Thoughts from a Passion supporter

There is a difference in Paul and what the movie represents.

Paul preached the Gospel as ordained of God. Paul was established in the truth and in another place, Paul declared that he withstood false doctrine.

Making statements about how things appear is a far cry from being judgemental or condemning.

Bro. Dallas

 

SBC:

Paul's methods were exclusive to him???????

If you are consistent here, then you have discredited your own logic for we would have to categorize all methods from Scripture as exclusive to them. At that point, we are left with no biblical model.


S&T:

Paul walked away from great position as a Pharisee, and laid down his life to preach the Gospel. Mel has increased his stature and ca$h flow by preaching a distorted version of the Gospel. The devil was clear about bowing before him and rewarding people for doing so, and this will most likely be Mel's biggest movie. Go figure.

 

S&T:

If you cannot deal with the raised issues, please do not waste our time trying to divert the topic.

This issue is not about Mel. It is ultimately about the legitimacy of cultural methods to communicate the message.

 

SBC:

If you cannot deal with the raised issues, please do not waste our time trying to divert the topic.

S&T:

I have noticed that you are saying "our" and "we" a lot lately.

SBC:

This issue is not about Mel. It is ultimately about the legitimacy of cultural methods to communicate the message.

S&T:

The issue became about Mel as soon as he stated that the movie was true to the Gospels...it isn't.

 

You still have not answered the question, God can and will use whatever and whoever He pleases, Yes or No

 

SBC:

This issue is not about Mel. It is ultimately about the legitimacy of cultural methods to communicate the message.

S&T:

The issue became about Mel as soon as he stated that the movie was true to the Gospels...it isn't.

AMEN. This is not about perceived or real cultural issues. A cultural issue is whether or not Judson Taylor should adopt the dress and hairstyle of the Chinese when he labored among them.

The issue with this movie does not address that, if it were a matter of mere cultural issues, I would have little problem with the movie.

The issue is as Spirit and Truth have stated it. The movie is presented by its authors and received by most as a true presentation of the Gospels, it is not. This is the issue.

The minute that the movie makers openly admit and discuss the facts that this movie contains Catholic Mariology and is developed by a mixture of gospel accounts and the hallucinations of some nuns which are said to fill in the missing events not recorded by the Holy Spirit regarding the passion of Christ, this issue becomes whether or not the movie is denying the complete inspiration of the word of God regarding it in itself being the ordained means by which God has chosen and exhibited pleasure in bringing the lost to a knowledge of the work of redemption in Christ.

Whether the film is culturally or historically correct would mean our discussion would center around whether or not the dress of the characters, their speech etc. was true to the customs of the various peoples represented in the Bible. Namely, the Jews, Romans, Greek, and peoples of that world region.

The issue is cultural to the extent that religion is cultural. But to make that argument will we have to present the gospel so it agrees with the cultural religion of a Buddist, Hindu or Muslim, Sunni, Shi'ite, Animism, and the list continues.

The movie is not a cultural statement. It is a representation of what Mel accepts as truth, I can live with that statement made on one of these threads by Diane, but I cannot accept the praise of this movie as either a faithful representation of neither the presentation of the gospel, nor that it will or has received any unction from the Holy Spirit to adopt such falsehood as a means to propagate the truth.

This is like saying not only has man no confidence in the word of God as being inspired to that end for which God gave it, but also that we have finally convince him that he is going to have to things in such a way that are 'culturally' accepted if he wants to be our God.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

You still have not answered the question, God can and will use whatever and whoever He pleases, Yes or No </font>[/QUOTE]You have changed the question so that if I answer yes I am showing support for a false message and if I answer no I am denying the sovereignty of God.

The question is can or will God use this movie to save the lost? This is the question as I understood it, if this is not the question then please tell me the correct question so I can provide my answer.

Otherwise, my answer to the above question as I understand it is that NO, God will not use this movie because it represents falsehood. This movie does not present to the lost a true message of the Lamb of God. Instead it mixes with that message falsehood to establish and propagate a false gospel, false christ and will result in only false conversion.

