Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 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.
Good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line. T plus one, I guess, is what you call it. February 26th, the day after February 25th. And here we are and we all are still in one piece. I managed to get in and out of the theater without any difficulty.
And probably some of you did too, but others of you haven't yet made that journey. And some of you are choosing not to make that journey. And I was speaking with my fellow elder at church last night. And he mentioned he had seen a local pastor of a large church, a very large Southern Baptist church.
And they had a showing there at the church. And they had even done a satellite hookup interview with Mel Gibson, amazingly enough. I'm not sure how in the world you do things like that. But anyway, I was unaware of this.
But he told me that in the comments, the pastor had said that it would be immoral of a Christian not to go see the Passion. And let's face it, folks, that is an element of what's going on out there. There is two extremes.
There is the one side that has made it very clear that because of various reasons, sometimes in regards to the Second Commandment, for other various reasons, that it is absolutely immoral to see the film.
That there is no middle ground here. You simply could not possibly come up with a basis for seeing the film. If you're a Christian, it would just be absolutely positively wrong for you to do that. That's one side.
But on the other side, and it's a much, much, much larger side, that would extend. Well, let's just put it this way. I mean, if a church shows it in its sanctuary, if a church buys huge blocks of tickets, if a church engages in that type of thing, there is, let's face it, very few of those churches.
Now maybe your church did. If your church did, I'd like to hear from you. Taking your calls, your impressions today, 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341. If your church took the time to inform people of what they're going to be seeing, of the issues, of the incipient and rather prevalent Roman Catholic element within the film, the theology behind the film, if there is a discussion of atonement and the purpose of the atonement and the issue of wrath and sin and all the rest of that stuff, and in fact encouraged you to be praying for Mel Gibson and praying that God would open up avenues instead of people just sitting there and shaking his hand and treating him like a Christian, but as a brother.
I guess that term Christian just has almost no meaning anymore in our society, doesn't it? We need to come up with something else. Now brother doesn't have any meaning either. Fellow, regenerate, individual, holding to the truth of Christ and an heir of eternal life.
How's that? Good grief, we have to get very expansive anymore on these issues, but if your church mentioned all that and said let's pray for him, let's have folks actually sharing the gospel with him and talking to him concerning the finished work of Christ and opening up realms of dialogue there, then I'd like to hear from you, but something tells me that's not what was going on in the majority of situations, huh?
And instead there is this tremendous pressure. Not only don't say anything, get in the herd, moo a few times and get with the program and follow along and stream into the movie theater and watch and make it the biggest opening ever and let's stick our fingers in the eyeballs of the liberal media elite, which that is fine with me, but let's just all do this together and don't criticize anything.
Those are the two extremes. In the middle are the listeners to this program, or many of the listeners to this program. I know we've got a lot of folks who listen anymore who actually are only listening just to try to find something to complain about or write in and grouse about or whatever, but for the vast majority of folks who take the time to not just turn a little radio dial but actually have to fire up a computer program and you have to follow links and got to do all that kind of stuff.
For you folks, you're in the middle and there's a number of you who are going, well, you know, I've heard both sides. And I certainly recognize the concerns some people have. I mean, there are some folks I recognize that are so visually oriented that, to be honest with you, it might be really difficult for you to see the film, not just because of what you see, not just because of the violence and the graphic violence and the blood everywhere and tissue everywhere and so on and so forth.
But it might be very difficult for you because of the fact that you do not want to go through the rest of your life visualizing Christ as Jim Caviezel. I've mentioned on the blog the random thoughts I posted yesterday, and they were just random.
I just threw them out there and I'm looking at them right now myself just to remember some of these things. That would not be an issue for me. I really, as I mentioned, I said, well, I envision Jesus as Jim Caviezel.
This is point number 12 on the blog. No, not for a moment. Not once during the film did I make that connection. That was Jim Caviezel up there, not my Lord. That was never, ever once an issue. I was watching an actor, and I never made that connection.
And most of the time, even when I see people in roles that I know who they are, I can get past that. I can see the actual character rather than the actor, but not this time. Not this time. Couldn't do it.
But for some people, that might be a real issue. That might be a real struggle for them to avoid that in the future. And so if you're that type of person, well, then you know that. All of this, you folks in this audience, at least you have both sides to listen to.
Hopefully you have moderate views from both sides, not just the far. Someone gave me a URL to a website last night, an anti-passion website that was almost Gail Riplinger-esque. In fact, I think it had King James Only background to it.
Some of the things was because it railed on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, too, as if that was somehow relevant to this. Don't ask me how. So there's the wackiness on the left. There's the wackiness on the right.
There's the strong believers on both sides. And then there's this groundswell of join the herd, just come on in, and don't even think about the theology, don't think about the issues. And that's what I was concerned about all along.
We've mentioned that before. That was my concern. And I think that it was a well-grounded concern, having now seen the film myself. There were a number of things. I just throw my hands up in the air, and I do not understand.
Not in the sense of I missed what the connection was. I did figure out one of the connections only after the film, thanks to folks in the chat channel who are former Roman Catholics and who had said the rosary 16 billion times in their life.
But that wasn't the issue. There were some things I just, you know, okay, for example, there are only two characters in the film who can seemingly see this Satan figure, and it's Jesus, which you expect, and Mary.
Yes, Mary is able to see this. Now, it's fascinating. I should have kept that up. Where was that thing? Oh, where is my e-mail program? Oh, yes. Where did I put it, though? There is a book. I've ordered it.
And, yeah, here it is. And we fly off into the Internet. You know, back at 1200 Baud Days, this would have been a very slow program. There is a book out there called A Guide to the Passion. 100 questions about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.
Now, listen, let me read this to you, because this will give you a little context here for what I'm saying. A Guide to the Passion. Well, let me just back up a little bit. The Passion of the Christ offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for you to spread, strengthen, and share the Catholic faith with your family and friends.
Unlike any other, this movie will inspire hearts and change minds, and it will evoke questions. A Guide to the Passion, 100 questions about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, is the definitive Catholic resource book for this momentous film.
It offers an insightful scene-by-scene analysis from a uniquely Catholic perspective. How can you do that if it doesn't contain that material? I don't know. The 100 answers provide a powerful catechesis that will enrich the movie-going experience and lead seekers to deeper faith in Christ.
