February 24, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Mel Gibson, Roman Catholicism, and the Passion of the Christ

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line. It is Tuesday evening the 24th of February that means it is the evening before ash Wednesday in the Roman Catholic calendar and the release of The film the passion of the Christ.

Mel Gibson's film that of course we've talked about a number of times before in regards to what it's going to be presenting the issues relevant to it and we will be discussing that this evening, but especially as individuals who call themselves reformed are Responding to the film and specifically responding this evening to this movement that is calling itself Reformed Catholicism, whatever in the world that is I Refer for example to the words of Andrew Sandlin On his website his blog for the 20th of February.

He makes some general observations. And he says Gibson is a prime example of Christian cultural leadership. Not merely a Christian in a pivotal pivotal cultural vocation. But also one who self-consciously parlays his God-granted prominence into a potent cultural statement for Orthodox Christianity.

I just want to stop and just remind you in case you have not been keeping up. You've been in a cultural lead mine For the past number of months. When we speak of Mel Gibson and none of us are able to look into his heart.

We can only go with his profession and the facts concerning his profession. He is more Catholic than the Pope. He is to my knowledge an individual who has had to build his own Church. Because the Roman Catholic Church is not Roman Catholic enough for him.

He is a part of a splinter group an ultra traditionalist Roman Catholic group that is as my Understanding is a set a vacant IST group set a vacant IST there are individuals who believe that the chair is empty that there is no current valid Pope and They are to my understanding phoenix.

He has affirmed that in statements to reporters and regards even to his own wife that outside of Roman Catholic baptism there is no salvation and During the filming in Italy he had to fly priests in from elsewhere because you could not find a sufficiently conservative Latin mass priest there in Italy to do the daily and sometimes twice daily masses.

Unfortunately, it seems the vast majority of folks who are commenting on these issues are ignorant to Roman Catholic theology. They don't seem to have any problem with this concept of the mass. There is this willingness to close the eyes to the meaning of the mass and relevance to the atonement.

This was one of the issues that I have said many times. I am concerned about in regards to the film and its creation of a ecumenical movement a Ecumenical impetus, but what is amazing is that people who should know or at one point in their life did know?

What the Roman Catholic Mass is about they too have put on the blinders of tradition and hence we have here Andrew Sandlin a well-known writer. Saying that Mel Gibson is a Christian now is he meaning this in the covenantal sense of that particular movement?

That because he's received a Trinitarian baptism that he is a Christian and He would then say oh, but his beliefs in the mass and things like that completely separate him from salvation. Or is he actually referring to him as a Christian?

And certainly in this context not merely Christian in a pivotal pivotal cultural vocation. But also one who self-consciously parlays his God-granted prominence. Into a potent cultural statement for orthodox Christian is willingness to risk his career in a secular and hedonistic Hollywood.

What is by all accounts a bold largely accurate visualization. Not sure what the largely accurate means. Does that include the input from the visionist to the stigmatist and Catherine Emmerich? We'll be talking more about that over the course the program today of the biblical crucifixion Could pay huge cultural dividends and giving the gospel a new opening among a growing number of Westerners jaded by the false hopes of secular hedonism.

Well that would be very nice. Except are we really presenting the gospel in the film or are we presenting a highly emotional? representation of only a portion of the gospels a portion of the gospel all the gospel that is something people should be thinking about and that we will be have to be thinking about and Certainly 10 -15 years down the road.

We will be able to look back and see what the results were. He goes on to say. That I happily acknowledge, I'm again reading from Sandlin. I happily acknowledge a relatively small segment of Christians mainly conservative Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.

Reformed Baptists who opposed the movie on theological grounds the depictions of Jesus violate the second commandment of the Mosaic law. I do not agree with this assessment, but I respect all believers to stand firmly for biblical authority and their historically creedal interpretations of it.

Hmm that last line is interesting. They're historically creedal interpretations of it. So I'm not sure what a non creedal interpretation would be but anyway. Less noble it seems to me is the more than a little anti Roman bigotry that has accompanied some of the criticism of the movie.

