Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this video
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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the
United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
James White. 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 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, 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
Sede -Vacantist group. Sede -Vacantists are individuals who believe that the chair is empty, that there is no current valid Pope, and they are, to my understanding,
Feniites. He has affirmed that in statements to reporters, in 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 of 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 an ecumenical movement, an 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 has 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 a Christian in a pivotal cultural vocation, but also one who self -consciously parlays his
God -granted prominence into a potent cultural statement for Orthodox Christianity, his willingness to risk his career in a secular and hedonistic
Hollywood on 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, the stigmatist,
Anne Catherine Emmerich, we'll be talking more about that over the course of the program today. The biblical crucifixion could pay huge cultural dividends in 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
Gospel? Is a portion of the Gospel all the Gospel? That is something people should be thinking about, and that we will 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, who oppose 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 who stand firmly for biblical authority and their historically creedal interpretations of it.
That last line is interesting, their 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 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 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 emphasis upon this concept 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 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 likely only enhance, today's new ecumenicity at which all
Orthodox believers can be elated, elated, yes, excited, happy, woot, in geek speak.
As Thomas Oden observes in his fine work, The Rebirth 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 it 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 that particular way, but that's evidently what it's saying.
Now, I looked at that primarily because of 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 article, and I do believe this article could have appeared on 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 face of 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 to this idea that the act of baptism, absent the gospel, creates
Christians. 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 lost balance at this point.
And this idea of baptism joining to 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, what 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 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 role of 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 the Gospel, that's been lost. It's disappeared. And as we will see in this article, which if you go to our website, 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 particular response.
I saw Andrew Webb's article a number of days ago, actually maybe last week, whenever it was first published,
I think that very day I saw it was there. I would like to, people have been asking this question, 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
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 and consumed anyone who aimed a
Polaroid or a digital camera at 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, that's not the point. The point is that any picture today would have to be inaccurate. The problem that I have with all of this argument about the
Second Amendment, yeah, let's not 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 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 class as 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 were interviewing
Mr. Gibson regarding 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 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 are 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 a person who has attended the film, you walk out of the film, you are weeping, 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, and it's made as a subclause in a sentence.
It's not even its own sentence. There is no dwelling upon the wringing 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 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 me, really.
Even if I did not want to see it, I would have to just simply because of the work that I do.
My library is filled 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 and so forth.
That's what I do. And so I will have to view it, obviously. But when
I do so, obviously I'm going to be hopefully seeing the very same things and I've 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 emails that came out was talking about how accurate, how accurate, how accurate 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 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 of the Cross represent, the vain repetition of the rosary, the alleged 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 book, which I don't think Mr. Johnson does have,
The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I 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 Dolorous 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, to have her defined as the co -redemptrix, co -mediatrix, and advocate for the people of God, you find on page 283 of the book,
I do not know whether Jesus really pronounced these words. This is after the John 19, 26, 27, where Jesus says to John, Behold 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 John to Mary as a son. Remember, these are visions. This is a woman who is a stigmatist.
She allegedly had the stigmata. On Good Friday, she would go through all the suffering of Christ, the beatings and the nailing.
These are allegedly spiritual things that she's experiencing. She sees 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, as 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 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.
Not that it appeared 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 of 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 the material, and it will be fascinating to see
Mr. Johnson's comments on the Emmerich material as we go along, but this is very much a part of the film, and Roman Catholics who know these things will see it,
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 Mary in the film? Wasn't that a tremendous thing to know more about the role that Mary had?
Well, yes, yes, 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, 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 going to see it happening.
Now, hurrying along, because I've almost blown the entire first half hour and haven't even gotten 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 jibe toward anyone who would question such liturgical things.
He talks about the release of the Passion film, and he's broken it down into the film's origins, responding to Mr.
Webb's concerns. And under the film's origins, I skip down to this paragraph.
In actuality, there are reasons to be extremely 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, or the canon?
We're not really told. This kind of rather vague assertion is very common in this kind of material.
There's 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 in the idea of a substitutionary atonement that satisfies
God's wrath as outlined by Anselm in Cardeus 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 Rome?