And so here are some of the questions. And anyone who's seen it, it would be very interesting. You follow these questions. How do we know that Jesus really existed and that the events portrayed in the movie actually took place?
In the Garden of Gethsemane, did Jesus know he was going to die? Who was the fifth figure in the Garden? The devil? Did Jesus have to die? Why couldn't God have simply declared humanity's relationship to him restored?
In the Garden, Jesus crushes a snake under his foot. What is the symbolism here? Then it goes on and talks a little bit about... Oh, here. Why does the director, that's Mel Gibson, choose to have Peter fall at Mary's feet and cry out, I have denied him, Mother?
That's something many people have been asking. The disciples called Mary Mother and confessed to her. That's fascinating. Why is Pilot's wife Claudia portrayed as being so concerned about Jesus' fate?
Well, we actually know that from the Ann Catherine Emmerich book. Let's see here. Yeah. As Jesus carries his cross, the director cross-cuts between the devil and Mary, walking along with him on opposite sides of the crowd.
At one point, their eyes meet in an amazingly powerful silent exchange. What exactly is going on here? So you see, the stuff that I saw, even at the end says, Why does the devil do a crazy dance after Christ dies on the cross?
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The stuff that I... The random thoughts actually reflect very clearly what is found on the questions that are asked there, and that book was just made available. So there was just a number of things.
Just really briefly, we've already got one call. We can take more calls at 877 -753 -3341. I just... This shows my background, of course, as far as the deity of Christ and issues concerning that, but I am just...
I was blown away the first time I turned to my friend John, who went with me and went, What was in the garden when the soldiers come and Jesus says, I am? And... What's supposed to happen after that? I mean, the only gospel that records that specific exchange they had was John, John chapter 18, and as soon as Jesus says that, the soldiers fall back upon the ground.
What do they do in the film? They keep surrounding him. It's like it has no... There's the entire meaning of that, which would have really added to the scene. I mean, just from an artistic perspective, would have been really cool.
Gone. Zip, zero, nada. Jesus can say I am to these soldiers all day long, and it has absolutely no effect upon them. Just... The first thing I went, Oh, please, come on. That was... That was... What are you trying to say with that?
I mean, if you're trying to say anything at all. It is accomplished is a wonderfully bad translation of to tell us die. It is finished. But then again, we are talking about a Roman Catholic film here, and finished and accomplished are two different things in that context.
I was completely wiped out by the very end of the film, the 45 second resurrection scene, which only shows Jim Caviezel's face for a few moments, and then he stands up. You see the hole in his hand, and he's also completely naked.
Thank you very much for putting an ending on the film. It just makes you go, Excuse me? Hello? The Gospels didn't record that part. What was that all about? Mary is mother. Mary has supernatural abilities, relics all over the place.
St. Veronica and her veil and the face of Jesus, which, by the way, I looked up last night. The earliest reference is at the 14th century, but it was just thrown in there. The vast majority of people who saw that had no idea, unless they're former Catholics, what in the world that was all about.
But to make it so obvious like that, to make it in the sense of just throwing in there no introduction, assuming the audience is going to follow, says a lot about where the film was coming from and the things regarding that.
I've gotten a lot of response to the number eight point that I put up there. What on earth was that hideous baby thing in the devil woman's arms? And everybody's been telling me, Well, that's why you need to get into eschatology, because obviously it was the Antichrist.
Come on. And I'm like, Excuse me? I don't know. Well, silly me went here, and I still remembered all those emails that have been fired in my direction about how wonderfully accurate and historical, and it was just the Gospels and nothing more.
And so during this horrific beating scene, the whip, the scourging scene, and the special effects and blood and everything else, all of a sudden here comes this creature, and this... I mean, it looked like something out of Star Trek or Star Wars or something along those lines, this hideous creature.
That was another one of the poke jaw on the ribs go, What on earth? And he sort of looked at me and his eyes were big like, I don't know. It was pretty amazing. So I don't know. But it was something else to see that.
So, you know, I am not the best person to even be concerned about as far as the emotional response to the film. In essence, I sort of viewed it as a job to do. I had to be watching everything very carefully, evaluating it, trying to understand backgrounds, issues like that.
It was not an emotional experience for me. That was Jim Caviezel, and I knew that. And yes, as I've reflected upon it, and you think about the tremendous suffering of Christ, yes, you can make that connection.
But the real element of the suffering for Christ, with Christ, was not what was shown. I mean, I was really disappointed when, very early on the program, that Jesus is thrown off this bridge, wrapped in chains, and then he's caught, would have broken half the bones in his body, but he's caught, which, of course, couldn't break bones, because they didn't break any bones.
But anyway, he's caught, and he's hanging there over this bridge, and he just happens to follow right where Judas is, and he looks at Judas, and a demon comes screaming by Judas as he runs away. It was all very, very, very artistic, and completely outside of the Scriptures, but it was all artistic and things like that.
And I was really disappointed in that kind of stuff, and the extra stuff that was thrown in along those lines, because it really, I felt, detracted from the actual suffering that would have been his. But the point is, in that one place where there is the suffering of Christ in the garden, in the sense of the prayers, you haven't quite gotten used to...
I mean, this movie just starts. Just boom. There's the stuff concerning the... There's a citation of Isaiah 53 -4, and then boom. You're right into it. I mean, there's no introduction. It was just the film started, at least where I was.
Maybe you had something different. I don't know, but it just started. It was ten minutes late getting started there, having some problems with it. It was the first showing of the day. Anyhow, you're really not accustomed yet to the fact that you're going to have to be following this film only with subtitles.
In fact, I was very happy. I caught a lot of the Aramaic, actually, because it's so closely related to Hebrew. But still, at that point, you just really haven't tuned in, so you're having to read the subtitles.
And when Jesus is praying, he looks... I don't know what the biblical description of what he was going through would actually look like on screen, so it's not like I can really criticize it. But the impression you get is someone who is extremely...
And in fact, by the dialogue they put in the mouth of Peter and the disciples, extremely afraid, uncertain, certainly not in control of the situation. And what was missing was... The idea that most people would get from that is that he was tremendously frightened of what was coming, in the sense of all the beating and everything they would see.
That wasn't the issue. The issue was he made him who knew no sin to be sin in our place. That we might be made the righteous of God in him. It's the substitutionary atonement. It's that union of the elect with their substitute and his bearing in himself the wrath due to their sin.
