|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland. Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEB-SITE - http://www.takeheed.net |
|
“THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST”:
OUTREACH
FOR ANTICHRIST
by
Shaun Willcock |
As the movie, The Passion of the Christ, spans the
globe, filling theatres, filling the hearts and minds of millions with
deception, and filling Mel Gibson’s pockets with filthy lucre, it is necessary
for the watchmen on the walls of Zion to speak up, loudly and clearly, to stand
against the tide of popular opinion and condemn this movie in the strongest
possible terms.
Utter spiritual blindness lies upon the “Evangelical” world today. Such total blindness, that many churches have
reserved the entire movie theatre for themselves, and some have even held
services in the movie theatre after the movie was screened!
Ted Haggard, president of the
National Association of Evangelicals in the
A very common argument used by those who
justify this film is to say, “You can’t criticise or condemn it if you haven’t
seen it yourself.” This is an argument
Christians often hear, but it is such nonsense.
I have never seen a man take another man’s life, but that does not stop
me condemning murder as a terrible sin.
I don’t have to see it for myself; I have the Word of God that tells me
that it is a sin. I have never been to a
sodomite party, but that does not stop me condemning the sodomite lifestyle as
an abomination. I don’t have to see it
for myself, I have the Word of God that tells me what an abomination it is, and
there are the testimonies of those who tragically have been a part of that
lifestyle. “You do not have to drink
poison to know the effects it will produce in the body. You just need to read the label. We will do the same with this film. We will read what those who have produced
this film have said about it.”[1]
There are at least four
reasons for rejecting The
Passion of the Christ, and any
one of these reasons is sufficient, in itself, for doing
so. Even if the only information a true
Christian had about this film was the information contained in just one of the
points given below that would be sufficient.
No true Christian, or Christian church would
need any further reason to avoid it like the plague.
Let us, then, consider these four
reasons for rejecting this film with detestation.
1. This is a movie made by a vile
No true Christian, or
Christian church, knowing anything about Mel Gibson, and knowing that this
movie was made by him, would need any further reason to avoid it like the
plague! All that is necessary is to
know something about the man, his lifestyle and beliefs, and for any true
Christian, or true Christian church, this alone is sufficient reason to reject
this movie with disgust, as something abominable.
The great tragedy of this
whole sordid business is that so many, claiming
to be Christians, see nothing much wrong with
Church members do not face
any disciplinary action from their ministers if they watch ungodly films today
– in fact, they openly discuss the “latest releases”amongst themselves, with
their ministers joining in! Television
has brought the cesspool of
I will speak very plainly
here: if any pastor, any teacher of the Word, has never raised his voice –
loudly and without compromise – against the evils of the movie industry, nor
ever insisted that the members of the church over which he has the oversight
either reject with abhorrence the ungodly filth that emanates from the movie
industry, or face church disciplinary action, he has, quite simply, failed in his sacred duty as a minister
of the Word, a watchman, the Lord’s servant called to watch and to warn. He needs to take a good, hard, honest,
painful look at his own labours amongst them, and examine his own calling.
The fact that a movie like The Passion, made by such a man as Mel Gibson, could be so acceptable to the
“Evangelical” world is a terrible indictment upon the men filling “Evangelical”
pulpits. A huge measure of the blame for
the blubbering acceptance of this film by the so-called “Evangelical” world
must be laid squarely at the feet of the so-called “pastors”, the men who
disgrace the pulpits of “Evangelical” churches today. The pews follow the pulpits. When the shepherds go astray, how swiftly the
sheep follow. O how solemn that word in James.3:1:
“My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation [margin: judgement]”.
That multitudes of professing
“Evangelicals” flock in their droves to watch this movie, first of all reveals
the utter spiritual blindness
that hangs, like a thick cloud, over the professing “Christian” world today;
and secondly, it reveals the shocking
spiritual bankruptcy of the vast majority of men standing behind
pulpits today. God’s judgement cannot be
too far off. Gibson’s production
company, quick to seize the opportunity to make ever more money from the film,
has marketed the film as “perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2000
years” – and the “Evangelical” world has fallen for this slick
marketing hype hook, line and sinker.