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 something that caused, well,
I guess it did cause the Reformers to completely separate from Rome, and I guess they were disfellowshipped. I guess they actually said a lot of 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 a part of the visible Church of Christ throughout the ages. Here is the result, here is the end result of Auburnism.
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 ask serious questions and get down to the brass tacks, 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 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, let me back up here again.
Calvin argued that the priests of Roman Catholicism were regular -day ministers in Christ's 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 that it's no longer the gospel that's relevant. It's no longer, and again, on the blog
I've got a number of quotes from Calvin where he talks about the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, the issue, his interpretation of Galatians, the issues with Rome, the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, but the gospel's gone here.
The gospel doesn't matter anymore in this perspective. It's instead, these are just simply historic criticisms.
They leveled 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 to this very carefully, it stands to reason that if 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, 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 as 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 we wonder why this kind of perspective 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 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 due them.
Really? So age and numbers means that we should respect the blasphemy of the mass, the blasphemy of status pastio and purgatory, the blasphemy of the denial of the soul of scriptura, the blasphemy, do we continue on, of the concept of the priest as an alter
Christus. We should respect these things. Because so many millions have believed, well there are 12 million
Mormons today, should we respect that? Oh no, no, that's different, well what about 100 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 soul of 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 a, you know it's interesting, Mr. Johnson hasn't seen this yet either.
But there is at least seemingly a 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 is 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 that Jaroslav Pelikan has successfully argued that Protestantism is meaningless without reference to Roman Catholicism.
Wow. Wow. Really? Well, 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 attempting 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? Or 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 when one cuts off any access at all to that which is presumed to be
Catholic, including films that could help Reformed churches better understand their brothers on the other side of the ecclesiastical fence.
If all we're saying here is, yeah, go ahead, go view the film so you can understand what the Roman Catholics believe so that you can then share with them the life -changing and freeing and liberty -giving gospel, but that's not what
Mr. Johnson is 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 grace, 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 Webb criticized the Passion because there 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 from Protestants and Roman Catholicism.
I don't think Mr. Webb was saying that just simply by going, he goes, whoa, wow, I'm just going to 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 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 film's 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's story. Now, it's interesting, there's a footnote that says Webb fails to provide any concrete details as to where the script is so influenced.
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 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 Anne 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 the dust cover of another book, the book that falls down is
Anne Catherine Emmerich's book, etc. This has been repeated in literally hundreds of articles on this subject all over the internet.
It's not supposed. It's a fact. Emmerich's work, The Dolorous Passion of Christ, that's not the title, it is
The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is a mystical portrait of the passion of Christ that was written sometime in the late 18th century.
That's all he says. He doesn't go into the fact that anything about Emmerich's beliefs, the stigmata,
Fifth Marian dogma, any of that. I cannot help but think that there's either a tremendous amount of ignorance or a purposeful desire to sort of clean this up and take out the obvious problems in regards to Emmerich's work.
Notice what it says. Because the work is Roman Catholic in nature and because it purportedly aids in changing the pattern of the passion story presented in the film itself,
Webb views this as a reason to avoid seeing it. Okay. We continue on.
In footnote number 13, trying to get through all this stuff and hopefully leave some time for you all to comment somewhere along the way, if you'd like.
He does quote, have an extensive quote, and interestingly enough makes the comment, and while this author is aware that Calvin would likely have been unsympathetic to Emmerich's work, one must surely admit to be consistent with the remarks made above.
One must view her and her work in a light that is something other than purely critical. Really? So we are to view stigmatists and visionaries from Roman Catholicism promoting the
Marian dogmas and all of the blasphemous doctrines of Rome, including the mass and the repetitious nature of it and all the rest of that stuff, now because of some kind of hyper -covenantalism, mono -covenantalism, we're to respect these now.
This is to be, you know, let's just all sit around and discuss this stuff. I wonder if Roman Catholic apologists sit around and discuss
Jonathan Edwards in a nice way. In other words, part of being Christian is being a part of the visible church and not only submitting to its authority but also conducting ourselves as the sheep of that one flock known as the church of Christ.
