SITE NOTICE | MORE..Christian Heritage Collection -- Update! A new portrait has been added to our collection -- Pierre Viret! A collection of original art celebrating the history and heritage of the Christian church. .. click for more info!
Dr. Bob Jones III Statement on The Passion of the Christ
The following statement by Dr. Bob Jones III on this film is from the BJU website and is used with direct permission for the SermonAudio listenership.
I have not seen The Passion of the Christ, but there is no shortage of articles across the spectrum about it. Having read many of those and having talked with people who have seen it, my "off-the-cuff" thoughts about it are as follows.
Saved people who see it will be moved of heart, even to tears, over the reminder of the physical suffering the Savior endured in the process of atoning for our sins at Calvary.
Most who see the film will not have a clue about the more intense suffering caused Him by the Holy God of Heaven, Who "made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin" (II Corinthians 5:21).
Bible-believing Christians who are not familiar with Catholic doctrine and symbology probably will not be immediately struck by the film's Catholic elements.
Catholics will see it as a Catholic film. In the words of Andrew J. Webb's critique of the film, "The Passion of the Christ flows directly out of Gibson's personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most traditional and mysterious formsâ€”the 16th-century Latin mass."
The unsaved will come away with a clear impression of the physical brutality of Christ's deathâ€”not the atoning purpose of it. However, because the film will be much talked about in the workplace, it gives Christians an opportunity to point those who have seen it to the Scriptures, which define man as a hopeless sinner and reveal the love of God for sinners in the giving of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, Who takes away the sins of the world.
Its producer, Mel Gibson, has been vilified by Hollywood. Anything Hollywood is against, decent peopleâ€”and Christians in particularâ€”can probably appreciate.
I see Hollywood as a garbage can full of contaminated food. In every garbage can some good food is thrown away, but that doesn't make eating out of a garbage can recommended. That which is basically garbage is best left aloneâ€”because in trying to partake of the good, the potential for being corrupted is very real.
Hollywood is committed to making degenerate culture appealing. The fact that occasional good might come out of Hollywood doesn't make Hollywood commendable or give me cause to get excited. A bar might serve the best red skin peanuts in the whole world, but it is still a bar. The good peanuts don't make the bar any more respectable. I look at the production of an occasional good film from Hollywood the same way. I cannot encourage Christians to see it in the theaters; it will be released on DVD soon enough. The film will do some good in the conversations that it stimulates, opening up evangelistic opportunities for believers to take advantage of. It truthfully presents some elements of our Savior's passion. It fails, however, to give understanding of the greater pain He bore and the reason for it. Catholic websites are all abuzz about the opportunity the film provides Catholicism to gain adherents.
Christian believers should seize every opportunity it gives us to bring men to know Christ, Who bore our sins in His own body on the cross.
I cannot believe that those who are commanded by the Master to " love one another, as I have loved you." are showing such animosity toward each other.... If a christian cannot have their speech seasoned with grace then it would be better to remain silent. Malachi 3:16-18.
does your husband know you spend all day long [on the computer] trying to get another man to have arguments with you? There's no relevant point in that post whatsoever, only fighting words. The forum's about Bob Jones' view of the Passion - not your infantile 3-month vendetta.
does your husband know you spend all day long trying to get another man to have arguments with you? There's no relevant point in that post whatsoever, only fighting words. The forum's about Bob Jones' view of the Passion - not your infantile 3-month vendetta.
CK, I'm surprised to read your remark a few posts back "amen samuel, it is good to debate and not argue --"
Back three months ago when you were trying to get me kicked off the board you were complaining that we were supposed to be "commenting," not "debating." You were highly offended that I was commiting what to you was the great crime of debating.
I thought that was rather silly, like many of the illogical, irrational things you say. I see nothing wrong with debating at all, and I even told you what the secret is to be a good debater (i.e. be on the right side of the issue.)
Oh, well. It might be nice if you'd apologize to me for your change of heart.
Debating is, in fact, not a dirty word.
Reviling? THAT is a dirty word, means wildly and emotionally condeming and accusing people, calling people liars, slanderers because you don't agree with their point of view. That would be a description of reviling.
This is another thing you have accused me of doing, reviling.
The Bible says to be patient, gentle and apt to teach, to set a good example. I am offended by your lack of chivalry and kindness toward me as a woman and as a fellow believer.
If I were to follow your own bad example, then you might have reason to accuse me.
whereas I said consistently I resoected that you had your view and were a guy doing what he felt bound by conscience to do.
Now apparently you're trying to say I was lying about the crossing. CK just give it up man. WHy do you love this arguing with me so much? It was a cross-posting and there is nothing strange about the times. I was starting to write at the same time you posted your answer, and it usually takes me ten minutes to post or so, the difference is eight minutes - grasping at straws like I say.
All CK's quotes, and the record shows I said NONE of the things alleged to have been said by me. Do any of those quotes look like calling my character and beliefs into question?
Remember that last remark? you said, quoting me and responding: ""ck, either your information is bunk" You basically just told me I am an idiot who wasted 60 some hrs of research finding what I wanted to find from the rag mags like the enquirer and such...."