How possibly could a man like Mel Gibson make a sound biblical movie? Let us leave aside the man’s Roman
Catholicism for the moment, as we will come to this later, as well as the fact
that the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be portrayed in any movie, as we will come to this later as well. Even apart from the fact that he is a
traditionalist Roman Catholic, this man has starred in violent, brutal, gory
movies, full of foul language and sexual immorality. How then can he turn his defiled hands to so
solemn a subject as the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory (even apart from the
fact that no sinful, mortal man can ever properly depict the Lord Christ in a
film), and handle such a theme with reverence, holy awe, holy fear, and with
his eye to the glory of God? It is
absolutely impossible!
Holy men of God wrote the Bible, as
the Holy Ghost moved them; and it is holy men of God, men called by the Holy Ghost, who are to
teach and expound it to souls. The men
of the world cannot teach the
true Christian the true meaning of any portion of God’s holy Word! And no Christian should ever go to the
worldly for such instruction! What,
then, are so-called “Evangelicals” doing, flocking to be taught the (supposed)
meaning of the crucifixion by a wicked, immoral, idolatrous man like
Gibson? And what are they doing, taking
the work of such a man and attempting to use it for evangelism? Have they gone completely mad? Alas, tragically the answer
is Yes. They
are blind, they are mad, they are those who “eat and drink with the
[spiritually] drunken” (Matthew24:49).
Like drunken men, they cannot discern the truth, for indeed they are
strangers to it.
The reason this film is so
acceptable to so many who profess (falsely) to be Christians is because
As film techniques and sets
improve all the time, and cameras become ever more sophisticated, the world is
being fed an ever-increasing diet of “reality” movies and shows; and how long
will it be before there is a crossing over to the real thing? Are we really that far removed from the
brutality of ancient times? No. Scratch the surface of his skin, and underneath
the veneer of “civilization” the average “civilized man” is as barbaric as any
ancient Roman citizen revelling in the spectacle of gladiators killing one
another in the amphitheatre. The Bible
reveals the total depravity
of all mankind; and certainly this depravity is revealed in the so-called
“entertainment” industry. And not just
by the producers and actors, but by the audiences as well.
This is a film that was
described by the non-Christian Time
magazine as “crimson carnage from the moment Jesus is condemned, half an hour
into the 127-min. film” (Time,
And yet, despite such
horrifying violence, many professing “christians”, no less than those who make
no such profession (thus showing that in reality there is no difference between them!), have an apparently insatiable
appetite for movie violence and gore, and see no harm in it; and now they are
able to go and satisfy their bloodlust by watching it in a supposedly
“Christian” context! – thereby supposedly “sanctifying”
it! How true the following comment: “The
ghoulish relish of hordes of professing Christians for the violence of this
film is in stark contrast with the attitude of the followers of Christ who
witnessed His crucifixion – ‘And all his acquaintance, and the women that
followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things’ (Luke 23:49). They could not bear the sight of His
sufferings up close but displayed the natural reaction of abhorrence at the
sight of a loved one’s sufferings and so ‘stood afar off’.”[2]
Again let it be said: no
true Christian, or Christian church, knowing anything about Mel Gibson, and
knowing that this movie was made by him, would need any further reason to avoid
it like the plague – even if nothing more was known about it than this!
2. This is
a Roman Catholic movie.
No true Christian, or
Christian church, knowing anything about Roman Catholicism, and knowing that
this movie is a Roman Catholic movie, would need any further reason to avoid it
like the plague!
All that is necessary is to
know the truth about Roman Catholicism, and to know that this film was made by
a Roman Catholic, and for any true Christian, or true Christian church, this
alone is sufficient reason to reject this movie with abhorrence, as an abomination,
an accursed thing, an unclean thing.
Mel Gibson is a
traditionalist Roman Catholic and has used this film to promote Roman
Catholicism. It received the personal
endorsement of the pope. Enough said. That is all that Bible Protestants want to hear. Roman Catholicism is not of God. It is a false religious system, not a
Christian church, not even a part of the true Church universal (Revelation
17:1-6). And therefore, any movie made
by a Roman Catholic is going to present a Roman Catholic version of events, not the true, biblical version.
Mel Gibson was raised a Roman
Catholic, and considers himself to be a Roman Catholic traditionalist. He loves the Latin mass, the central
blasphemy of the Roman Catholic religion.
