter or Ben Hur the attacks on this movie would not be as severe I suppose. [​IMG]

    The Stations of the Cross are even presented in many Protestant churches this Good Friday (Though Protestants generaly have only 8-10 Stations while Catholics have 14 and sometimes 15 stations). Certaintly overall the Stations of the Cross are found in the Gospels though Catholics add about 5 extra stations which Protestant churches generaly omit.

    In all fairness, you have to be very familiar with Roman Catholic theology to even notice any of the elements in that they are very subtle. If the fact Gibson had done this anonymously I wonder if the criticism would be as strong? Some people even read in more Romanism than there really is in the movie. You want leave this movie think gee..I the Pope is right after all!

    Remember also that Protestants and Catholics are in basic agreement on the events of the Crucifixion. I am amazed how much Anti Catholicism effects people going to see this movie while at the same time they may be listening to a Praise and Worship CD produced by Charismatics in their car. I wonder if TBN had produced this movie if there would be the attacks that have been seen? !
     
  18. BillyMac

    BillyMac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    0
    My mother is in her mid 80's and a dedicated Christian to the endth degree. When I asked her if she planned to see the movie she replied an emphatic NO! Said she, "Why would I want to see my Lord and Saviour tortured and broken"???

    She told me then that every time she sees a depiction of Him on the cross, she wants to wrap Him in her arms and comfort Him, an emotion that any mother would exhibit for someone she loved.

    I wonder how many of those who have seen the movie reacted with the same engmatic empathy???

    (When I posted this same sentiment about not wanting to see the movie, I was a son who had become his mother in my thinking, and so I phoned her and asked her and sure enough her feelings were mine as well. I posted in the same vein as my mother would have if she were present here. My daughter has expressed recently that she said or did something that she thought she'd never say or do and then realized that she was becoming her mother. lol!!!)
     
  19. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Kiffin for the post. I also don't mind disagreement and think sometimes it does operate to keep us in check, you know so we don't get too extreme.

    I am one of those who don't watch TBN, don't listen to those CD's. Did, not too many years ago. But, more and more heard the claim that the gospel was being preached all over the world and that God couldn't save people if folks didn't support buying the next satellite, radio link, or some other something material that had nothing to do with anything.

    Sorry for being so negative sounding. But when some of these so-called missionaries enter into communist countries (done by the way as a courtesy to keep western nations and the UN human rights folks off their backs) they must print the sermons they plan to preach and present them to the government for editing.

    In N.Korea brethren and sisters too must meet late at night in the dark woods to keep from being found out. In the maylaysian islands brethren are constantly threatened with losing their property or imprisonment. In Bhutan the borders are closed to Christian groups except for financial aid projects.

    There is a group working to fight this persecution I use to take their news magazine. I can't remember their name. Doctrinally they are different than me. Their founder was a Lutheran pastor in Russia, a Jew converted just after WW II. When the communists gathered the church leaders he was there. When the communist party declared Joseph Stalin the messiah he was one who stood in opposition. See, the party didn't mind the preaching about Christ, they just didn't want the preaching of the true Christ.

    The best I remember the devil is subtle in his manipulations as well. Especially in a place of open Christianity. Compare the original righteousness of Adam and Eve, see the proportion of subtilty?

    I know everyone wishes I would just shut-up. My brother called tonight and asked if I wanted to go with him to see the film.

    Which one of you phoned him? :D ;) I talked to him about these things and he disagreed with me also. That is ok, we are still brothers.

    My point in all of this is that subtilty you mentioned.

    We can't stop it from coming, but we don't have to pretend it isn't.

    BTW, I don't watch TBN, Charles Stanely nor Billy Graham either. The easy-believism they promote imho is unbiblical.

    God Bless
    Bro. Dallas

    Just remembered the name of the group VOM--Voice of the Martyrs. There founder wrote Tortured for Christ
     
  20. MalkyEL

    MalkyEL
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi - I'm pretty new on the BB, but have been reading alot on the threads dealing with "The Passion". I ran across this article and hoped it would help answer some questions about the movie and Mel's perspective on the mass in it.

    Just a personal note. When I viewed the movie, I noticed that during the crucifixtion scene there was a flashback to the Last Supper when Jesus broke the bread and offered the wine to His disciples. From my perspective, it appeared to reference the Catholic observance of the mass and I immediately was reminded of their transubstantiation position.

    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/melgibson-thepassionofthechrist/movie-isa-mass.html

    An article appearing on the Roman Catholic news site Zenith.org says that “The Passion of the Christ” is a Catholic movie with a very Marian focus. The article is “A Passion of Violence and Love” by Vittorio Messori, Feb. 18, 2004 (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=49259).

    Messori is the author of the only book-length interview with a pope in history. He collaborated with Pope John Paul II in publishing “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” in 1994.