But you see, that central element of the theology is so completely mitigated by Roman theology and by Roman false teaching that it can't come through. It's not a part of the experience of the Roman Catholic who's looking at that.
And so it was missing. It just wasn't there. That's why, in my mind, there was such a disconnection between the events being portrayed and the biblical truth of those events. And so it was something to watch.
So anyway, many people today debating the issue. The dividing line, hint hint, has been drawn, truly. You've now probably got more information and more articles and more discussions about this one film than any other film that's ever been produced.
Without a question. I mean, you can go online right now and you can read the most extreme of either side and everything in between. Certainly, no one can walk in there and go, Well, I didn't know. I didn't have any way of knowing.
You may walk in there going, I didn't know, but that's because you didn't take the opportunity of looking. And someone mentioned to me last night that I was being misrepresented in some context, which happens pretty much every day, but that I had...
I forget which one it was. I either told people not to see it or to see it. I don't remember which one it was. I've never told anyone either way. I have never endorsed this film and said, Go see it. And I have never said that God's going to strike you dead if you do.
I have said that as a Christian, you have a responsibility to be something more than a lemming. And you do need to think about these things. You need to recognize that for a lot of folks, there is a danger of imprinting upon their mind Jim Caviezel as Jesus and not getting that very imperfect perspective out of their mind.
And that has to be considered. There also has to be consideration of interacting with all the people that are out there promoting this stuff and the danger of Roman Catholic apologists and then the positive possibility of speaking the truth.
I said from the beginning, it's going to happen and we need to be ready to address the issues and to fill in the blanks and to correct the misapprehensions. And whether you have to actually watch it to do that is another question.
Many of you listening don't have to. You don't have to go see it to be able to correct the misapprehensions. I mean, just simply some of the descriptions I've given already would be enough for you to be able to address the issue.
So, it's really up to you as an individual believer. But my point from the beginning has been don't approach the situation out of simple ignorance and don't approach it out of the herd mentality that says, hey, everybody else is doing it.
The church has bought 10 ,000 tickets and so that must mean the church endorses this film. I've not endorsed it. Neither have I said that God's going to strike you dead for seeing it. I saw it. I had to see it for lots of reasons.
But would I allow other people in my circle of influence to see it? Yes, if they wanted to. But you see, people in my circle of influence are primarily theologically aware, concerned, committed individuals.
And I do think there is a danger for individuals who, in essence, are theologically either tremendously naive or have no theological foundation within themselves at all. And, of course, they're in danger every day.
That's just simply one further aspect of it. So there you've got it. So if you were expecting me to say, yes, go see it, no, don't go see it, that's not my place. It's not my role. And I would never adopt that type of an attitude.
It's not for me to say. 877 -753 -3341. We are going to take your phone calls today. And it doesn't have to just be on that subject. That obviously is the discussion of the day. But there are other things going on.
We are trying to get our debate set up for Salt Lake City. And we had it all set up. And then somebody, and I'm not even certain, I'm not even certain the person who wrote was actually a Mormon. But we made the mistake of mentioning on the calendar concerning the debates coming up in Salt Lake City.
And so immediately, actually I mentioned it on the 19th, off to Atlanta on the blog. Immediately somebody writes up there, oh, that man's a nasty anti-Mormon, and da-da-da-da-da-da. And so we just want debate whether Christians are supposed to build temples.
And they're all upset that I mentioned. In the article where I was going after the street preachers, where I was talking about the abuse of Mormons, I mentioned that, and I didn't go into detail about it, but many, many years ago, I don't know, more than 20 years ago now I think, I was given a pair of LDS temple garments, the undergarments, by a former Mormon, a person who had left the church.
And when I used to, and I haven't done this in many years, when I used to do classes, I would explain the significance, the markings, and the whole issue of the temple ceremonies and all the rest of that stuff.
And I was doing that in the context of saying, but there's a time and a place, and hanging them from your sign outside the Mormon temple is lunacy, it's stupid, and these people should be ashamed of themselves.
Well, since I dared to say that, well, I don't think we can do this debate. How about you do a 45-minute presentation, we'll do a 45-minute presentation and take audience questions. That's not a debate, and I'm not going to do that.
So I don't know what's going to happen there, but it's like, is there anybody up there that has the courage, their convictions? It's amazing, the inability of some folks to even allow for there to be strong differences of opinion and to say, well, actually what I believe is true.
Isn't there somebody up there, a scholar of some rank, who actually believes that Christians are supposed to build temples and that that's a truth that should be defended? Amazing to me that people would...
I mean, it's like Christians... Well, I don't really know if I should debate the issue that the Bible is the word of God, you know, I mean, we don't want to offend anyone, you know, and it's just like, oh, wow, what is going on in our society?
877 -753 -3341. Boy, bad timing as far as this goes. We're probably not quite ready to take a break, but starting right now, we'd only have like 30 seconds or 35 seconds or 40 seconds or whatever to take a phone call anyway.
So is there some way to speed things up in there, or do we just simply make poor Jeff, who's already been sitting on hold for 20 minutes, start and then stop, or what?
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do. 30 seconds. Do-do-do...
See, there's a program, folks, that... Stretch. Yeah, do we have one of those, the new CBS installed? Oh, delete that quickly! Don't let that go out on air. Make things go slowly. The Star Trek time. Hey, there it is.
Hey, Jeff, Sean, we'll be right with you right after the break. The rest of you, 877 -75...
It's all works righteousness, you know. Can I manufacture grace Myself and I in some religious place. By weeping hard on your face. Or saying prayers to some dead saints, you know.
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.
Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God, James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.
In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.
You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomen .org.
What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free? A New Cult? Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.
He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. In his book, The Potters' Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler,. But The Potters' Freedom is much more than just a reply.
It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.
The Potters' Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at www .aomen .org.
I will get it in whether I'm allowed to or not. 877 -753 -3341. That's what I was trying to say before the microphone went dead in the middle of giving the number out. Excuse me. All right. Let's talk with Jeff in South Jersey.
Hi, Jeff. Hey, Dr. White. How are you doing today? I'm doing okay. Good. Good. Uplifting movie. Okay movie. Four stars. Okay. That's good. I'm not assigning any stars. I mean, you'd have to assign stars for production, which, yeah, sadly, which, obviously, as far as production goes, it was what you would expect from Mel Gibson.
