“ The Standard ” John,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (see below on the thread) the standard for evaluating something is not what results attend it, but what God's word says. David was strengthened as king by the death of Ishbosheth --but he killed the men who killed Ishbosheth. Similarly God may over-ride something to greater good (Romans 8:28 tells us that He does do this) yet still not approve of that thing.
Amen to what you say Raymond. It is more than possible to be anti this or that without any grace in the heart. Of course, when grace comes into the heart, then we will be graciously anti certain things. By the way, if you get time I'm interested in what you say to my 3/28 post to you.
“ Great Sermon! ” When peoples lives are changed because of what they have encounted from this movie,(as in a born-again experience) I would be careful not to judge. God's ultimate plan for a lost and dying world is perfect and is without fault or failure. The bible is clear in that it says "No man can come to Me except the Father draw him," . If this movie is off track then who is turning peoples hearts to the Lord.
Remember God is not moved by our opinions, He longs for a people who are obedient and who are willing to testify on His behalf.
People aren't changed by our opinions or our criticisms, but they are changed because of our obedience and the lifestyle that we outlive, a lifestyle that glorifies our heavenly Father.
Isaiah 45:9
"Woe unto himwho strives with his Maker!
Let the potsherds strive with the potsherds of the earth!
Shall the clay say to him who forms it "What are you making?"
Or shall your handiworksay "He has no hands?"
“ Re: 'The Passion' ” The important question for all of us is, whether you approve of the movie or not, is "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?"
“ Great Sermon! ” I wonder how many pastors would encourage their members to see "The Terminaor", "Rambo", "Blood Sport" and other movies that portray such extreme violence. I wonder how many pastors would encourage their members to attend public executions, lynchings, hangings etc.
By pastors endorsing this film, eventhough it may have a Christian theme is basically promoting the same sensationalism of these blood and gore movies.
If you think about it, we have a sick and depraved mentality to want to see 2 hours of blood and gore and paying money to see it.
“ Great Sermon! ” the movie is a great witness tool! it helps people to understand what Jesus did on the cross for them. i watched the movie and i cried. it is a reality check to christians and a no-excuse maker (of not heating about Jesus before judgment day) to sinners. God bless you all. Mel Gibson,please stay a christian.
“ Words Continued ” Raymond,
I think I see what you're saying. Mr Martin is applying the Scriptures to a specific instance, the Passion movie, and is making that application as binding as the general principles on which it is (correctly or incorrectly) based. Do you feel that he is wrong in this because he is incorrect (a) in his condemnation of the Passion, (b) in that he does not have that kind of authority, or (c) in that even "due and necessary" inferences from Scripture are not the word of God? I think with regard to elders that Hebrews 13:7,17 tells us to please them --of course, if they're the right kind of elders if we please Christ we will please them. But I do agree about the importance of communion. Theology is for fellowship with God. If doctrine does not result in a deeper love for God, and a greater practical conformity to His image, then we are not getting it. I think that Christians who have a strong emphasis on getting their doctrine right are making a huge and basic mistake if they are not at least equally careful to make sure their attitudes and actions are right. Of course, that sounds like I think I live up to that --I don't.
I'm glad we agree on so much.
“ Westminster & Words ” I like your spirit. For every positive there usually is a negative. Yes, there is a down-side to liturgy,viz going through the motions. I certainly do agree there is a place for apologetics. I have read and have in my library many great Christian thinkers. And of course, 1 Pt.3 exhorts us to give reasons for our faith. But with all the emphasis on the centrality of preaching is we need to be careful we don't confuse the application of Scripture with the Scripture itself. This, I believe, is the case in Martin's message. The closing comments of this message sets out to bind the Christian liberty of Christians from seeing the movie. And we all know what really matters in the end is "pleasing your elders." I think one of the great up-sides to liturgy in worship(Book of Common Prayer)is that it not only unconsciously protects from man-centeredness but also encourages not only commitment but communion.
The real problem with the Church at Ephesus (Rev.2) was commitment with little communion. Knowledge is important. Good preachng is important. People need to leave in joy & freedom without feeling elders are peeping in the windows of their lives to see who is going to see "Passion" or not. They need to please Christ and stop worrying if they please their "elders".