He had a priest of
“It is crucial to realize
that the images and language at the heart of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ flow
directly out of Gibson’s personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most
traditional and mysterious forms – the 16th-century
This is an outright denial of
the once-only, all-sufficient sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross
for the sins of His people. The Lord’s
words on the cross, “It is finished” (John19:30), are not understood by
any Roman Catholic; for they believe that in the mass, the sacrifice of Christ
is re-enacted, day after day and year after year,
hundreds of thousands of times around the world. Romanists do not understand Christ’s words to
be referring to the fact that His great work was finished, and never to be
repeated in any form or sense. How then, how possibly, could a
movie about the crucifixion made by a devout Roman Catholic, ever be biblically
accurate? It is impossible! And yet blind “Evangelical” pastors reserve
entire movie theatres in order to show this film to their flocks!
Jim Caviezel, who pretends to
play “Jesus” in the film, is a devout Roman Catholic, who uses the rosary,
attends the mass regularly, and goes to confession. During the filming, he and Gibson went daily
to mass together, with Caviezel saying, “I need that to play this guy” (a true
Christian would not refer to his Lord and Saviour so irreverently as “this
guy”), and he went to confession regularly, saying, “I didn’t want Lucifer to
have any control over the performance” (little does he know that Satan
controlled the entire performance from beginning to end, and still does!). He carried what he believed was a piece of
the true cross on his person at all times (someone once said that there are so
many “pieces of the true cross” in circulation, that if they could be gathered
together, there would be enough wood for an entire forest!), as well as relics
of various Roman Catholic “saints”. This
is a man, however, who, for all his “devoutness”, has starred in movies filled
with profanity, violence, sex, etc. His Romish
devoutness did not stop him (by his own admission, as reported in Newsweek) using a filthy swearword
during the mock crucifixion – without showing any real remorse about it. And this is the man whose face will now be
the image in the minds of millions of people the world over whenever they think
of Christ! This immoral, ungodly Papist!
And what did Caviezel himself
say about the film? “This film is
something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”[5] Caviezel
stated that many in the film crew converted to Roman Catholicism. And yet blind “Evangelicals” hail it as a wonderful
evangelistic tool! It has led even more
poor souls into the clutches of the Antichrist – and they praise it as leading
souls to Christ!
This is what a Roman Catholic
website, Catholic Passion Outreach, had to say about the film: “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.”[6] For all true Bible Protestants, the fact that
this is a Roman Catholic movie is reason enough to utterly reject it. But we live in a day and an age when so many,
claiming to be Christians, see
nothing much wrong with Roman Catholicism.
The diabolical ecumenical movement has done the devil’s work very
well. It wasn’t that long ago when
pastors regularly preached against Roman Catholicism, calling it what it is:
the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the earth (Revelation 17:5). No members of their churches were permitted
to have any spiritual fellowship with Papists (2 Corinthians
Again I will speak very
plainly here:
if any pastor, any teacher of the Word, has never raised his voice – loudly
and without compromise – against Roman Catholicism, nor ever insisted that the
members of the church over which he has the oversight reject with abhorrence
everything to do with this abominable religio-political institution
masquerading as a Christian church, or face church disciplinary action, he has,
quite simply, failed in his sacred
duty as a minister of the Word, a watchman, the Lord’s servant called to watch
and to warn. He needs to take a
good, hard, honest, painful look at his own labours amongst them, and examine
his own calling. For after describing
the Roman Catholic religion in 1 Timothy
4:1-5, Paul writes to Timothy in v.6, “If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou
shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ,
nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast
attained.” A good minister of Christ puts the brethren in remembrance of
the evils of Roman Catholicism. He who does not do
so, is not a good minister of
Christ!
Again let it be said: no
true Christian, or Christian church, knowing anything about Roman Catholicism,
and knowing that this movie is a Roman Catholic movie, would need any further
reason to avoid it like the plague – even if nothing more was known about it
than this!
3. This is
a film in which the Lord Jesus Christ is supposedly portrayed by a man.
No true Christian, or
Christian church, knowing that it is scripturally wrong for any man to depict
the Lord Jesus Christ in art, or to portray Him in a film,
would need any further reason to avoid it like the plague!
