Is Mel confused?

Well It looks like Mel and George W. have the same world view. Very sad!!

 

I don't think he really knows what he blieves.

 

Hey, I thought we as CHristians were supposed to blame things like this onthe "liberal media". At least, that's what I was taught in Sunday School. Seriously, this is likely less of a case of what Mel believes and more a case of what reportes decide to include in televised or written interviews. In the Diane Sawyer interview, I didn't get out of the context that he was saying all non-Christians go to Heaven. But, of course, the one line makes a good sound byte. In fact, I brought up this very topic in another thread when someone was condemning him for the quote about only Cahtolics going to Heaven. Interestingly, my post was nearly ignored in favor of other posters choosing to attack the man's percieved "catholics only" stance.

I've long since come to the conclusion that if some Baptists don't like him (and hate of Catholics is practically a Baptist Distinctive to some), then they're going to take whatever sound byte they wish to foster their pharasical stance.

 

Mel Gibson is not a spokesman for Chrisianity nor does he want to be.

I saw his interview with Diane Sawyer. Overall, he did well against Sawyer's arrogance. Mel has nothing to apologize for. However, his statement about salvation is not in line with traditional catholic belief.

 

Dear Spirit and Truth,

If you are referring to posters on this board among the "glassy-eyed", you do need to read their posts more carefully. Posters such as Daniel David, Joseph B., Daniel, Diane,and I disagree with each other quite often. In our support for the movie, and reasons and level of that support differ among just the people I listed, I don't see anything like what you are concerned about.

As far as broader Baptist life, the President of the SBC said it was a worthwhile movie. So have the presidents of several SBC seminaries. So has the head of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. So has the director of missions in my local association. So have many ministers in my town that I respect, Baptist and otherwise. And on and on. None of them has said it is more than a movie or replaces the Bible or preaching. They have all seen the movie. That, of course, does not automatically mean they are right. But, "glassy-eyed" and just wanting to get along? A few moderate Baptists lurking from other boards might question some of that. (I am not saying here that every action of people listed in this paragraph is correct with regard to moderates.)

Karen

 

You know I do like Mel Gibson, I am actually a big fan of his, I watch a lot of his movies,and have several of them, so it's not something personal against him. Actually if he were my neighbor I'd debate him persoanlly.

 

I think Mel Gibson is really neat guy. From the interviews and shows I have seen, he seems like he would be a really nice and fun person to be with. He is a talented actor/director etc and the production of this movie reveals how talented this man is. I also respect him, not for what he believes, but for the way in which he stands up for what he does beleive.

Even so, doctrinally, he is dead wrong. If you want to go see an "entertaining" movie than you would probably enjoy most of his films. But, if you are looking to get "sound doctrine" out of this movie you are not going to find it.

Mel is confused because the church he follows is confusing. They teach that there is no salvation outside of the catholic church and then teach that there is a chance for "some" people outside of the catholic church to be saved.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

So catholics can make a dogmatic statement either way and be within the guidelines of their own churches teachings. Of course, to the rest of us we realize that both can't be true. There is one way to salvation and it IS apart from the "Catholic Church."

~Lorelei

 

Oh people, the Anti-Christ is going to be a very like-able, cool, nice guy. What good is all that? Serial killers are often called by their moms and neighbors "really nice guy." So what?

I don't evaluate spiritual products by what SBC bigwigs say about them, or by any human standards. I like the preaching of John Hagee and Erwin Lutzer, but they don't determine my opinion about anything.

Everything must be judged by only one standard: is it biblical or not? Does it conflict with God's Word, or does it agree? Period.

 

Likewise, if you are looking to get sound doctrine from "Jesus of Nazareth", "The Gospel of John", the "Jesus" film, "King of Kings", or any other film, or if you're looking for sound doctrine from any hymn, chorus, commentary, periodical, or poem, you're barking up the wrong tree. Doctrine comes from scripture and scripture alone. However, all these things can plant a seed.

That pretty much sums up just about every denomination out there. There's much about Baptist which is confusing to non-Baptists, and even many Baptists. It simply goes to show that Jesus' purpose was not to establish a religion, but a relationship. It is we, the flawed humans, who have created denominations, fellowships, conferences, and conventions. All are imperfect, and can no more provide a sound relationship with God than a movie, book, or song can provide sound docrtine.

If you're looking to find such things in a movie or in a church, you're looking in the wrong place. However, if those things assist your doctrine or your relationship, then, as the NT tells us, let each person be convinced in his own mind.