“ Westminster and Words ” Raymond,
That is an interesting point with regard to the dangers of a verbal emphasis. Of course, I suppose that in a liturgical environment you could also have bad "liturgists". I know this was a complaint from Evangelical Anglicans, that the unawakened clergy went through the liturgy with no understanding and no feeling. I guess my feeling is that the liturgical approach presents possible dangers as much as anything else. Bringing us back once again, it seems, to not looking at anything in determining "religious" questions except the word of God.
I am not sure that I understand the part of your post beginning with "Greg Olsen" to the end. I gather that you see a liturgical "storytelling" approach as the antidote to dead, prooftexting, inactive theology. Perhaps it's a remnant of that spirit left in me (!), but I can't help wondering what your chapter and verse is for that. I think polemics and apologetics are probably some of the most difficult things we ever have to engage in while maintaining a Christian character --but I don't think that the example of Christ, or of His apostles and prophets, leaves us any choice but to try. Would you disagree with that?
Looking forward to more,
Ruben
“ Wesminster Continued ” Thank you. I am enjoying it too. I think part of where I am at is that I have come to appreciate some of the ancient liturgy of the church. This enables me to visualize the faith. It also marginalizes the central importance of the giftedness (or lack therof) of the preacher. It holds the cult of personality in check because it is worship that is is the primary focus- not the preacher. Like it or not,and as much as we decry man-centeredness in the Reformed Faith, because of the great emphasis on the verbal aspect of our faith, we are linked too much to one personality. Greg Olsen in his book "Mosaic" (about central beliefs of the Christian church), goes as far as to say that the loss of liturgy brings with it a new-gnosticism, i.e. exaltation of knowledge. We can so find a book chapter and verse for everything (eg. the message on Gisbon's movie) that we end up squeezing the life out of our faith and even of life itself. Unfortunatley too, we get many prodigals gloriously saved only to turn them into the elder brother. That is why Reformed churches that preach on the gospels cannot leave off the polemical tendency of their teaching because they don't "tell the story" via a liturgical calender. Every message becomes an argument for the faith rather than an acting out.
Regards
“ Westminster Continued ” Raymond,
I understand where you're coming from. Personally I haven't noticed this kind of imbalance in the churches I've been in or messages I've listened to from men like Al Martin or Dr. Lloyd-Jones. I don't even know that I've noticed the NT predominating over the OT.
I know that in the Shorter Catechism love is comprehended under goodness (along with mercy and grace), just as wrath is comprehended under justice, but the Confession does spell it out at more length (naturally).
I'm enjoying the discussion.
“ Westminster ” I am speaking in broad generalities-there are essentially two ways one can view the Christian faith: (1) as a story to tell (2)in argument to present. By and large, those in the Reformed tradition tend to present Christianity as an "argument" (in a good sense); those in more liturgical settings (Lutheran, Episcopal..)present the faith more in terms of a story line,i.e.(liturgical calendar). Liturgical churches tend to major on the Gospels; Protestant/ Reformed tends to major on the Epistles. I am talking about a cultural mindset. Obviously we need both.
I will look again, but as I recall in teaching the Confession a few years back, I don't recall seeing a reference to "love" in terms of defining God. I will look again, and if wrong, thank you for your correction.
“ Westminster ” Raymond,
I'm not trying to pick on you --I'm just wondering what Reformed circles you're in that shy away from the Gospels. Also, I wanted to point out that the Westminster Confession does include "love" in its listing of the attributes of God in the same way that it lists His holiness: it says "most holy" and it says "most loving"
WCF II.1
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.
“ Nonetheless ” Raymond,
The primary thing I wanted to get across is simply this: the Bible is the only standard we have to judge this film by: in this case, we have a twofold method of measurement: the film's legitimacy, and the film's doctrine.
With regard to Christmas and Spurgeon, I believe that those points are irrelevant to what I said. I also do not believe that there is a strict correspondence between an oratoria or requiem and the movie. Music is very clearly Biblically warranted. If all that can be said about the Biblical warrant for this movie is that many other things do not have Biblical warrant, that tells me nothing about the movie's legitimacy.