Even if the man who pretended
to portray the Lord Jesus Christ was a good and moral man; and even if he was a
Protestant and not a Roman Catholic; the fact remains that for any mortal man
to attempt to portray Christ in a film, is contrary to the Word of God, “which
makes it clear that any representations of any of the three divine persons of
the Holy Trinity are sinful (Exodus 20:4-6; Acts 17:29). Although the eternal Son became flesh, we
have no idea what he looked like, and so any representation of him is purely
imaginary, and inaccurate; and even if we did know exactly what he looked like,
we still could not depict him, for his divine glory, which the apostles beheld (John1:14),
cannot be depicted; and yet, if only his humanity was depicted, then his
nature would be divided – and that is heretical. Furthermore, as Christ is the image of the
invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3), so that he could say to
those who saw him that they had seen the Father (John.14: 8-9), it
follows that if we attempt to depict Christ, we attempt to depict the invisible
God; but as we can only depict Christ inaccurately, we would thereby depict the
invisible God inaccurately. And in doing
so, we would have made a similitude of God as a man, which would be sinful (Deuteronomy
Roman Catholics have never
had any scruples about pictorial representations of Christ. Their homes and places of worship are filled
with images – idols – supposedly of “Christ” and of many others. They hang crucifixes up everywhere, with
images of “Jesus” hanging upon them.
They depict “Christ” in paintings, complete with halo around the
head. And they make use of all these idolatrous images, the vain works of the
imaginations of men, in their worship!
For they actually bow down to them, and pray to them, contrary to God’s
Word!
Christians always viewed all such
idolatry with detestation. But in more
recent times, the “Evangelical” world has become more and more accepting of
such idolatrous images. Various movies
through the years have contributed to this, in which attempts have been made to
depict the Lord Christ. In the late
1970s, another pro-Papist film, Jesus
of Nazareth, made by Franco
Zeffirelli, was very popular in many parts of the world, and the actor who
played “Jesus” in that film was deliberately made to look very much like the
common images of “Jesus” in Roman Catholic art.
Then there is the still-immensely popular film, Jesus, which
Evangelicals the world over love to use as an “evangelistic tool”. And now this one.
It seems that modern
“Evangelicals” are willing to forsake almost all biblical standards, and to
adopt the Jesuit motto that “the end justifies the means.” If, to their minds, “souls are being saved”
by watching the movie, or “Christians are being edified”, or “Christians are
having their faith deepened”, then the end justifies the means. They profess
to be “Bible-believers”, and very loudly and proudly say, “We believe nothing
but what the Bible teaches!” But this is
a lie. The reality is that they believe many things that are not taught in the
Bible – and they reject many things that are
taught in the Bible!
Again let it be said: no true
Christian, or Christian church, knowing that it is scripturally wrong for any
man to depict the Lord Jesus Christ in art, or to portray Him in a film, would
need any further reason to avoid it like the plague – even if nothing more was
known about it than this!
4. This is
a film that is biblically inaccurate.
No true Christian, or
Christian church, knowing that this film is not faithful to the Scriptures,
would need any further reason to avoid it like the plague!
Even if the man who made it
was a good and moral man; and even if he was a Protestant and not a Roman
Catholic; the fact remains that it is biblically inaccurate, and therefore is
to be shunned by all Christians. What is inaccurate about it? Many things; but
here are just a few:
a. As stated above, it is
sinful, in fact idolatrous, to attempt to portray the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not know what He looked like; and even
if we did, no sinful man can depict Him.
Only the human nature would be depicted (and not even that would be
accurate), but the divine nature could never be depicted. And thus, as Christ cannot be truly depicted, any film in which some
man supposedly acts as Him is biblically inaccurate! It is an inaccurate portrayal of the Son of
God revealed in Holy Scripture. It
cannot be otherwise.
b. Contrary to what so many
“Evangelicals” seem to think, the film is not based solely on the Gospel accounts of Christ’s
crucifixion. Gibson also based it, to a
large extent, on the visions of two Roman Catholic nun-mystics, Anne Catherine
Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. Emmerich
claimed to have seen visions of the sufferings, death
and resurrection of Christ, and these were recorded in her book, entitled The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. It is easy to see where Gibson got the title
for his movie! As for Mary of Agreda,
she wrote a book entitled The Divine
History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God as Manifested to Mary of Agreda. Of Emmerich’s visions, Gibson openly
admitted: “She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of” (The New Yorker,
c. The film subtly gives the
impression that it was actually Mary who offered Christ as a sacrifice, not God
the Father. “‘The Passion of the Christ’
leaves us with a vision of the sacrifice of Christ that is only dolorous
[dolorous: full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful; dismal] and which puts into sharp
relief the Roman Catholic notion not only of the importance of Christ’s agony,
but that of Mary in ‘offering her Son’.