Mel Gibson isn't going to put out some stinky movie. It did strike me as a little bit rough at times as far as some of the edits and things like that.
I hear somehow he managed to kill some British person.
No. Actually, the story I saw last night was that a manager of a Clear Channel radio station had a heart attack during the crucifixion scene and didn't make it to the hospital. A woman somewhere in, I thought, the Midwest or Ohio or something like that.
That was a story I read last night on Yahoo. If that happens in the middle of Terminator or Braveheart or something like that, no one would ever give it a second thought because tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people are in movie theaters at any given point in time from noon till midnight for half the day and people have heart attacks.
They may be rushing to get there. They may be throwing cholesterol-laden popcorn into their system. Who knows? I never thought he was anti-Semitic. I always thought he was anti-British. Patriot and Braveheart make a...
Well, you know... I've got to tell this story. You know Sinclair Ferguson is a Scotsman. When Braveheart first came out, some of the students were telling him about the film and how wonderful it was. And he said, Well, I will have to go see it.
And they said, Well, Dr. Ferguson, you need to understand it's extremely violent and very graphic. We're not really sure you can handle that kind of violence or you'd want to see that kind of violence.
And his response to the students was, I want you to understand that any time that someone is killing the British is not an act of violence for a Scotsman. So I guess he went and saw it and probably enjoyed it immensely.
But anyway, on production value, yeah. But that's not ever been the issue. I mean, that was sort of a given from the start. I mean, Gibson's not going to put out a film that's bad in production value.
The question's going to be, What is it going to contain? And I think we've learned a lot more about the discernment level of, quote-unquote, evangelicals than we have almost anything else in this particular film.
It shouldn't shock anybody that Mel Gibson is going to have St. Veronica, a whole scene of St. Veronica just flying in out of nowhere and taking her veil off and wiping Jesus' face. I mean, that shouldn't shock anyone.
Mel Gibson is Mel Gibson. That's consistent with Mel Gibson. What I didn't see really was much effort on his part to not offend the sensibilities of evangelicals because, let's face it, once he started screening this thing, he realized they don't have any.
They don't have any sensibilities. It's like they're completely ignorant of what the entire issue was. All they see in the Veronica scene is a compassionate Jewish lady taking some kind of compassion on a man who's being crucified.
They don't make the connection with the rosary and the Stations of the Cross or anything else, so why should he worry about it? Hello. You still there? Still there.
Okay. You had a question. Yes. Question. Based off of the sermon you posted and also what you just said... Which one? Which sermon?
I think it was Muller. I didn't have... You mean Martin? Martin, maybe. I just simply linked to it. I didn't say that. I agreed. I understand that.
But you said something very similar, which was the focus on the physical instead of the spiritual.
Well, yeah. That's actually not only in... That's in Andy Webb's. That's in A .N. Martin's. My concern, again, goes to specific Roman Catholic theology in reference to the concept of the merit of physical suffering, which is part and parcel of the whole concept of penances and indulgences and purgatory and sadispatio and purgatory.
All that goes back to this concept of the physical suffering having merit before God. Folks don't seem to realize this, but that's why the souls suffer in purgatory because suffering is meritorious in and of itself.
I had a question. My question about that was what would you say would be the biblical view? Because, you know, the Bible simply says stuff like Jesus died for our sins. We can see the spiritual suffering in there, but, you know, with physical suffering, it's kind of hard to kind of figure, understand all the complexities going on.
Obviously, you have the interactions within the Godhead and things that will definitely blow your mind. I was wondering if you could speak to that.
What the next view would be? Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that you can separate the two out. And no one, to my knowledge, has suggested that it is wrong to contemplate the physical aspect of the suffering of Christ, the demonstration of the depravity and hatred of man and the whole nine yards that is a part of that.
But what makes that physical suffering real and relevant and balanced in the biblical perspective is the spiritual reality that is going on in the physical suffering. Obviously, the Romans were not sitting there attempting to seek to help in the retention of the world.
They did not see themselves as helping the wrath of God to come upon Christ or something. They're just looking at beating up on a Jewish person. And they did that all the time. And Jesus was not the only one to be so treated.
So if physical suffering is meritorious, there are other people who had suffered in a similar way. They just weren't perfect in and of themselves. But the connection between the two is what makes all that suffering meaningful.
I mean, outside of that, and I said this in December when I first started addressing this issue, outside of the spiritual reality of the purpose of God and the cross, and I'm not saying that there was not some, you know, it's just fascinating.
Gibson is so conservative that he's old style. And the result of that is that at one point, Mary runs up to Jesus when he's carrying his cross. He's fallen down. She runs up to him and says, I'm here.
Now there's obvious significance to that that a lot of folks don't see. But his response to her is A, unbiblical, but it does reflect, interestingly enough, an element that would not be included in modern Roman Catholic teaching as far as their theologians were concerned.
And that is, he says to her, behold, I am making all things new. And there is in that anyways the purposefulness, the recognition on his part of the meaning and necessity of this that was sort of there in the garden, but wasn't really well portrayed.
And it just wouldn't be a part of what a lot of modern Roman Catholic theologians would say, but is actually closer to what we as conservative evangelicals would believe over against liberal Roman Catholics or liberal Protestants for that matter.
So it was interesting to see that, but the rest of his theology precludes him from seeing in toto what that really means and what the result of that would really be. And so it's a situation where one of the things that just grips at my heart is I really would like to see, I would really love to see someday Mel Gibson on a program somewhere, though if he ever did this, there probably wouldn't be any programs that would want to talk to him, but Mel Gibson on a program someplace saying, you know, when I made that film, it was an act of penance, but I've since come to understand that all my acts of penance are nothing.
I was actually insulting him by trying to add what he did. He didn't say it is accomplished. He said it is finished. It is one sacrifice. And I no longer go to a man who calls himself a priest for a re-presentation of that sacrifice to get a little more grace and a little more grace and a little more grace and hope I make it.
I'm resting in him alone. And it's finished and it's accomplished. That's what I'd like to hear. But the people who have his ear who should know that aren't saying it to him. And for what reason? Well, because their theology is wishy-washy.