    Messori viewed Mel Gibson’s movie at a private showing in Rome a few days before it debuted in theaters in the States. He corroborated the fact that Pope John Paul II had seen the movie in an earlier pre-publication edition. The pope has been quoted as saying that Gibson’s movie on Christ is “like it was.”

    He notes that every evening during the filming in Rome, “a priest in black cassock celebrated an open-air Mass, in Latin, according to the rite of St. Pius V.”

    He says Mel Gibson is “a strong champion of the doctrine confirmed by the Council of Trent. That is the council that hurled 125 solemn curses against anyone who teaches that salvation is by the grace of Christ alone or in any other way contradicts Catholic doctrine.

    He says that Gibson produced the movie to be “a mass,” because he believes that the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the mass are one and the same, as taught by the Council of Trent. Pope Pius IV wrote a summary of the council’s teaching called “Pope Pius’s Creed.” It stated:

    “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ..”

    That is what Mel Gibson believes and that is what he sought to portray in his movie. He did this by directly associating the suffering of Christ on the cross with the events of the Last Supper.

    Messori says, “This film, for its author, is a Mass.”

    This is why the movie was shot in Aramaic and Latin. Originally Gibson did not plan even to include English subtitles. You say, “No one would understand it.” That is exactly the idea. Gibson believes in the old Catholic dogmas which teach that the mass can be said only in Latin and not in common languages of the people. Thus for centuries the Catholic mass was muttered by priests in a language that the average could not understand. It was merely a mysterious religious ritual that was observed and experienced but not understood.

    Likewise, Messori observes: “This film, for its author, is a Mass: Let it be, then, in an obscure language, as it was for so many centuries. If the mind does not understand, so much the better. What matters is that the heart understands that all that happened redeems us from sin and opens to us the doors of salvation.” He says further, “After a while, one stops reading the subtitles to enter, without distractions, in the terrible and marvelous scenes -- that are sufficient in themselves.”

    Salvation without understanding. This conforms to the Catholic gospel of sacramentalism and priest craft, but it is not the type of salvation we see in Scripture. Paul says, “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17). Biblical salvation requires hearing the message of the one true gospel and believing it from the heart. It does not come through mysterious rituals and powerful emotional experiences.
    THE MOVIE ABOUNDS IN SYMBOLS THAT THE POPE UNDERSTANDS

    Messori says the movie is a “Catholic version” of the faith and that for informed men such as the Pope and cardinals the movie is “a manifesto that abounds in symbols that only a competent eye can fully discern.” He says that two books are in preparation that will explain those symbols to the uninitiated. Apparently the movie is much more Catholic than even first meets the eye.

    THE MOVIE IS CATHOLIC IN ITS EUCHARISTIC ASPECT AND ITS MARIAN TONE

    He says that he “Catholicity of the film” (his words) lies especially in two things: in the “Eucharistic aspect” and in its “strongly Marian tone.”

    He observes that “The blood of the Passion is continuously intermingled with the wine of the Mass, the tortured flesh of the ‘corpus Christi’ [body of Christ] with the consecrated bread.”

    He observes that Gibson took “extraordinary intuitions” in borrowing things from the visions of Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich.

    In fact, Messori is so conscious of the Catholic nature of this movie that he states the following fear: “I believe, however, that the theological importance attributed to the Madonna, as well as to the Eucharist ... will create some uneasiness in American Protestant churches which, without having seen the film, have already organized themselves to support its distribution.”

    Perhaps he is right that the openly Catholic nature of the movie will cause “some uneasiness,” but he really has no need to fear that anything MORE than uneasiness will occur. American “Protestant churches” (by this term he is referring to all Protestant and Baptist churches), speaking generally and broadly, are far too accustomed to soft-peddling the truth, far too fearful of speaking plainly against error, to speak out boldly against the Eucharistic and Marian aspects of this movie.

    We close with this warning from Buddy Smith, pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Malanda, Queensland:
    What might be the results from this movie The Passion of the Christ? (1) There may be a handful of people genuinely converted to Christ. God does turn the follies of men to His own ends. (2) There will be many who will be influenced toward Roman Catholicism, especially Mel Gibson's form of traditional (Latin mass) brand. (3) The ecumenical movement will receive a great boost as undiscerning Christians miss the subtle Catholic innuendos of the film, and are motivated to participate in more and more ecumenical meetings. (4) We will see and hear more and more of the New Evangelical spokesmen (Focus on the Family, Campus Crusade, Billy Graham, and friends) encouraging interfaith dialogue with Rome. (5) And last, I believe that those who are ‘converted’ through the film will suffer the ‘birth defects’ of compromise with Rome and Hollywood through their exposure to both in the ‘film evangelism’ used by the churches to win them.”
     

Share This Page

Loading...