 

Johnv, good post, one of the best I've ever seen on the Baptist Board. I wish everyone had this important insight. Very well written. From one computer guy to another: way to go, bro!

Though I always hope that a Christian sermon, hymn, film, book, denomination, etc. will be based strictly on Biblical accuracy and princliples of true spirituality, and I rejoice when I do find them...

...ultimately, the only source we have to trust and rely on is God's Word as taught by the Holy Spirit within us.

 

Well, Johnv took the wind out of my sails...
however, we can clearly acknowledge that many main and plain things in scripture are twisted in RCC doctrine, and those aberrations are reflected in the film.

That said, if a viewer is equipped to discern truth (scripture and scriptural principles) from error (treating mary as elevated above other humans) I see potential for usefully reaching people at an emotional level.

Mel has me twisted in knots by his commentary. The preview DVD has him speaking in ways that, though confused, sound as if he has a true and saving relationship with Christ... but the Sawyer interview has me ask if that could be true... and the other interview is very discouraging at best (salvation only through the Church)

I suppose all we can conclude that to all appearances he is sincere. But as we know many people can be sincere, and sincerely wrong.

 

I havn't seen the movie,and probably won't,but all that i've read from board and the news media has lead me to believe that very little attention was paid to the spiritual torture He suffered for us all.Is it not true that Christ only cried out to His heavenly father during the time of darkness on the cross? The physical suffering i think caused Him less grief.
Just a thought from a self taught layman

 

In several interviews, Mel has demonstrated by his doctrine, that he is not resting in the work of Christ to reconcile himself to God, and hence, is not a regenerate person.

You than have to ask, if he is not truly regenerate, it is impossible for him to do anything that pleases God, and his motives ultimately are selfish, because that is consistent with the nature of the unregenerate person.

Can God use the movie, yes, is it pleasing to God or God honoring, I would have to say No. It is truth mixed with error. Many involved in its production including Gibson have remarked on the elevation of Mary in the film, (Gibson does believe Mary is a co-redeemer) and it focuses on the physical suffering of Christ, and ends on the cross. Typical Catholic focus, but just as wrong in the movie as it is in the church. There is a reason in Baptist churches we have crosses with Jesus conspicuously missing from them.
Jesus death is an important part of the Gospel message, but it is only a part of it, and its difficult for people to understand the purpose from Gibson's film. Thousands of people also underwent the suffering depicted in the film, that is not what makes Jesus special.


I am amazed at the number of evangelicals and protestants that are pouring money from their own pockets and those of their church into a Catholic propaganda film. Certainly, no one comes out of the movie understanding the key truths of the Gospel, that it was their sin that put Christ on the cross, and that his suffering had a purpose, and it was more spiritual than physical. Christ had to endure the shame and pain of having his father turn away from him and the guilt of the sins of the whole world, past present and future. Much harder to take than the physical suffering imposed on him by the Romans.

 

superdave: I agree. Mel shows no sign of true salvation, resting in the accomplished work of Christ for eternal salvation, not trusting in any "church" or religious institution.

Mel said "we are all children of God" referring to non-Christian faiths, and "Christians just have an easier ride [to heaven]" which is a lie from hell.

Jesus did not say "I am the easier ride to heaven, easier than Buddhism, Judaism, Samaritanism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, etc."

What a foolish, inaccurate thing to say on national television. Mel a saved Christian man? Not that I can see.

 

Dear superdave,
Neither you nor I are KJVO, but by that line of argument, the King James Bible does not please God because Erasmus in putting together the underlying manuscripts and the Anglican translators who persecuted Baptists were probably not all Christians. I think that you are overapplying the true concept that we do not earn our salvation.

In my opinion, the film does point clearly to Who Jesus is and why He went to the cross. No, it is not a Gospel tract. No, the physical suffering was not the most important part, but it was very important, and we Baptists, in our emphasis on the empty cross can fall into the error of downplaying the humanity of Christ. In my opinion, the movie did point to more than the physical suffering.
People and churches around here that use the movie as a witnessing tool do not claim it answers every question. Or that you watch it, have an emotional feeling and you are a Christian.

Karen

 

Why didn't these churches rally behind the word-for-word film rendition THE GOSPEL OF JOHN as a great evangelism tool?

Evangelicals supporting a distorted, heretical, grossly violent film is ridiculous.

I guess if people are too shy, selfish, or ignorant to witness, any thing that "gets lost souls talking about Jesus" will be praised.

Too bad their godly, Christian lives full of the power of the Holy Spirit wasn't impressive enough, so they have to let a Hellywoodish movie get lost souls talking about Jesus.

God save the church!