Now, if you want to change the question to whether this movie can be used of God, I would offer this:

God can immediately and without any means quicken the souls of the elect for whom Christ died. Is this the ordained means as I understand Scripture to teach? No. Not in the way it is understood, in order to follow this belief to its end, the believer (one receiving this as the true means of regeneration of the lost) you or I would have to submit to the belief that there are some in the world now and from past ages who have never come to God through Christ. This means a Muslim, a Buddist, or whatever false religion anyone proclaims can as an individual be visited upon by the Holy Spirit and this much I do not deny, but the further end of this is that these same will not be presented with the gospel message in order they would come to humble repentance and belief in Jesus Christ. Instead these people would provide a moral character witness to the world (obviously witnessed in all religious systems) but never have a knowledge of the work of Christ.

I deny this as being the full truth revealed in scripture. In the end, the support of this movie with all its falsehood is the same doctrine, therefore I deny this as well.

If you want to believe that the children of God can come to him apart from Jesus Christ there is a group of believers who will gladly receive you and baptize you and they do possess and exhibit and preach a true gospel of Christ, yet they and myself cannot associate in this world due to the extreme nature to which they interpret the purpose of being both saved and called with a holy calling.

I hope I have answered the question in sufficient language to show what I believe and why I believe that regarding the error of thinking this movie is, will or can be used of God.

I in fact could more easily support the idea of immediate Spiritual Regeneration of the lost were those holding to this teaching willing to see the sovereign purpose of God to operate upon those of whom He alone has quickened to be either drawn to the teaching of Christ or to draw a gospel preacher to their geographic location. Otherwise I will remain where I am, steadfast in the faith that God has ordained that by the preaching of the cross to save them that believe and by no other means has he so ordained this truth to be the blessing of all nations, tribes and tongues.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

The movie is a cultural median. Does it have its limitations? Of course. No one has argued contrary. Does it demand a faith response in and of itself? Not necessarily. It merely provides an account, based upon one man's interpretation, as to what happened. Explaining the why is left to believers.

The movie is art. It is a cultural means to portray a story. Is it biblically accurate? For the most part (no one has argued contrary as far as I know). It is not intended to be an exact presentation of the gospel accounts. It is intended to be what it is -- an interpretation of what happened. Therefore it is a cultural tool that can be used to create dialogue (such as a painting of a crucifixion might do).

Cultural relevance transcends style of dress, etc. It also has to do with employing the means of a particular culture to communicate the gospel. In this instance, the movie is the means.

Again if we follow your type of logic to its natural end, we are left with no method to present the gospel other than reading strictly from the text. Even preaching itself would have to be excluded in that it might create a mental picture that is different than the actual events/person/etc.

 

Caiphas also expected the messiah. He looked for a ruling king because he did not see the purpose of reconciliation in Christ's work.

As for presenting mental pictures in the preached word, the preaching of the word is what the Bible declares to be ordained of God.

Why do you believe the presentation of the word of God is in need of such graphic images coupled with heresy in order to draw people?

With me, God's word is plain enough. To say otherwise is implying an insufficiency in that word.

IMHO.

Yes, culture does transcend dress; but this movie recieving such hype from believers as the greatest tool for evangelism is too strong a suggestion that the world is beyond the power of the word of God.

I believe the greatest impact this movie will ultimately have on unbelievers is the increase of interest in superstition, mysticism and the occult.


Bro. Dallas

 

You are still left in a quandary ... what type of preaching? Expositional? Topical? Narrative? Descriptive?

The emphasis is upon proclamation not upon a specific means. "Preaching" is a generic term in the NT that does not specify a particular style.

I don't. I just don't limit methods to my own preferences.

Why do you limit presentation to your own preference?

The same logic must be applied to your preferred style of preaching. If you are doing anything besides reading the Word (which is sufficient in your opinion) you are being inconsistent.

Evangelicals do have a tendency to overstate the case. But it is a great tool for evangelistic opportunities -- it creates spiritual dialogue.