No references are given so there's no way of knowing who's being referred to here as a proud Protestant. I stand against certain Roman Catholic Distinctives. The papacy synergistic soteriology the sacerdotal mass.

But I gratefully acknowledge the Roman Catholic Roman Church's historic contribution to basic Orthodox theology and to Christian culture. Roman Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are the three main sectors of Christendom.

And we do no good by denying to any of them its rightful place. Now of course that causes us to have to give consideration to the idea of basic Orthodox theology. Not including such things as sola scriptura justification by faith or the one-time Perfect atonement to the Lord Jesus Christ these become Roman Catholic Distinctives that we disagree with.

I think this is one of the clearest issues that is coming out of this particular discussion. Is that many of these individuals who at least at one point in time? we would have identified as as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us in defense of the central truths of biblical teaching and biblical theology now because of this federal vision this This emphasis upon this concept of of Trinitarian baptism creating covenant.

Now these issues have been reduced to the idea of well. These are just distinctive beliefs. We may disagree with them. But they really do not Identify the central issues of of the gospel. He goes on to say in fact.

And this is my chief point. The Christian groundswell created by Gibson's passion is largely the result of and will like will likely only enhance today's new ecumenicity at which All Orthodox believers can be elated elated.

Yes excited happy moot in a geek speak. As Thomas Oden observes in his fine work three birth of orthodoxy the new Ecumenicity is far removed from the old ecumenical movement epitomized in the World Council of Churches.

He goes on to talk about what it allegedly involves and Discusses it says it is an event in which I am proud to participate and play a small role. Gibson's passion is a testament to this valid ecumenicity and let us all pray that God uses to further his son's righteous kingdom in the earth.

Now of course I guess that would mean since the primary people pushing this Viewing of the film from a Protestant perspective are individuals like Lee Strobel and very much a seeker sensitive evangelical perspective.

That Andrew Sandlin would be including them in the mix. I'm not really certain if that's the case at all they certainly would not view themselves in in that particular way. But that's that's so evidently what's saying now.

I looked at that primarily Because the fact that I am going to be responding on the program today in fact We've begun half an hour early so that I will have time to respond to an article posted by Kevin Johnson called Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my and I found in this this Article and I do believe this article could have appeared in almost any number of Roman Catholic websites without too much difficulty.

There certainly is no defense of reformed theology found here it is Very ecumenical indeed, and I guess this is the the face of the the new Ecumenical movement the reformed Catholicism that we read about on various websites today from people who again We once thought were very much on our side in Seeking to evangelize Roman Catholics.

It doesn't look like Evangelism of Roman Catholics is an issue anymore now. It is dialogue and discussion and learning from one another which sounds very much like the old ecumenism to me, but anyway I Read this article and was shocked Offended deeply offended by many of the things that it says.

Thankfully I wasn't by name anyways referred to but I'm still deeply offended at the statements that it has and so Looking at this will help us do two things. It will help us first of all to evaluate the result of Auburnism of the federal vision that's the new term being utilized for the teaching from the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church people such as Douglas Wilson Steve Schlissel and others in regards this idea that the act of baptism Absent the gospel creates Christians and not regenerate Christians, but Christians now you may say excuse me.

But that's a bunch of doublespeak and it is that's the whole point. People who once demonstrated balance in their understanding of Biblical terminology and the need to be clear for some reason have have lost balance at this point and this idea of Baptism joining the Covenant very much a part of Presbyterian Covenant theology of course Has become imbalanced in this particular movement to the point where Trinitarian baptism is what joins you to the Covenant?

So it makes you a Christian, but you may not be elect. And that's why you have all the discussions of John 15 the apostasy passages and things like that that goes along with that. But what's the result of all this?

What's the result? Of this this kind of imbalance is it just simply a little tempest in the teapot a little disagreement between Southern Presbyterians and Northern Presbyterians and Northern Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists and things like that.