In an interview with Zenit, the Roman Catholic News Service, Father
Thomas Rosica [the title of “Father” should not be given to any priest
of Rome – SW]... illustrated how ‘The
Passion of the Christ’, in keeping with Roman Catholic theology, uses
extra-biblical content to massively exaggerate the role of Mary.... ‘The
Mother of the Lord is inviting each of us to share her grief and behold her
Son.’ This use of extra-biblical
material, emphasis on physical suffering, exaggeration of the role of Mary, and
explicitly Roman Catholic theology should not surprise us, however, as these
are all hallmarks of the primary inspiration for this movie: [Anne Catherine
Emmerich’s] The Dolorous Passion of Our
Lord Jesus Christ.”[8]
d. There are non-biblical
“flashbacks” to Jesus’ childhood with Mary (again promoting Romanism, the cult
of Mary).
e. Satan is depicted as “an
androgynous creature, a Gollum with weird sex appeal, who slithers through the
crowd, working mischief” (Time,
f. There is much more than this
that is biblically inaccurate about the film, but the above will suffice. The bottom line is this is not a film based strictly on the
Gospel accounts. It is a heretical
mixture of aspects taken from the Gospel accounts, Roman Catholic mysticism,
Mel Gibson’s own thoughts, unjustifiable poetic licence, and Roman Catholic
doctrine.
Again let it be said: no true
Christian, or Christian church, knowing that this film is biblically
inaccurate, would need any further reason to avoid it like the plague – even if
nothing more was known about it than this!
What are some of the fruits
of this film?
1. We are witnessing something
extraordinary, something diabolically evil, in all this: this film has pushed the
devil’s ecumenical movement forward! For
many decades,
The Passion has been a giant leap forward for the ecumenical movement. It has promoted Roman Catholicism on a huge
scale among “Evangelicals”. “Mel
Gibson’s movie savages the Word of God for the benefit of an accursed church with
an accursed gospel.... We are at yet another turning point in the history of
the Church.”[9] Ex-priest Richard Bennett stated: “The
Evangelical church’s acceptance of Gibson’s movie gives shocking – maybe
apocalyptic – insight into the state of popular Christianity today. Will history reveal this day as the time when
Evangelicalism, on a popular level, merged with the Roman Catholic Church?”[10] Certainly it has greatly promoted the merger so desired by ecumenicals. The wall of separation between Roman Catholicism
and so-called “Evangelicalism” has been crumbling for many decades, and this
film is another, very powerful assault on that wall, causing it to crumble even
further.
2. This film, like others
before it and doubtless others to come after it, promotes the lie, and deceives
people into thinking, that men can somehow be “evangelised” by watching brutal
scenes of a crucifixion; that viewing such scenes can somehow produce and
strengthen faith in Christ. “It is inferred that all that is necessary to
make a sinner a believer is for him to see the sufferings of Christ with his
natural eyes. This is a fallacy. Sight is not necessary to faith as Peter
indicates when he wrote, ‘Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though
now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of
glory’ (1 Peter 1:8). The concept of
natural vision leading to faith is proved false by the original events of
Christ’s suffering. Of all those who
witnessed the original events in real life there are two conversions recorded – and it was
the righteousness of Christ not the grotesqueness of His sufferings that
impressed them (Luke
“With the exception of Paul, all of the
Apostles were eye-witnesses of much of the sufferings of Christ. Not once do these men emphasize the gory
details of the scenes they witnessed in order to impress their audiences or to
produce conversions. Certainly, no
gospel presentation of Christ in Scripture ever had a ‘Restricted” rating as
this film does on account of its nauseating and stomach-churning violence! The published trailers for the movie contain
graphic scenes that are physically sickening – but are spiritually revolting
for the Christian because of their degrading view of the Saviour. God has chosen ‘the foolishness of
preaching to save them that believe’ (1 Corinthians
“His physical sufferings made
no impression upon many who stood around the cross. Is this not testimony to their inefficacy as
a means of witnessing? Grace alone saves
the soul. Films of any sort are not
means of grace. The enormity of His
sufferings involved more than the physical pain. Others were crucified as well. What made Christ’s sufferings so unique
was that His soul was becoming an offering for sin. ‘Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he
hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall
prosper in his hand,’ Isaiah 53:10.