That has not been what I have witnessed thus far. I know of several who have committed their life to Christ following the movie (and of course a presentation of the "why"...methods are useless w/o the message).

 

SBC, I will try to address your post later.

Bro. Dallas

 

You very well may be right; however, let me suggest that Christians who sit around taking this opinion without using the "opportunity" to witness to the millions who have seen the film just might be the cause. We have an unprecidented opportunity where millions have and will see this movie and are now open to discussion of Jesus Christ, whereas they would not have been open to it before. If we spend our time "slamming" the film, then we have missed that opportunity to witness.

That also gives us time to show the un-believer the differences between the movie and what we really believe, by using a Bible (gasp).

If we think that standing in the pulpit preaching the Word is all that is necessary to bring people to Christ, then someone is missing the point that Jesus made when he said: The Fields are ripe for harvest. This is NOT to belittle the sanctity and importance of preaching from the pulpit. But, we are to go out and reach the world for him and this is an opportunity like none I have ever seen to open dialogue. I have talked with MANY people about Christ who would not even discuss religion in general with me before they saw the movie. Now, for some odd reason, we can discuss it without fighting and guess what: They will Listen....because THAT is when we use the scriptures!

Whether we like it or not people ARE going to watch this movie--NOW, what US Christians do with this opportunity will likely be a question Jesus will ask us in the hereafter.

 

Hold on a minute folks.

Paul was very much antagonistic and opposed to all false idols, called them DEVILS. (1 Corinthians)...

...Paul never used pagan idols or temples or rituals to promote God or salvation.

That, like many elements in The Passion, is total heresy.

Paul pointed out a shrine to THE UNKNOWN GOD, said they were "too religious" (in a false way), and proceeded to teach the One True God, who does NOT use pagan idols or teachings to advance His Kingdom.

To quote a phrase from a poet is not to endorse all the thoughts of that poet. You can find good sentences in Freud, Plato, Buddha, Swedenborg, Krishnamurti, Derrida, Levinas, etc....

...but as Christians we cannot endorse all these thinkers' ideas without reservation.

The Passion as an evangelical tool? I don't see it as anything but ultra-violent, irreverent, masochistic mystical garbage.

There are good evangelical tools available...your mouth, the Bible, your heart, the Holy Spirit within, www.christianfilms.com, the many decent, reverent Biblical films, your church, your pastor, your church's evangelism program.

How many who rave about The Passion as an evangelsim tool ever participated in their church's evangelism programs? How many speak the Word to anyone they see with boldness and love? I will never lean on a Hellywood film as an "evangelism tool." Let Mel REALLY repent and get born again in the true scriptural sense, then see what decent, reverent film he makes then.

 

As is your perogative!! But why do you feel you are qualified and obligated to condemn someone who does?

Whether you are supporting this film or not, people are going! Should no Christian use this opportunity just because you don't like the film?

C'mon vaspers, get real.

Paul met these people right where they were, not where some ecclesiastical theory said they should be. That's all people who use this movie to reach others are doing; you have a problem with that?

I can see a parallel with a poster that mentioned that his preacher told him he was not saved since the KJV was not used in the process. (Don't remember the thread, but it was one of the dozens of KJVO threads) Anyway, you IMPLY just the opposite; "If you're saved as a result of the influence of this movie, then you aren't saved."

If you want to ignore any potential new converts that result from the film, that's up to you. But for God's sake (literally), don't hinder those that are working.

 

If you "just-want-peace" is it at any price?

I take your online name seriously since I am a Christian Pacifist since I got saved in a Mennonite church camp many years ago.

I agree with you basically. I praise God for people who get saved, and I don't care how they find Christ, nor do I condemn people for their taste in films.

I have often reproofed anti-Passion friends for being too harsh with Catholics and pro-Passion advocates. I just posted one to blackbird a few seconds ago. Go look at it and see another side of me you may actually like.

I just look very critically at any "evangelical" or "church growth" or "spiritual maturity" products, because many scams, heresies, cults, etc. are out there, taking advantage of unsuspecting believers.