Well, I'd certainly agree with that. I just happen to believe that the church of Christ is defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of God rather than by anything else.
Instead, Mr. Johnson says the covenantal, trinitarian, and sacramental connection to Roman Catholics that Protestants have in the visible church demands that each identify with the other in understanding the role each part plays in the whole.
There you have the result of Auburnism, folks. The destruction of the gospel as the defining characteristic of the church.
There it is. I've been talking about this for a long time but there it is. Then there's a footnote attached.
Such squabbling over little details. Now listen to this carefully. This is someone who once did not believe this.
And you say, why are you... I mean, this guy is not a theologian. He's not... Why are you giving such prominence to this?
Because this is just one little aspect of where this is happening all over the place.
And we need to be aware of it and recognize the danger of it and respond to it.
Such squabbling over little details like the content presented in Emmerich's work. That's a little detail. Just a little detail.
I mean, that would be like... Let's not quibble over whether you use the
New World Translation or not. Or read the Book of Mormon or not. It's just little things. Come on. Such squabbling over little details like the content present in Emmerich's work compared to the gospel accounts of the
Passion of Christ seem to most folks outside the church like a new version of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Few remember what the fight was about but everyone remembers the shootout at the
OK Corral. Even most in the evangelical world also won't have the same qualms about the film as Webb does.
Well, duh. Those outside the faith certainly have no problems identifying both Roman Catholics and Protestants as Christians.
That's quite true. They also identify Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and others as Christians as well. It's not part of what he's saying but I'm just pointing that out.
An Islamic nation would have no problem executing both Roman Catholic and Protestant for proclaiming the name of Christ openly in its city streets.
In that context, fighting about the details of the story of the Passion and refusing to watch a movie because it might lend itself to a
Roman Catholic understanding of the actual Passion of Christ seems utterly devoid of any importance. If anything, taking such petty action in Boykind the film minimizes the common brotherhood we have in Christ.
Well, let's see if Mr. Johnson is consistent at that particular point. Would it not follow then that that very same criticism should be leveled at the
Apostle Paul? How dare he anathematize people in Galatian for false teaching?
Oh, we know that they were false brothers but they're true brothers because they're brothers. We've figured that part out but still,
Paul, how dare you during the period of the Church's persecution shouldn't you just hold hands?
The Muslims would have killed either Judaizers or Paul, right? Ah, well, you're just...
It's not fair using the Bible for something like that. Such incredible, incredible inconsistency.
Goes on to say, um, such outright charity is difficult for some to take but is necessary if one is to call himself
Christian. Having this understanding allows a person, by the grace of God, to avoid the overly critical and separatist notions that Calvin wrote against, like when
Geneva split from Rome. If it is understood, and listen to this, listen to this, folks, hear this, sound like Tim Staples there for a second.
If it is understood that Emmerich is a sister to Protestants then there is less need to cast a critical eye toward her work and avoid anything having to do with it.
Now this is coming from a person, as far as I can tell, never even bothered to buy the book. But you see,
Emmerich, stigmatist, visionist, Marian promoter, all the rest of that stuff, she's our sister.
Because she was baptized properly. The Reformed Church could use a less critical spirit, especially with those who are brothers and sisters together in the body of Christ.
You know, the whole thing about whether regenerate or non -regenerate, elect or not elect, it seems to have disappeared.
The Gospel is truly gone. No longer relevant in any way, shape, or form.
But reflecting on the work of Emmerich and viewing the passion of the Christ only helps one remember who he is as a
Christian and not merely as a member of the Reformed faith. Reflecting and meditating on different themes present in the
Gospel and understanding how saints of the ages have accomplished similar reflection ought to spur a desire to better understand grand historical events such as the actual passion of Christ.
The Gospel narratives are to be valued as well as the historical reflections of Christians throughout the ages, whether by pen or in film.
Hmm. Sounds like the Gospel narratives, those given to us by God by inspiration, are just part of what we can reflect upon.
That's a theme I've heard. Where have I heard that? Oh! I know where I've heard that theme before.
That's what Rome says when the written portion becomes a part of the greater overarching theme of sacred tradition.