And people say theology doesn't matter. Well, here it's actually impacting who you preach the gospel to. So the two go together. It creates dissonance in the film that they're not there. That's why, isn't it interesting?
You look at Matthew. And Matthew, the story of the crucifixion is two and a half, three chapters. Plus resurrection, which only got 45 seconds here. But that's it. That's the entirety of it. The gospels do not make it the central.
They lead up to it. The cross is the central point in human history. But they explain the reason. They explain what it's all about. And they put it in its context. And it's not in its context the way that it's being presented.
And some people say, well, it's just art. He's just doing... You can't put it all in a movie. He's right. You can't put it all in a movie. And I couldn't have stood much more than what there was as far as the amount of time.
But the fact remains that in the Bible, that suffering was significant for a particular reason. And he is saying, in other contexts, especially Roman Catholic contexts, that it is meant to be theological.
It is meant to communicate theology. And so without the wholeness of that message, well, it's not all there. Alrighty, sir? Alrighty. I have another question I'll give you next week. I spent most of my time making fun of Braveheart.
I'll call you next week. Alright, thanks a lot. God bless. Alright, bye-bye. Let's move on to Steve in San Antonio. Hi, Steve. Hi, Dr. White. Can you hear me okay?
Yes, sir. Spoke to you, I think, last week. I had a very nice conversation with you. I just want to tell you how much I appreciate it. The reason why I was calling is, of course, the Passion of Christ.
I saw it yesterday, too, as soon as I got a chance to. I couldn't wait to see it. And this is the problem. Up to that point, I've been hearing all sorts of criticism from Jewish groups. And now, I'm hearing a lot of criticism from evangelicals.
And I think, here's the problem. After seeing it, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed that movie and how much it meant to me spiritually. But I wish that the people could view the movie.
And take it for what it was instead of what they fear that certain groups will use the movie for their own benefits. Would you agree with that? Well, I don't know what evangelicals you're talking about.
I have said that this particular film has been seen by Roman Catholic apologists as a tremendous opportunity. All you have to do is go to their websites and see that they've been advertising it for months, that there are books that are being put out that are specifically designed to make that connection, that the Dolores Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emmerich book, is being printed as fast as tan book publishers can print it, and Roman Catholics are being encouraged to now utilize this bridge that the film represents to introduce the Marian material.
People who read the Dolores Passion will now have a visual connection directly to the fulfillment of this. I'll just simply point out the obvious, and that is that the vast majority of evangelicals who go to see this have no knowledge of Marian dogma, they have no knowledge of the issues of sola scriptura, they have no knowledge of the issues of the atonement, the mass, the whole nine yards.
And so I'm just simply saying that if they've just gone in there without any background of these things, just simply in a herd mentality, because, well, everybody's doing it, so I'm going to do it too, then they're exposing themselves to that very kind of a situation, and most of the time they're not going to be in churches where people are going to be warning them.
Right, well, that's my point, and like you said, of course the Catholics are using it as a tool, but so are the Protestants. I mean, if you watch Nightline, if you watch the NBC shows, I, for one, I sat with a group from the local Church of Christ.
I mean, they're using it as the greatest, they call it the greatest.
Evangelical tool, evangelization tool, in the last, what, 50 years? So they're using it as well. Everybody's going to take a piece of that movie because it was so well made and so powerful. Well, when you say it's so powerful, you know, I wonder if that power is the power of visual emotions or the power of the message that is communicated.
That's the question that I would have for anyone, is that do we, and I've, again, at least I'm consistent at this point because this is a point that I've made from the beginning, I have said that it will be an emotionally powerful film, but we dare not confuse emotional power with communication of spirit-born truth.
They're two different things. Yeah, I know, but that goes back to what I originally said, poetic license that goes on with the movie. As you mentioned earlier, Christ getting thrown off the bridge and there he sees Judas cowering and then a demon flies by.
And then when Judas realized what he did, the little kids are all deformed and they're chasing him off a cliff. I mean, you know, that is just part of a movie.
That makes it dramatic. It makes it entertaining. Well, to a point, unfortunately, as I've mentioned, the first emails that I received of all the people that are being dramatically changed by the film all contained the same assertion and that was that this was just the Gospels.
It was historically accurate. There was nothing else in it. And only over time did it start to come out that in reality there was more to it. And certainly one understands that one could not have no one saying anything as far as just going with the words of Scripture.
I suppose it could be done. They're doing it with the Gospel of John, which unfortunately has pretty much been eclipsed by this one. But the point was that it's the extraneous material that is the origin of that material, especially in Anne Catherine Emmerich and the place that it plays in the continuation of a particular theological agenda.
And that agenda is there. We've played Mel Gibson speaking directly with EWTN on this program before where he speaks of the issue of the atonement, the sacrifice of the altar being the same as the sacrifice, the cross.
Sure. That's where Mel's coming from. That is his tradition. That is his religion.
And that is the film. And that's the film. That's right. But here's the thing. On Tuesday, I was trying to listen to your program via the internet. I was also on your website. And I got into a situation with maybe you know the two gentlemen, Balthazar and the Centurion.
And I said, how can you guys not want to see this movie? And the very first point that they brought up is, I wouldn't see any movie that has Christ crucified and then interspersed, is clipped to him at the Last Supper.
That's blasphemy. The Eucharist is, you know, all this other stuff. And I said, okay, well listen, even if you didn't consider the Eucharist the actual body and blood of Christ, you would admit that it is symbolic of that.
So he shoots back and he says, what you were seeing with Christ at the Last Supper was just the Passover feast. So I try to answer back, look, what Jew at that time that was doing the Passover would say, this is my blood of the new covenant.
This is my body. You have to grant to me that he is using symbolic language, at the very least, of what is going to come in a couple of hours. So I think Mel Gibson was very, very in the right of putting that in, just from that point of view.
Just for a pure symbolic allusion to what was going to happen to him.
Well, obviously Mel Gibson himself told us what his intention was. His intention was to communicate the sacrifice of the cross is the same as the sacrifice of the altar. And evidently that's what the folks were attempting to communicate to you, is that that perspective, no one would ever argue that you can misinterpret Mr. Gibson.
He's given you the freedom to do that. You can interpret him outside of what he is intending to communicate. And I even said, in regards to the random thoughts on the blog yesterday, I said, number 15, could an evangelical successfully filter out the extraneous stuff?