I agree, though, that the regulative principle will apply primarily to the corporate Christian life, that is, the life of the Church qua church. In the setting, however, of churches renting movie theatres to see this film as (one of) their Sunday service(s), the regulative principle would kick in.
On a personal level, it seems to me blasphemous for any sinful human being to personally portray the One who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." We are those who "go astray from the womb, speaking lies"; how can we depict the One "who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."?
“ Theology ” BJ,
The Bible tells us that God has chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth! (2 Thessalonians 2:13) That is the reason theology is vital --saving faith is faith grounded on the truth. Now that doesn't mean that your theology has to be complete: but it does mean that on certain essential points it has to be correct. On that criteria, I don't think your assertion that JWs are out there preaching the Gospel is at all correct. They are out there, all right; it's the rest of the statement that is Biblically false. The Gospel is theology, or doctrine. It is historical facts, and their meaning. Without theology, without doctrine, there is no Gospel; with bad theology, bad doctrine, you have a false gospel.
“ Still Concerned About 'The Sermon' ” For those who want to apply "the regultive principle" to Gibson's film, let us remember that there is no biblical warrant for celebrating Christmas at all- and on Dec.25th in particular. For who like to intone Spurgeon as a basis for some of their actions, let us remember his words (and I am paraphrasing), "...should we celebrate Christmas? Is it a chance to preach the Gospel? Then let us use what the world may hold favorable as an opportunity to preach Christ." Gibson was using an artform to present part of the Gospel narrative. In a similar fashion Handel was using an artform (oratorio) to present the story of salvation. If he was presenting himself behind a pulpit or at a lectern in a Sunday School class then I can see then why we would want to hold him to a much stricter standard.
For those who want to castigate Gibson for this, then why is there not a similar protest from Christians in the reformed camp at every performance of Mozart's Requiem?
“ Troubling Sermon! ” It troubles me when I see the emphasis that we put on theology today. It seems that in theology is the key to salvation itself. John 3 16 now reads whosoever has the right theology and doctrine shall be saved. Any conversion in a catholic church is not valid because it dosent comply with my theology. Whats interesting is that while we're busy teaching, preaching and urgueing about theology. There are catholic churches open all day for anyone to come and pray and pour there heart out to God, and JWs are busy preaching the Gospel. But in our vail all to no avail of course because it dosent line up with my theology and is therefore of the devil himself. Yes theology is important and I thank you for standing up and reveling bad theology. But lets remember what Jesus said of the teachers when He walked the earth. May it never be said of us
“ The Crux of the Matter ” I think it's important to realize in any discussion of the merits of the "Passion" that there is only one standard by which it can be evaluated: it is not, how useful it is; it is not, what Gibson's motivations were; it is not, how much of a blessing people find it; no, the only standard is the word of God. There are many arguments on these comments about what a blessing it is, or how God can use it. That is utterly irrelevant. The question is only this: "Has God warranted it." God is to be worshipped in the way that He says; and for us to invent our own ways of worshipping him is simply arrogance. It boils down to this: either there is Scriptural warrant for a dramatic depiction of Christ in a movie (and then, of course, it must speak according to the law and testimony or there is no light in it -Isaiah 8:20) and the idea is all right (whatever the merits, individually, of this particular movie is a narrower question); or, movies of this type are not warranted. If they are not, not even a perfect doctrinal content and them starting a revival is a justification for using them. The word of God is our only guide for knowing what is acceptable in the worship of God and the life of the church!
“ Disturbing Sermon! ” Im looking forward to seeing the movie, I know alot of catholic theology is messed up, But I pray that God have Mercy on some of our prodestant teachers may there eyes be open that they may see and understand whats really important, A relationship with God
“ Careful! ” Allow me to review my earlier comments. After reading some article on "The events of last days", one must be very careful about movies like these ones.
Satan will not suddenly sprang on believers in the last days but will creat a platform for the Anti-Christ. If this movie is catholic in nature (I have not seen it) then we must be careful! I know that Catholics are better than mosques but wrong is wrong and there is no in-between!
4/5/04 1:34 PM