His soul was exceeding sorrowful unto death. No physical representation of these
sufferings can ever be made. The communion
featst is not a meditation upon His physical sufferings alone.”[13]
3. It will burn into the minds
of millions a graphic image of “Christ” that is utterly
false. For millions of people,
the face of Jim Caviezel will be the face of Christ, as surely as
multiplied millions for many centuries have had an image of Christ in their
minds that was formed by gazing at statues, or paintings. This is all idolatry. “Take ye therefore good heed unto
yourselves; for ye saw no manner of
similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the
midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the
similitude of any figure, the
likeness of male or female”
(Deuteronomy 4:15-16).
4. It will provide millions of
people with a graphic concept of the events of the crucifixion that is not truly according to the Word of God. Yes, Jesus was brutally treated by His
captors. Yes, crucifixion was a bloody,
agonizing method of execution, and the Lord suffered it. But Gibson’s movie has much in it that is not in the biblical account, and also,
it focuses narrowly on one aspect only – the brutality of the crucifixion. The real
meaning and purpose of the crucifixion of the Lord is not given in truth.
5. Those who
go to see it will be encouraged to go and see the other films that Gibson
has made. This man, the star of
many extremely violent movies in the past, is now being hailed everywhere as a
“Christian actor”, who deserves the support of Christians for his
“stand for the Gospel” in
May the Lord’s people
continue to preach the Gospel in these days of abounding wickedness and false
“gospels”, and let none be tempted to say, “Well, at least it is causing people
to think about the Lord Jesus Christ.” Do not be deceived! They will leave the theatres after having had
their minds, and their senses, subjected to Roman Catholic indoctrination. The “Christ” they will be thinking about will
be the false “Christ” of Romanism. And
even if they are reduced to tears, this is the natural human response to
intense suffering – aided of course by cleverly angled camera shots, dramatic
poses and pauses, lighting, sound effects, and all the other
There were a great many
people who witnessed the actual
crucifixion of the Lord Jesus – and yet were the multitudes converted? Did a revival break out? No.
Why, then, would the Lord bless the efforts of a Roman Catholic
Hollywood actor/producer, who has broken the Lord’s Word concerning idolatry
and adding to Scripture, unto the salvation of lost souls? What abysmal darkness has descended on
“Evangelicals”, that they could ever imagine such a thing? When the Lord of glory was crucified, the
multitudes did not repent. Why would the
Lord grant repentance to multitudes now, through a movie such as this? It is indeed a great outreach – but for Antichrist, not Christ.
Today, as always since the
fall of man in the Garden of Eden, the truth of God stands sure: “For I am
not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it
is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans1:16);
and, “For the preaching of the
cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it
is the power of God” (1 Corinthians1:18); for “it pleased God by the
foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe” (1 Corinthians1:21).
Contending for the Faith Ministries
(Distributor for Bible Based Ministries)
Published in association with Bible Based
Ministries, South Africa
Website:
www.biblebasedministries.co.uk
This
pamphlet may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full
[1]“The Passion of the Christ: a Number of
Important Questions Answered, by Brian McClung. The
Burning Bush, Volume 35, April 2004.
Kilskeery Free Presbyterian Church,
[2]The Passion of the Christ: What Should
Christians Think of It? by Andy Foster. The
Burning Bush, Volume 35, March 2004.
Kilskeery Free Presbyterian Church,
[7]Hollywood and the Christian, by Shaun
Willcock (pamphlet). Contending
for the Faith Ministries,
[8]<http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:E3yWWAGCuC8J:forums.5solas.org/showthread.php%3Fgoto%3Dlastpost%26t%3D1518+%22s> 2/19/04.