I suppose so, but it would take a conscious effort. In other words, you're having to make a conscious effort to redefine the parameters and purposes of Mr. Gibson in representing things the way he did, to fit it into something that does not end up promoting the idea that is very clearly seen in the film itself, when Mr. Gibson makes his one cameo appearance by holding the nail that is driven into Jim Caviezel's hand.
You're having to put out effort, and you have enough knowledge to put out that effort. The problem is, the vast majority of folks who are going to the film in the lemming mode don't have the basis to do so, don't know they need to do so, and as a result, can't put that effort out to be able to make that correction in the purposeful theology of what is being communicated.
Well, with all due respect, I don't agree with that. I think you take any mainline Protestant that sees that scene, and they're going to say it is symbolic of what was about to happen to him, how his body was going to get broken, blood was going to pour out, and it's pure symbolic.
I don't think they're going to have.
To have a conscious effort. Well, sure, if you don't mind them remaining utterly ignorant of what Mr. Gibson was intending, and then putting them in a position where those who know what he was intending can then take advantage of them, communicate to them what he was actually intending, and what the whole purpose of it was.
Sure, if you don't mind that, that's great.
But the fact of the matter is, it's not a question what Mr. Gibson was intending. We've played his words. I could... I've heard them for myself. I agree with you.
That's what he said was his intention. Okay, so are you saying that that should not be something...
Are you saying that no Christian has the freedom to look at that and say, you know what, as a result of that, just because I am... Maybe I'm a former Roman Catholic. I'm not, but let's say I'm a former Roman Catholic.
I truly embrace and love the finished work of Christ. That's what gave me freedom. And because this film portrays it in that way, I know that that's the purpose of portraying it that way. I'm just not going to see it.
They don't have the freedom to do that? They don't have the freedom to tell others that? Sure they do. Okay, so... But that's not my point. Well, why would you express it in the channel as, how could you not go and see this?
They have the freedom to go and not see it because it scandalizes them, don't they?
Not for that reason. Why not? For the reason why I just said. Take it as a pure, symbolic play.
On what was going to happen. Okay, so you're saying that Balthazar and Centurion do not have the right themselves to not go see the film because it scandalizes them? I don't think it scandalizes them.
And I don't think... How can you...
That's what I'm saying. How can you say that? What's that? How can you say that? How can you say it doesn't scandalize them? How do you know what's in their heart? How do you know... If there was a flashing light during that scene, okay, and under where they have the subtitles, if it was going to say, this is what's actually happening here, we are trying to make the connection that this is his body, this is his blood, you must accept this, okay, then I would say, yeah, it scandalizes them.
But when you see it from a patron in a movie theater, seeing that scene, I'm making that point.
But wait, wait, wait a minute. These individuals, both of them, have listened to this program, they've listened to Mel Gibson specifically make the assertion that the sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of the cross are the same.
So before they would ever have a chance of seeing this film, they have listened to the director saying, this is my purpose, this is what I was doing, and you're saying that they could not possibly, that no person who has seen the destruction of personal lives based upon the false teaching that the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice that perfects no one, that no one could be so scandalized by that false teaching, so in love with the finished work of Christ, that they would be scandalized enough to not go see this film, that that's impossible, that you'd have to have flashing lights and subtitles warning of Roman Catholic content for a person to be scandalized enough to not see this film?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Well, that's absurd.
That is absurd. When you were sitting there, okay, and you put yourself in the position of judging the intent of that film, okay, because, you know, you're a professor, so you know what the average person is going to think, and the most sophisticated is going to think.
Did you actually sit there.
Squirming in your seat saying, oh my God, I'm so embarrassed? This is what the average person is going to take away from this scene? I sat there fully aware of what was coming and fully agree with those who have the freedom in Christ to not expose themselves to something that scandalized them.
It amazes me that you would... This is far to the other side of those who would say that you sinned to go see it. I can't believe that anyone would make the argument that a person does not, in Christ, have the freedom to not expose themselves to this film.
They do have the freedom. They do have the freedom. What I'm saying to you is, if they're so scandalized and you're of like mind with those two gentlemen, after you saw the scene, why are you telling people it's up to you?
Obviously... Because I'm not going to put myself in your position of telling people what to do. I have communicated the facts of the theology. I've communicated the facts of what is being said here. And I believe Christians have the freedom to act under the direction of the Holy Spirit when they have the facts.
I'm simply trying to tell folks that these are the issues. What you came on here saying was that those individuals could not be scandalized by having that kind of information. I say to you, you better believe they could be scandalized.
And if they choose not to see it, that is their freedom. If you, knowing what is there, decide to see it so that you can glorify God by sharing with others the finished work of Christ and go ahead and do so, I'm simply saying people need to know what the issues are and we need to dialogue about it and we need to go in there without being lemmings.
That's what I have said from the beginning. Well, listen, I am all for people being informed of what to expect.
To change topics here for a second, the disciples calling Mary Mother? Yes. Okay. Have you ever been with a group of friends and one of them is the dominant friend and everybody goes over to their house and they hang out and they look to the person as the leader.
And therefore they're over at the person's house so much that they get close to their parents and they might refer to them as Mama or Mother? Yes. That would be a fascinating explanation but it has almost nothing to do with the fact that A, that very question appears in a Roman Catholic book designed to help Roman Catholics evangelize evangelicals based upon the film.
And 2, we know what Mel Gibson believes about Mary. We know that he has specifically said that at the cross scene when John 19, 26 -27 is being played out that in doing so he believes that Jesus assigned Mary to be the mother of all Christians by making her the mother of John John representing all Christians and hence the meaning of the terminology is defined by the director himself just like it was in regards to the cross.
And the Last Supper. So there's no reason to look for the context that you just suggested when the director himself has given us a different context and we should go with the one that he offers. Shouldn't we?
Well, I'm coming from the point of the average person going to see the movie. See, I don't think anybody is going to go see that movie and see all these little symbolisms. Well, that's a shame. Because they are going to see them.
They can't avoid them. They're on a big huge screen. They may be ignorant of what they mean. And if they're ignorant of what they mean those then become the catchphrases. Those then become the context that can be used to draw them into further error in regards to the subject if they're ignorant of the theological issues that are being addressed by the film.