I don't think so the complete and total shift of perspective of Understanding of the the role the gospel the centrality of the gospel the fact that there is no such thing as Christian unity Where you do not have the gospel of Jesus Christ that you cannot have Foundational unity in the church outside of the gospel that's been lost.

It's disappeared and as we will see in this this article, which if you go to our website You'll you'll find a link to this article on the blog you can look at it for yourself. I'm not going to read the entire thing you can read it for yourself.

I'm going to read sections of it. This is a response to Andrew Webb's article which also you can find the link within this this particular response. I saw Andrew Webb's Article a number of days ago actually maybe last week whenever it was first published.

I think I that very day I saw it was there. I would like to people have been asking this question. Let me even before I start reading. Mr. Johnson's comments. To say I do not agree With many of my Reformed brethren who are saying you cannot see this film simply because it violates the Second Commandment.

I do not accept that argument. I Do not believe that if this was taking place if the if the gospel is taking place today. If it had taken place in the history of the world during a period of time where there were cameras where there were Filming devices that fire would have come down from heaven consumed anyone who aimed a Polaroid or a digital camera the Lord's direction.

I do not believe that he would have objected to a group picture of he and the disciples. Now some may say well, but that's not the point. The point is that any picture they would have to be inaccurate the problem that I have With all of this argument about the second and second to the Second Amendment.

Yeah, we get into that Second Commandment. Is that Jesus Christ became flesh? Taking a picture of him as a human being is not attempting to create an image for worship. Which is the issue of the Second Commandment?

And so I I don't buy that and hence would disagree with mr. Webb on that. I would disagree with Pastor Martin in a sermon that I linked to on the blog page. Because that is the fundamental issue there as well.

I just do not agree with that particular Perspective and so I would agree with mr. Johnson In regards to His disagreement with mr. Webb on that issue, but that isn't really what this review is about. The things that are said in this review are significantly more Focused upon Roman Catholicism and the role of Roman Catholicism in the passion movie and let me say that as I've begun to see and I've posted on our website the comments of some of the individuals who have Viewed the film now, and these are individuals who actually have a significant amount of Understanding of Roman Catholic theology and some level of discernment unlike many of those who have seen the film and Absolutely hardly endorsed it.

I have to admit sadly. I was listening last night after classes I was driving home to focus on the family interviewing Mel Gibson. And I did not see any evidence of any meaningful discernment on the part of those who are interviewing Mr. Gibson regarding the the origins and sources of the film let alone Roman Catholic theology.

That shouldn't surprise us too much. Roman Catholicism is not well understood by most Protestants and hence That is why I believe very firmly there are many Roman Catholic apologists Who are absolutely beside themselves?

With excitement and Thanksgiving. That's church after church after church that these individuals know are Led by individuals who have no knowledge of Roman Catholic belief they may hold to Elements of anti-catholic bigotry based upon ignorance based upon having read a jack-chick-check once.

They are absolutely gleeful that these churches are buying out blocks of tickets and sending all their people to go see this. Knowing that those churches are not preaching with such clarity the doctrine of justification the doctrine of the atonement.

They they're they're led by individuals who have very little knowledge whatsoever of what Rome actually teaches and hence They are unwittingly I admit Priming their people for the apologetic approach that will come after this film, and what will that involve well?

Let's imagine for just a moment Person who has attended the film you you walk out of the film. You are weeping you are have met you are emotionally exhausted from seeing the crucifixion scene and of course the crucifixion scene includes a great deal of Extra detail that is not biblical.

It is not a part of the revelation God has given to us. I have to admit that one of the things that pastor Martin mentioned that I did find to be a valid concern is This Seeming desire to go beyond the gospel accounts again relying upon the Anne Catherine Emmerich material but even then I have noted for many many years that the Crucifixion in the gospel accounts is included as a subclause.

