The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Passion movie and the 2nd Commandment

Amen.

Gerry

When did Billy start teaching the second chance doctrine? Is this some thing new or has he always taught that?

I knew he was teaching a 'diffrent" gospel, but did not know he had gone that far.


Blessings.

Here is an excerpt from an article I read about the film:
Second Commandment?
Some Protestants insist that any visual representation of Christ, be it pictorial or dramatic, is a violation of the second commandment prohibiting graven images. I fully realize that there is considerable difference of opinion (fervently held) among people who are committed to the abiding validity of the Law of God regarding this issue, and I cannot enter extensively into that discussion here. For my purposes it is sufficient to note that any understanding of the second commandment must do justice to the fact of the incarnation of God in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. Moses’ statement in Deuteronomy 4:15, offered as the ground of the second commandment, “you saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully," can no longer be said of the incarnate God. It is true, we have no physical "portraiture" of Christ (and any such attempts must be acknowledged as imaginative), but that Jesus can be portrayed dramatically as a human being in historical situations does not seem counter to the concerns of the second commandment. As Greg L. Bahnsen reminded us, we dare not allow our interpretation of the second commandment to lead us into a docetic diminution of the reality of the incarnation.2 The Passion of the Christ is a narrative depiction of Christ’s humanity and His fulfillment of His mission as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), not an iconic representation of His divinity to worship.3

The whole article can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/2a4em

I would like to know what those here think. I do find it amazing though that so many in the "Reformed" camp are giving this movie such high marks.

God
bless

Sorry... but I can't give you an exact date when Mr. Graham made known he believes in a "second chance". But it has been many years since I read that and he has repeated his view on this several times from that time. But, it has been at least 20 years since the first time that I became aware of it.

In His Grace,

See my reply to Dan below, found here: My Reply to Dan.

4Ever_Learning

I have seen proof of these things, but when I went to Billy Graham Association website, they denied it outright.
They gave the standard Arminian position on soteriology, but said neither the Billy Graham Association nor Billy Graham Association believed those things.
When asked what he meant by those quotes, the closest answer I got to an answer is that sometimes Billy Graham's Parkinson's disease and its effects effect what he says. Sometimes he even forgets what he said sometimes.

As for what I think, even if it could be proved that Billy Graham doesn't believe those things, the fact that he said them would prove that he is no longer fit for ministry.

Here's what I think:

How can any man justly portray Christ as He is or was? Who can possibly walk and talk just as Christ did? Who can ever accurately depict the suffering of Christ on the cross, which was far more than physical? No one can.

None of this devalues or denies the incarnation; but who among us has seen Christ incarnate? Those who did left us no images, and I am sure God had His reasons in that.

Well then do you believe that any one who would try to portray Christ in movies or plays or whatever would be guilty of committing blasphemy? Just wondering.

Peace
&
Grace

Yes, I think so.

I must agree with Kyle; anyone who has the audacity to portray Christ, or any of the three persons of the Trinity in any form is guilty of blaspheming God. I might add, that I also believe that the Third Commandment is also in violation. For a person to portray any of the three persons of the Godhead, they must have a very low estimation of who God is. To "play God" is to put oneself on par with God and dishonor His holy name.

When Christ was revealed to those who believed upon Him as to His true identity, e.g., Peter, what was their reaction? I can assure you that none said to themselves, "You know... I bet I could "image" Christ in a play so well, that most people would say that the two of us are identical!"

Luke 5:8 (ASV) "But Simon Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord."


Revelation 1:17-18 (ASV) "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."

In His Grace,

I think I have to say yes to that.
But, I have to admit that many people who do it don't do it with that realization. They do it because they believe they are honoring the Lord.
Many Reformed people, including theologians have no problem with portraying Christ (depending on what the motive is).

Tom

PS
If you are interested in seeing an example of Reformed believers who don't have a big problem with it, see:
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm1.showMessage?topicID=458.topic

No not at all. I agree completely with Pilgrim's sentiments regarding this film. Ultimately depictions of Christ in this way (as with much Roman Catholic practise) is idolatry, and is breaking the 2nd commandment.

I don't believe the Christian is 'under law' but he is under grace. But grace in NO WAY throws out the righteousness that the law is based on. It is still wrong to have idols, to lie, to steal, to covet and so on.

Anyone whose understanding of grace leads them to think that
they have license to sin in any way, has no real understanding of grace. Romans 5:21 insists that grace reigns through RIGHTEOUSNESS:

"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord"

I love the righteousness of God, and hate idolatry of any kind. So I too am against this film. Pilgrim is right.

As to churches who would cancel meetings to watch the Superbowl, well what do these people love? God, or the pleasures of this world?

I wouldn't even dream of watching such a thing on the Lord's day, let alone cancel meetings for it.

I would also like to add that I have been having these same discussions with Reformed Baptists and unfortunately I seem to be in the minority of Baptists who believe the film to be breaking the 2nd Commandment. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
So far even the Baptists, who are against the film, do so because of the RC mystic, not because of the second commandment.

Tom

Hmm, I think my main reason against it is because of depicting Christ visibly - it becomes idolatry.

Otherwise, like you, I can see that a faithful account from the Gospel wouldn't be a bad thing, and I do think that despite the 'problems' with this film, that God will work His purposes out such that it will probably at least stir up people's thinking to consider who Christ is, and possibly seek out the truth from the scriptures. See Philippians 1...

This is from a Blog by Jack Brooks (Jack0Lantern here) Rev Jab on ABC.

Friday, February 13, 2004You Can Tell Me About The Passion...

...'because we're not going. I don't go to R-rated movies, for one thing. And this movie is R-rated because the crucifixion of Christ is an avalanche of carnage, a relentless bloodbath.

Have you ever read the Gospels? When you read them, have you noted that the eye-witnesses to Jesus' execution do not graphically play up the sensory impact of the smells, the sights, the sounds, and the tastes of that horrific event? And that they testify in order to lead someone to faith, not to overwhelm their nervous system? The Gospel isn't a series of iconic images aimed at our viscera.

The original plan for this movie, however, was for it to be portrayed with incomprehensible Latin and Aramaic -- not even dubbing was planned. Truth and meaning would be muted -- functionally non-existent. They may have changed plans since then, but the original intent is the same -- gut-wrenching iconic pictures, aimed at overwhelming the viewer with emotion. But being left shaken by a complex of emotion isn't faith, or repentance.

I hope we evangelicals can take advantage of the talking opportunities this movie may afford. But when I hear that many in the cast and crew converted to Roman Catholicism as a result of participating in this film, I feel a sense of suspicion and dismay.
Posted by: Jack / 12:51 PM