Exactly, but see that goes back to what I originally said I think the movie should be viewed as on its own merits for the average person going in there to see it. So what I was my sentence before I didn't get to complete it.
What I was going to say was I don't think the average person the average Christian is going to go in there and view that movie. And because of these little innuendos are going to say that's it. I'm going back to Holy Mother Rome.
Well of course no one would suggest that the mere viewing of the film would do so. And no one has. I don't know who in the world you'd be referring to would even suggest such a silly thing.
But obviously the listeners recognize that there are going to be conversations and hence the conversation could go along the lines of this. In essence. Well you know did you notice how Peter showed deference to Mary how he in her presence broke down in weeping and confessed his denials of Christ.
And did you notice. Did you notice. I'm talking about a Roman Catholic who's speaking to an evangelical if you were a personal friend of Jesus Christ. And she always seems to be there at important moments.
Ok. Mary's always there. And they're very close to Jesus. They know his mother. You wouldn't show her respect if you just denied him. You're really. You're really hurting. You're really hurting your case here because everyone listening knows that I haven't said anything like that.
And that obviously you aren't listening very well. How am I not listening. Because I pointed out already the fact that the director of the film provided the context in which we should interpret this. I reject your let's go over to somebody's house and call her mom.
Excuse. That's not what Mel Gibson said. That's not what the film says. And so to insert that in there is just simply special pleading that makes no sense in light of the context already provided. First of all.
Secondly there's nothing biblical about Peter encountering Mary. Third of all the biblical account does not say that Mary was there for all these important things. She's all there through the film. But she's not there in the New Testament accounts.
And if you think she is you might want to show those to us. And so you put all that together. And this special pleading sounds more like a Roman Catholic apologist attempting to defend the film than it does someone who's actually trying to deal with whether or not this should be something that individuals should view and should be involved with.
Let me let me. She wasn't there at the foot of the cross. Again you just you keep switching the context. But that doesn't work well for me. Because for some reason I try to follow context. Well you first said she was there for all these important events in his life to change from that to was she at the bottom of the foot of the cross.
As if it's relevant is a very very cheap debating trick that does not work well. Basic logic would indicate you take my first statement which would indicate that through all the activities of Christ's life was Mary in the temple in Matthew 24.
No was Mary in the temple in John 10. No was she at Caesarea Philippi. No. Once you start putting all the important events of Christ's life in a list. Then you demonstrate that Mary was not there.
In the biblical text for the vast majority of them that does not mean that she was not there for some of them. You said was she in the upper room when he came back to the apostles. You're talking. No not in Acts.
In Acts she's there when the Holy Spirit comes. Yeah. Right. That's what I meant. Well. That's not the same thing as when he comes back for the apostles after the resurrection. Those are two different events.
Ok. Well she was there at the foot of the cross and she was there for the entire day. Yep. Following along. Yep. That's not what you had said before. If you want to change your position that's fine. I'll agree with your changed position not the original one.
I'm not changing my position. Ok. If she was only there during the cross that would not provide you the basis for going over to somebody's house and getting used to their mom and calling them mom. So let's not shift the grounds here.
Let's stick with one particular subject here at a time. Dr. White what I'm saying is your criticism of the movie. Ok. Is you're looking. You're looking back at Mel Gibson. And where he's coming from from a religious point of view.
Yeah. That's because he made it as a religious film. Right. Exactly. And I'm saying that the average Christian that goes and sees the movie goes in ignorant. That's fine. They. Well you know I'm not going to judge somebody's intellect for going and seeing the movie.
Excuse me ignorance has nothing to do with intellect. Does it? You can be a brilliant astronomer and know nothing about political science. Right. That's right. So I said nothing about intellect. Did I?
What I'm talking about is the person's deep understanding about their Christian faith. And when they go in and see that movie they can judge that movie based on what is taking place in the movie. They can.
As I've said from the beginning people are going to watch this film with their traditional lenses firmly implanted upon their face. The problem is that the film contains a number of elements that find no place in evangelical tradition or biblical teaching.
And it is those elements that then become the basis upon which.
Individuals can introduce them to further information concerning Mary Mary's role media tricks et cetera et cetera et cetera. And that there are already books being distributed that are designed to help Catholics do that.
Should I not be mentioning this? Should I keep that quiet? You can also mention the other side which is what? Protestants are adopting the movie as well for their specific intents. Well there's no question I've said how many hundreds of times have I said evangelicals are promoting this film.
And that from the very first sermon that I presented on this we should be involved in giving a fuller explanation of what God's intention was in the cross of Jesus Christ. I've said that from the very first sermon I delivered on the Sunday after Christmas.
On this subject there's nothing new about that. I'm simply saying that the vast majority of evangelicals are not approaching it that way. I would approach it like John Piper has. His book is excellent.
On the subject I welcome the conversations. The problem is many of those who are promoting it from an evangelical perspective are not prepared for the right conversations. They're not prepared with the right theology of the cross.
That's what I've said from the start. So don't you think that that would be the job of their religious instructors. You mean their pastors? Yeah. Sure. Yeah. That's the whole point. Sure. And if the pastors aren't doing it then they're going to be exposed to needless needless danger in their own souls.
So but again I just simply repeat the fact that the individuals of whom you spoke were referring to the very thing that I was just referring to. And I still am amazed that you would actually state that they would not have the right to be scandalized concerning the intentions.
Of Mel Gibson every time I say it you go back to yeah. Well the average I'm not talking these guys aren't average. They actually have meaningful theological knowledge of the backgrounds and have made decisions based there on.
I still don't understand how they could not be scandalized and my point was they have every right in the world if they hear Mel Gibson's intent on the scenes. But when actually viewing the movie you don't have to draw that conclusion.
It's not that clear cut. Yeah you can ignore the intention of the director and come to your own conclusions. No one's ever argued otherwise. Alrighty man. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Bye bye. Okay.
Okay we're going to try to get everybody in. We're going to go along today. Is that what we're doing. Alright let's try to make it quick. Let's talk to Brian. Hi James. How are you. Hey Brian we're going to try to wrap everybody up here pretty quick because we're already about ten minutes over.
Okay I'll be brief. That was frustrating by the way but thank you for doing a nice job. My question has to do with two things. Number one could you explain what a papal bull is in relation to ex cathedra.