There is no graphic depiction. There is no dwelling upon it. It simply says and he was crucified. It's made as a subclause in a sense. It's not even its own sentence there is no dwelling upon the ringing of the nails or anything like that in the inspired scripture and.

So what do we derive from that should we derive anything from that? I think it's something that each believer should definitely consider, but this this film is. From what I'm reading from individuals I plan Lord willing I am going to see it.

I have to see it. There's no choice for for me really even if I if I did not want to see it I would have to just simply because of the work that I do my libraries filled with with With quite simply with blasphemy blasphemy from Jehovah's Witnesses blasphemy from Mormons blasphemy from Roman-catholic authors blasphemy from Hindus and Muslims and so on so forth.

That's what I do. And so I will have to a view it obviously but when I do so Obviously, I'm going to be hopefully seeing the very same things and have seen in many of the clips already The very same things these individuals with the sermon are noting and that is there is much more Roman Catholic influence than we were initially told those first emails that were sent out and I truly am wondering how many of them were actually valid but Those those emails that came out was talking about how accurate how accurate how accurate?

The the film really was well, it's accurate to the sources, but the sources include non-biblical materials. There's much more Roman Catholicism in this film than we knew. There's the the stations of the cross.

Which any Roman Catholic seeing it will recognize a Protestant is going to be completely and totally ignorant unless you're a former Roman Catholic anyway of what the stations across represent the the vain repetition of the Rosary the alleged the giving of the Rosary by Mary and Extra biblical revelation and all the things that come along with that.

There is the material of Mary Splattered in the blood of Christ saying I wish I could die with you. I Have the the book which I don't think mr. Johnson does have the dollar is passion of our Lord Jesus Christ did find it interesting that at one point.

Mr Johnson criticized. Mr. Webb for having the title of the movie wrong and yet later on when Mr. Johnson mentioned the name of the Emmerich book. He got the title of the book wrong. It is the dollar is passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and just looking through here you have the descriptions of Mary at the cross if you're familiar with the movement to have Mary defined the fifth Marian dogma defined to have her defined as the Coredemptrix comediatrix an advocate for the people of God.

You find on page 283 of the book. I do not know whether G is really pronounced. These words is after the John 19 26 27. Where Jesus says to John behold your your mother says to his mother behold your son.

I do not know whether Jesus really pronounced these words, but I felt Interiorly that he gave Mary to John as a mother and to and John's who marries a son. Remember these are visions. These are this is a woman who is a stigmatist.

She had the allegedly had the stigmata on On Good Friday. She would go through all the suffering of Christ the beatings and the the nailing and these are these are allegedly spiritual things That she's experiencing.

She sees these these visions. This is really the foundation of these things and please remember Mr. Gibson carries a relic. He believes it is a relic. Yes relics has in the days of the Reformation and all those things that all of the Reformers reacted against so strongly.

He carries a relic from this woman with him. So she is saying in similar visions a person is often conscious of such things which are not written and words can only express a portion Of them although to the individual to whom they are shown They are so clear as not to require explanation for this reason.

It did not appear to me in the least surprising that Jesus should call the Blessed Virgin woman instead of mother. I felt that he intended to demonstrate that she was that woman spoken of in Scripture that was to crush the head of the serpent and That then was the moment in which that promise was accomplished in the death of her son.

I knew that Jesus by giving her aim as a mother to John gave her also as a mother to all who believe in him. Who become children of God and are not born of flesh and blood or the will of man? But of God neither did it appear to me surprising that the most pure the most humble and the most obedient among women.

Who when saluted by the angel is full of grace immediately replied behold the handmaid the Lord be it done to me according to thy Word and in whose sacred womb the word was instantly made flesh. That she when informed by her dying son that she was to become the spiritual mother of another son.

Should repeat the same words with humble obedience and immediately adopt as her children all the children of God. The brothers of Jesus Christ. These things are much easier to feel by the grace of God than to be expressed in words.

I remember my celestial spouse once saying to me everything is imprinted in the hearts of those children of the church who believe hope and love. Now there is every element of the Marian dogmas. Marian intercession.