That was the one where you deliberately left out the second clause of what I ACTUALLY said in order to twist my words, which ACTUALLY were:
"ck, either your information is bunk OR MAYBE GIBSON JUST SAYS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, WHICH IS INDEED POSSIBLE"
You deliberately twisted my words ther and then apologized for it, then did it some more.
11/13/04 11:28 AM c k peterson â€¢ Posted 1 hour ago â€¢ Add new comment â€¢ Report abuse â€¢ Groups | Comments that is just more bait for contention anon............ but I will answer you to satisfy you curiosity.......
Yes I considered the opposing views, how can one come to a truth without hearing a matter? Now that I have heard the matter, I have formed a doctrine which I believe, can be amply supported with scripture.....
yours was posted 11/13/04 ***11:37 AM*** anonymous â€¢ Posted 59 minutes ago â€¢ Add new comment â€¢ Report abuse â€¢ Groups | Comments ck - if this were about a divine call to preach people out of being lead astry, you would go do that, but the fact is it's about you wanting to argue. BTW, why have you STILL avoided my question about how many hours of your research were spent seeing apologias, because if HYPOTHETICALLY you not only didn't see the movie but listened only to condemnatory things about that would constitute a laughably lame study. AGAIN you put "
must have been a long crossing there anon, talk about straws......
The second commandment shows up now and then, in order to back up someone or another's arguments about not making any images to represent God.
Exodus20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"
The second commandment includes verse 5: "Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them:.." In this we are given the understanding that we are not to make any image or likeness **for the purpose of worshipping it**
If the images and likenesses were evil in themselves, verse 4 would forbid photos of people, paintings of mountains, drawings of fish, etc.
Continuing with verse 5 "for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,.." Is God jealous of a photo of a tree? No, unless it has been made into an idol to which one bows down and serves.
It is not the image that God opposes, but idol worship.
ck - we cross-posted genius, Look at the times. I was typing that while you were writing your (nonetheless incomplete) answer and didn't know that. Why are you still grasping at straws trying to continue the argument? I already told you I was done. You're only proving to people how argumentative you are and of course you know you slandered me - you know that almost half a dozen times you said I said things which I had said NOTHING remotely like. And you even apologized once. If anyone doesn't believe me just scroll down. CK I'm done arguing, just give it up and agree to disagree.
yes you are right, it is fruitless to rebuke ignorance of biblical separation and spiritual apostasy. I have knowingly slandered no one on these threads, I apologized that you believe I had misunderstood you and possibly I had, but slander, I have not...Beware of the poison of rome all who read these........
oh, and you must have missed the answer to this which is plainly posted for you....
ck said "that is just more bait for contention anon............ but I will answer you to satisfy you curiosity.......
Yes I considered the opposing views, how can one come to a truth without hearing a matter? Now that I have heard the matter, I have formed a doctrine which I believe, can be amply supported with scripture....."
after I posted this answer anon railed on with ANON said"BTW, why have you STILL avoided my question about how many hours of your research were spent seeing apologias, because if HYPOTHETICALLY you not only didn't see the movie but listened only to condemnatory things about that would constitute a laughably lame study. AGAIN you put all these foul words in my mouth. Does your Bible say anything about bearing false witness?"
CK - I'm not arguing this anymore. If there's one thing you would agree with me on if you're reasonable it's that this is a fruitless endeavor that will only cause others to be drawn into a fight, just like I see Cheryl has sucked you right into a fight on other threads. I respect you acting as best as you can on conscience and respect your view, but will remain in disagreement with your view on this topic. Good day and God bless.
Samuel - I agree with all your posts. You and I should probably hang it up though. If a person can hold with iron grip a view which he formulated out of ignorance you and I won't convince him out of it, and he likely will not convince us otherwise (speaking for myself there's no way I'm going to be convinced out of what I know about a film I've seen by someone who knows nothing about it). I don't know how many of my posts you've seen but I've been at it with ck for awhile, or rather he's been at it with me, and every post I make is just met with twists, misrepresentations of views, putting words in the mouth and slander, as you can see for yourself below ck was caught in at least 4 times, apologized, and promptly began again to do it. It's all right there in recorded history. As for me I'm not going to continue this argument because it's fruitless and the devil is the one who wants us to waste time, and I think it will just draw in more people who are sitting gape-mouthed waiting for someone with an opposing view to devour, and there will just be more fighting and the thread will just be closed. The combination of a person who is ignorant of a film's content saying it shows other than what others who saw it say is a combination of absurdity that will never lead to agreement.
The preaching of the cross is the ordained way that God will save His people. And only by the word of God can men be saved. But the film has been made and seen... If someone wants to discuss it with us, we have the opportunity to prove Rome and her false gospel wrong by taking them to the truth of the scriptures, and if there is an anxious enquirer, we can do as philip and the ethiopian and take them to the word and preach Jesus. Like Josephs situation is Egypt, God can use the evil intended from the Devil for His Good. Ps its good to debate and not argue.