I respect pro-Passion advocates, and do not feel they are one tiny bit less spiritual than anti-Passion critics. We can attack an evil thing in the hostile spirit of satan and think we are on the side of truth and goodness, when really we are in darkness.

We see people attack abortion clinics with bombs and kill abortion doctors. That's called fighting satan with satan, or fire with fire.

I've seen a church leader attack gay marriage, then use filthy language and crude, unholy accusations against a pure living Christian married couple.

We all, myself included, must be aggressive for truth, but speak the truth IN LOVE, or not at all. Love can be tough, wild, brazen, stubborn, and firm...but never mean-spirited, unseemly, tactless, hostile, holier-than-thou, obnoxious.

Bless you all, pro-Passion, anti-Passion, and lurkers who don't step in to join the debate!!!

 

Hello Brother Phillip,
I enjoyed your humor in the former post. I have copied that post and will answer it to the best of my ability. Regarding your most recent post, I have not taken offense at it, but please don't assume that because someone opposes this film they have not entered into the fields that are ripe for harvest.

The fact of apostasy in the last days (not claiming any more than what Paul stated, we have been in the last days since Christ) is spoken plainly in scripture. the fact that it will occur, I hope will not hinder Christians from standing against it. I view the opinions of this movie as a means as an affront to the word of God. This movie imho will have done more to prevent the lost from reading the word of God than anything I know of. When even Christians are drawn to this film multiple times it makes me wonder. If you don't have that conviction then I cannot give it to you, but as long as I do I must be true to that first and my emotions second.

I don't think Jesus is going to say to any who oppose this they failed him, unless he says to Paul that his opposition of a false gospel was a failure to him as well.

This film does not represent the gospel. Are some sincerely seeking? That is good, I have little confidence in the ability of so much deciet mixed with truth to ever be worked by the power of God to do as supporters claim.

I think many (but not all) are seeking for any way to make the message and even the church acceptable to the world. This is the wrong motivation.

Someone posted that scripture where Jesus said if they are not against us they are for us, I believe that was you. I didn't have time to respond today, but I also remember reading a scripture that states if they are not with us they are against us.

Our duty, imho, is to cry out against untruth and also sin. I believe mixing the truth with mysticism is at best untruth and therefore my duty to cry out against.

I use to work construction work, away from home working outside in all kinds of weather buring fibre optic telephone cable. I have discussed these things to all sorts of people from Catholic to Pentecostal to Baptist. I have worked in factories, you are right, no-one and sadly sometimes professing Christians are the worse, has time to praise God while at work. But nevertheless I have tried to persevere by his grace in what I have felt convicted in my heart ot do. On occassion I have offended some, on other occassions myself and the hearer have been able to rejoice together.

My point is that I am not opposing the movie out of anger or any kind of motivation except that I believe it is error to lift it to the level of the word of God and to declare it is or has or will do what the Word of God has not been able to do for the last 2000 years.

It is late and I am tiered and my eyes are starting to bother me so I need to go. I do want you to know I have enjoyed discussing this with your and all who have engaged.

I have not been offended in the least by anyone and trust no one has taken personal offensee at me or my remarks. I am not one of those preachers who preaches the truth and then apologizes because of it.

Either I believe something with a conviction strong enough to preach it or I don't. The heart will always betray us regardless of what we say we are.

I will continue to oppose this film. Even speaking neagatively about it to those in my local church who have gone and seen it; I do not expect any who disagree with me to apologize to me, nor should they expect me to apologize for my own convictions.

If this kind of untruth is all that is needed I can cite you from history ancient and more modern the beliefs of several nations of peoples concerning the nature of their leader being the son of heaven, or of a knowledge of how God walked among men and has now returned to his place and his trail must be walked by men or they cannot go to where he is now. These examples found in Asia in South American Indian tribes.

Does this mean they have the gospel message?

I know how I answer this question. How would evangelical Christians answer this question? I am not sure any more.

Good night and May God Richly bless you in your walk and service with him.

Bro. Dallas Eaton