Mary is the neck moving the head of God through whom the grace of God. I mean anyone who knows anything about the Marian dogmas knows that that is steeped in it. And this is part and parcel of material and it will be fascinating to see mr. Johnson's comments on the emirate materials we go along but this is very much a part of the film and Roman Catholics who know these things will see it.

The Protestants who are ignorant of these things will remain ignorant of these things until. Until after the film these apologists approach. They approach these individuals and say well. What did you think about the about Mary in the film.

Wasn't that a tremendous thing to to know more about the role that Mary had? Well yes, yes, I that really did add something to it. Well, you know I can tell you more about Mary and then begins the pitch then begins the presentation.

Well. Here's the book, and you know your church doesn't believe these things, but you know here's more about Mary. And I said, I don't it's in the blog. It's somewhere in the back. Predicted three years down the road seeing these folks sitting on the coming home network on EWTN talking about all this very stuff.

Just mark my words. We're gonna see it happening now. Hurrying along because I've almost blown the entire first half hour and haven't even gotten to the to reading this yet. He begins mr.. Johnson begins his discussion on the decidedly Christian holiday of Ash Wednesday obviously immediately wanting to start off with a little bit of a of a Jive toward anyone who would question such liturgical things.

Now he talks about the release the passion film. He's broken it down into the film's origins. Responding to mr.. Webb's Concerns and under the film's origins. I skipped down to This paragraph in actuality there are reasons to be extremely skeptical.

Skeptical that one shouldn't view the film because it has Roman Catholic origins first and foremost this criticism seems hollow. When one takes the time to understand that the Reformation itself has its origin in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not only was the Reformation birthed out of the late medieval Roman Catholic Church the Reformed Church owes much of its theological substance to Rome. Well what is that theological substance. Does that mean that there are similarities in the fact that we both honor scripture for example.

Even though in different ways of the canon. We're not really told. This kind of rather vague assertion is very common in this kind of material as a footnote added. This author feels that acknowledging this debt would go a long way in dialoguing with Roman Catholics.

One of the clearest examples Of the Reformed Church's debt to Roman Catholicism can be seen the idea of a substitutionary atonement that satisfies God wrath as Outlined by Anselm in Cardeas homo, so I really wonder if mr. Johnson actually does believe that substitutionary atonement in the Reformed perspective which of course involves An idea of election and procrastination of particular people the one-time atonement of Jesus Christ is actually what Anselm was talking about.

And that we somehow derive this from Rome. What specifically do we get from the Trinity? That was before there was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church this kind of extremely simplistic and naive View of Rome is very common in this new Reformed Catholicism that seemingly is attracting Alleged Calvinists and people who allegedly once strongly believed in the soul of the Reformation.

Even though the Reformation leveled serious charges against both the doctrines and practices of the official Roman Catholic hierarchy. During its day does that mean that other people didn't believe those things?

I'm not really sure there was still much that both Communions held in common with each other the historic creeds and their doctrinal content the ecumenical councils. The first six centuries or so of the fathers all of these things provide the Reformers the common ground To discuss their own Catholic neighbors the legitimacy of the charges they leveled against the papacy and others in attempting to reform the church in.

Other words this was an internal conflict. This was not Nick. This was not something that caused well I guess it did cause the Reformers to completely separate from Rome. And I guess they were disfellowshipped.

And I guess they actually said a lot of very very very strong things about Rome and being the Antichrist and things like that. But we'll just skip over those elements. Consequently the historic reformed position on Rome is that the Roman Catholic Church is part is a part of the visible Church of Christ Throughout the ages.

Here's here is the result. Here's the end result of Auburn ism I I mean I honestly think that this is the end result you can make all of the distinctions you want and The folks up at new st. Andrews and the folks up in that movement for a long time.

They've been playing with stuff like the ecclesiastical text. They've been talking about this stuff for a long time when you start actually trying to make. You know ask serious questions to get down to the the brass tacks the this the fine-sounding words.