Sure and is it an infallible statement. The second part of the question is just to help me with an argument with a friend a couple of papal bulls such as the Pope Eugene cantante domino when he says nobody's saved outside of the catholic church.
And also the bull unum sanctum which says essentially we have to be subject to the pontiff. My argument is hey these have never been recanted. This is official catholic teaching. And my catholic friends said no we don't really feel that way anymore.
And I'm just wondering your view on that well what they feel and what's official are two different things. But a papal bull is an expression of teaching. It contains doctrine. And if it contains words such as we define we teach we establish as unum sanctum did then it would be very difficult to argue that what was being said there was not meant to be taken infallibly when unum sanctum said that we define pronounce and defend the concept that you must be subject to the bishop of rome for salvation.
Everyone knew what he meant at that time. What rome has done since then is to in essence ignore the historical context and to redefine what that means. So in other words now you can be a buddhist and you're still subject to the pope in essence which was not what he meant at that time.
But that's basically the mechanism that's now being used it's not well we just don't feel that way anymore. Now what you do instead at least the more nuanced defenders of rome you just redefine what he meant back then and say we still feel the same.
It's just that you've misunderstood what he was actually feeling. And so a papal bull can be infallible. But you see the problem is when you boil all this down. I remember writing to a certain used to be roman catholic apologist now he's a hyper traditionalist and i quoted for him i think it was unum sanctum.
And then i also quoted for him a statement from pope john paul about how if you just follow the light of the religion that you're a part of etc etc that you will have eternal life. How do you put these two things together.
And he said how dare you pretend to be able to interpret the history of the church. And i said what do you mean. And he said well the church infallibly interprets scripture and the church infallibly interprets history.
And so it's the church interprets her own history. And so if her history if she interprets her history in such a way that those two are not contradictory then as a faithful follower of rome they're not contradictory now historically they may be contradictory linguistically.
They may be contradictory it may be 1984 all over again. But they're not contradictory because of sola ecclesia the church is the final full authority in all things. And so it's it's sort of the you know you go you head into the looking glass and go down the rabbit hole when you start trying to figure out what is and what is not infallible teaching according to the roman catholic church.
And you can almost find no two individuals who end up agreeing 100 on what is and what is not infallible teaching. I can't think of any two apologists who are actually in 100 agreement with one another as to what is and what is not infallible teaching from rome's perspective.
So it's that's why it becomes next to impossible to refute it. Because it's a target that does not exist. It's like trying to shoot fog. You can fire with great accuracy but there's nothing to hit. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
There's no substance that you can actually get hold of. So that's the problem that you're dealing with there james. I really appreciate it. Thank you for your ministry. Thank you sir. God bless all. Right.
Let's get mike in real quick here and then wrap things up. Hi mike. Hey how's it going. How's it going. That discussion was well i've got a few bruises on my forehead from banging against the desk here but i muted the microphone while i was doing that.
I understand.
Yesterday we had a panel at the university of six evangelical pastors discussing the passion and generally the presentation was on any grounds to see this. One presented this argument that everybody's going to be talking about it anyway and it's part of name that is k to the church as in like the mountain or something i really don't know.
Anyway we had him here and he said that watching the movie gave him a firmer reason and more resolve. Basically like a purpose it was revolting. You have a set of christian leadership up there they're professing to be.
Anyway they're appealing to a movie for its accurate presentation of the gospel and it's made by a guy who would declare both them and their entire congregations under gods wrath. And it's just like this makes no sense.
Yeah but he didn't do that on the diane sawyer interview. So all is well.
Right i mean it's horrible because there was the entire panel there was no discussion among these pastors.
Of the roman catholic element. No no no no that's uh you're not supposed to do that. If you do that you'll end up being said to be a mean terrible horrible nasty man like me and no one wants that. Therefore you don't discuss those things.
You just keep people in ignorance.
Yeah it was absolutely.
Horrific just to sit there and observe this because i mean they're saying that they would send their secret they didn't even touch on the second commandment because none of them ever opened.
Well you know unfortunately the second commandment issue has not really been discussed much because it's either assumed yes that's a proper application or no we're not even going to think about it. So i mean i personally have issues with the application because of the incarnation but no one talks about that.
It's just like we're not going to open the bible and discuss this. This is not what our culture wants to see us doing. Anyone who's going to be stopping at a university to hear a discussion like this does not want to hear a bunch of bible thumpers reading pastor's scripture ever notice on radio that anybody can call in and they can curse and they can swear and they can tell nasty jokes.
If anyone even whispers that they might take a moment to actually quote a verse of scripture everybody just automatically shuts them down. We're not going to have that. It's almost like that's illegal because that might somehow avoid the separation of church and state.
So it's gone and we all know that. And therefore we fear doing it. We fear even uttering the words. Well the scriptures say because the glass eye effect hits you know. And it's just like i'm not going to listen to what you have to say because now you've offended me by quoting the bible and i think that might be illegal in the united states now too.
Well i mean in this case there's this perception that the movie and it's like the movie that's good post-modernism by the way. Right. Absolutely. And because there's this ignoring that the movie did not fall out of the sky i mean it was made by a kitten.
I don't know you can just interpret it whatever way you want to interpret it. I mean isn't that what we do with the constitution. You interpret it the way you want to interpret it original intent is irrelevant context is irrelevant the purpose of the director is irrelevant.
You just interpret it the way you want to interpret it. All is well. All is good. Everyone's happy. Let us hold hands and sing kumbaya together. Well we went 16 minutes long today. Actually more than that.
But hey you know it happens once in a while. It's one of the nice things about doing a webcast and not having to worry about being on radio anywhere is that we can just go. And if we need to go and go farther we can do that.
And that's what we did today. Hey thanks for listening today. The next dividing line lord willing will be tuesday night 5 p .m. And i'm gonna try to do something amazing. I'm gonna try not to talk about the passion film.
Maybe we'll talk about something else. There is other stuff going on out there you know. And we'll try to do that. And i'll be here. Lord willing. You be there. God bless. See you then.
The dividing line has been brought to you by alpha and omega ministries.
If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at P .O. Box 37106 Phoenix Arizona 85069. You can also find us on the world wide web at AOMIN .org that's A-O-M-I-N .O-R-G where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.
Join us again next Tuesday evening at 5 p .m. for the dividing.