Emmerich is a part of the mystical element to Christianity that should be valued not because there is such great truth to be called from her work, but because she was a part of the church and her name and work among the saints of God and his church is part of the tapestry of the heritage of all
Christians including those of the Reformed faith. Let's not mention the fact that she lived after the
Reformation would have firmly agreed in the identification of all those of the
Reformed faith as heretics, but that's a part of the tapestry of the heritage of all
Christians. And what is this Christianity? It is Christianity defined by what?
The Gospel? No. It is defined by baptism, by a sacrament, by the external activity of man.
Under the film's theology, one wonders if Pastor Webb would have the same critique ready for the
Gospels. Now this is after... Let me back up. You need a little bit more of the context here. Webb goes on to indict the
Passion because it focuses on the physical suffering of Christ as opposed to the once -for -all propitiation
Christ accomplished on the cross. And we have a quotation from Pastor Webb at that point. The response to this is absolutely amazing to me.
It shouldn't amaze me too much because it's obviously the fact that for Mr. Johnson, the issue of the once -for -all sacrifice of Christ, the issue of the
Mass, which denies that, is no longer relevant to what is and what is not a Christian. The Gospel is not a part of this.
And here we have the quotation. One wonders if Pastor Webb would have the same critique ready for the
Gospels, which oddly enough, present the Passion and death of Christ and its narratives with less reference to its ultimate meaning than he might like.
Is Webb's criticism really justified when there is one... Listen to this. This is... Man, this comes straight out of Steve Schlissel.
Is Webb's criticism really justified when there is one book of Romans, which outlines the doctrine of justification, and four
Gospels that present alternating narratives of what actually physically happened 2 ,000 years ago?
Should we indict the Apostles' Creed because it dares to mention the suffering of Christ, His death, burial, descending into hell, and eventual resurrection, without saying one whit about justification by faith alone, the once -for -all propitiation of God's wrath, and the other pet issues important to a theologically heavy presentation of the
Reformed Gospel? Do you hear that? You see, justification.
The once -for -all sacrifice of Christ. If this is no longer definitional of Christian truth, and the
Gospel, and what's important to Mr. Johnson, and that's tremendously sad.
Tremendously sad. He goes on to quote from Cardinal Newman, as if Cardinal Newman defines
Roman Catholic theology, and goes on to say all these things happened, and portraying them in film as they were, as being faithful to Gospel accounts.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the actual film goes far beyond what is found in the
Gospel accounts. I'm actually getting tired of reviewing this, so I'm going to try to wrap it up here.
Listen to this. Both the terrible extent of the suffering of Christ and His passion, and the issue of Mary's role in her son's death are issues which would call one back to the reality of the narrative.
Focusing, listen to this, focusing exclusively on Christian theology makes one no better than any
Gnostic that walked the face of the Earth. Correct theology is not everything. It is not the sum of the
Christian faith. Portraying the events of the Gospel is just as important as teaching the theology which runs behind them.
Wow! Wow! What a major shift in such a short period of time.
I guess we can portray the events of the Gospel without having true theology behind them.
I'm sure God's honored by that. This next section, I told people on the channel I was going to have a hard time reading this because this is a section of all of this.
I am offended by the denigration of the Gospel that is a part and parcel of this article.
But this is the section that is just absolutely ah!
Well, in fact, Mr. A. O. Min, man in control, has a wise idea.
I'm going to take a break and then I'm going to read it. It's going to give me an opportunity hopefully to grab a little something to drink. Then I'll read this section.
We'll start taking your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back. ...such a rarity today.
So many stars strong and true quickly fall away.
Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.
Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.
In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the
Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including
Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.
In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.
The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality.
Get your copy in the bookstore at almen .org. Millions of petitioners from around the world are imploring
Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.
In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.
He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed queen of heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the
Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer, is fresh insight into the woman the
Bible calls blessed among women, and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.
You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at aomin .org
This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.
The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.
The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m., and the worship service is at 10 .45.
Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday, and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00.
The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.
If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org,
where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.
Please see the complete disclaimer at https://sites .google
.com Please see the complete disclaimer at https://sites .google