Don't have the ability to answer the questions and hence here. You can say well, okay, you know. There's there's certain differences, but you know we're all Christians we're all Christians here and He Goes on to say this is such a plain fact.

We don't even need to document it. Those of you who followed some of the dialogue we had and saw some of the quotes from Calvin. Might question just how plain a fact it is, but time is short. Let's continue it on here in short the Reformers.

Well, I mean back up here again. Calvin argued that the priests of Roman Catholicism were regular day ministers in Christ Church. I wonder if he would let them into his church and that the Trinitarian baptism of Rome was a Christian baptism that entered Infants into the church.

Well that's certainly the covenantal perspective isn't it in short the Reformers viewed the Roman Catholic Church as Christian. Even in spite of all of the historic criticisms. They leveled against the Catholic Church of their day.

Now notice the Notice that it's no longer the gospel. It's relevant. It's no longer and and again on the blog I've got a number of quotes from Calvin where he talks about the gospel the gospel the Gospels the issue is Interpretation of Galatians in the issues of Rome the gospel the gospel gospel, but the Gospels gone here.

The gospel doesn't matter anymore in this perspective. It's and said these are just simply historic criticisms. They level against the Catholic Church of their day. No, they said the issue was the gospel, but that doesn't really help us to be ecumenical today now does it?

It stands to reason. Listen this very carefully it stands to reason that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church. Then her theology is also Christian. Well I guess that would be what would follow huh if the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church and her theology is Christian and We have then a footnote.

We should note this Note noting this does not impinge on either the historical criticisms of the Reformation. Regarding the abuses of Rome prior to during and subsequent to the Reformation. Nor does it mean that reformed Christians must view Roman Catholic theology is correct simply because it is Christian.

But we do have to view it as Christian so to believe that Jesus Christ is brought down from heaven at the command of the sacerdotal priest and Offered upon the altar over and over and over again. Never perfecting anyone for whom that sacrifice is made is Christian theology.

It may not be as good as our theology, but it's Christian theology anyway. And you we wonder Why this kind of perspective Hat makes no inroads in dealing with Roman Catholicism. Other than just simply to make Roman Catholic apologists like us better.

While they remain Roman Catholic apologists. Amazing thing. Notice this this phrase because the Roman Catholic Church is so old. Well how old is the Roman Catholic Church? It seems that mr.. Johnson now accepts wholeheartedly the claims of Rome to be the ancient church.

But when would he mark the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church? I do wonder we're not told because the Roman Catholic Church is so old and her beliefs have been held by so many. At the very least the reformed community should give that particular communion and her theology the respect do them.

Really so age and numbers. Means that we should respect the blasphemy of the mass the blasphemy of status-posteo and purgatory the blasphemy of the denial of soul scripture the blasphemy. Go do we continue on of the concept of the priest as an altar Christus.

We should respect these things. Because so many millions of believe that well there are 12 million Mormons today. Should we respect that. Oh no no that's different. Well, what about a hundred years from now or 200 years from now or 500 years from now?

Does heresy become respectful as long as it is believed by many over a long period of time? You cannot say such words and still believe in something called solo scriptura. You simply can't. Well a movie such as the passion of the Christ at the very least ought to be used by reformed churches to better Understand Roman Catholic theology faith and devotion.

Well, there's it you know it's interesting mr.. Johnson hasn't seen this yet either. But there is at least seemingly recognition here that what we're viewing is a Roman Catholic representation. But you see folks that's not.

What you see in the promotional material that has been sent to churches all across our land. That's not what Lee Strobel saying. Lee Strobel doesn't sit there in that Presentation and say hey. Let's all get together and see a Roman Catholic presentation of the crucifixion.

No what they're saying and Specifically asserting there is That it isn't a Roman Catholic presentation. This is one. We can all go to we're all holding hands. We're all understanding this. Hmm. Well that's interesting we do have the assertion Yaroslav Pelican has successfully argued That Protestantism is meaningless without reference to Roman Catholicism.

Wow. Wow really well we are we are definitely reading the words of someone who is way far away from where he once was. Way far away from where he once was. And that the Reformers were attempting and that what the Reformers were attempted to do during their watch was to restore and retain the Catholicity inherent in the historical church while protesting against the abuses of the day.

What is this abuses of their day. Are we just simply talking about selling indulgences here? Are we saying that the gospel itself was at stake the Reformers kept saying that? But that seemingly has fallen out of the recounting of later centuries.

Such things are difficult to learn. One cuts off any access at all to that which is presumed to be Catholic. Including films that could help reform churches better understand their brothers on the other side the ecclesiastical fence if all we're saying here is yeah.

Go ahead. Go view the film so you can understand what Roman Catholics believe so that you can then share with them the life-changing And freeing and and and liberty giving gospel, but that's not what mr.. Johnson saying.

Is it? That would be one thing, but that's not what is being said. Skipping down a little bit farther, but the goal for both sides shouldn't merely be a matter of understanding each other better through our common bond in Christ.

Protestants and Catholics should work together towards unity not against it again folks here is the living out of The federal vision. What is our common bond in Christ with Roman Catholicism. Evidently it is baptism.

It is creeds. But not the gospel. Not the cross not the atonement. Not the meaning of faith not the meaning of justification our common bond in Christ. How is a person who is embracing all those things that Mel gives in his brace?

How is he in Christ? Well That's one of the questions. Isn't it going down below the idea that going to see one movie. Now he mentions that web criticized the passion because it might be an increase and there might be converts something Similar not quite to what I mentioned before.

The idea that going to see one movie will result in the conversion of men and women to Roman Catholicism Greatly exaggerates the unintended role such a movie would take while uncharitably minimizing the other factors present in a person's Consideration to make such a drastic move in process and Roman Catholicism.

I don't think mr. Webb was saying that just simply by going as well. Wow, I'm just gonna go and become Roman Catholic. I Know how Roman Catholic apologists operate. I know that considerably better than mr. Johnson does and That's not how they operate.

No one is suggesting that it's that simple, but it is very clear that by Taking this position. I don't know how mr. Johnson would ever be able to respond to Roman Catholic apologists who would utilize this film in the way that I mentioned earlier in our discussion today.

Avoiding a film because one naively thinks it will lead people to Rome is merely expressing a lion lions and tigers and bears. Oh my paranoia that the reformed community could do without. Well, we're not into paranoia, but it is interesting that Once you begin saying things like we are Brothers and sisters in Christ apart from the truth of the gospel.

That's a dangerous thing indeed under the films script. Andrew Webb's second reason for avoiding the passion is centered on the assertion the script itself adds extra biblical elements to the passion story.

Now it's interesting. There's a footnote that says web fails to provide any concrete details as to where the script is. So influence one wonders other than what has been reported in the media how pastor Webb has come across this information.

Well Mr. Johnson if you ever listen to this You might want to like view Mel Gibson's interviews you might want to view his interview that aired just a week ago yesterday and The one on EWTN where he says this.

There's no question about this. The role of the Emmerich book is not even questioned. No one's even arguing this. Mr. Webb is exactly right and it's very clear that mr. Johnson simply hasn't done his homework.

Webb makes an issue out of Supposed reliance by the film's author on the work of a Catholic nun named and Emmerich. It's not supposed Mr. Gibson has confirmed this over and over and over again the beginning of the film in the sense of him buying the library.

Pulling one book down the dust cover catches on dust cover another book the book that falls down is Anne Catherine Emmerich's book Etc. I mean this is this has been repeated in literally hundreds of Articles on this subject all over the internet.

It's not supposed to fact Emmerich's work the dollarous passion of Christ. That's not the title. It is the dollarous passion of our Lord. Jesus Christ is a mystical portrait of the passion of Christ. It was written sometime late 18th century.