《耶稣受难记》电影合乎圣经的批判

The Passion of the Christ:

A Biblical Critique of the Mel Gibson Film

Brian Schwertley

A movie produced and directed by Mel Gibson was released recently about thelast twelve hours of Jesus’ life entitled The Passion of the Christ. This film received a

huge amount of publicity before its release in late February 2004. The negative publicity

has come primarily from various Jewish groups that are concerned with anti-Semitism.

However, the movie received much praise and adulation from Roman Catholics,

Evangelicals, conservative radio talk show hosts and even a few Jewish rabbis. A number

of Romanists and Evangelicals have even spoken of the movie as a great tool of

evangelism, revival and moral societal change. Given the hoopla surrounding the release

of this film, Bible-believing Christians need to ask some important questions regardingthe movie’s content, its use as a tool of evangelism and the buzz surrounding it.

(1) The first question that needs to be addressed is: “Is it appropriate or lawful fora person to pretend to be Jesus in a passion play or movie”? Although this question willimmediately be dismissed by most Evangelicals and even some “Reformed” believers(e.g., many of the so-called “theonomists”) as absurd, it is a very important question.Plays or movies in which men pretend to be Jesus Christ are an explicit violation of the

second commandment and are blasphemous.1

1 All the Reformed confessions and catechisms speak with one voice against making visual representationsof Christ. The Westminster Larger Catechism says, “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are,

all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted

by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the

three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any

creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of

feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting

the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received

by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other

pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and

ordinances which God hath appointed. (LC # 109) The Heidelberg Catechism declares, “We are not to

make an image of God in any way, nor to worship him in any other manner than he has commanded in

his Word (Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18-25; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:23; Lev. 10:1-7; Deut. 12:30; 1 Sam. 15:22-23;

Matt. 15:9; John 4:23-24)....God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Creatures may

be portrayed, but God forbids us to make or have any images of them in order to worship them or to serve

God through them (Ex. 34:13-14, 17; Num. 33:52; 2 Kings. 18:4-5; Isaiah 40:25). (Q/A 96-97)

This was also the opinion of the early church. A major church council in Constantinople (A. D.

754) decreed: “If any person shall divide human nature, united to the Person of God the Word; and, having

it only in the imagination of his mind, shall therefore, attempt to paint the same in an Image; let him be

holden as accursed. If any person shall divide Christ, being but one, into two persons; placing on the one

side the Son of God, and on the other side the son of Mary; neither doth confess the continual union that is

made; and by that reason doth paint in an Image of the son of Mary, as subsisting by himself; let him be

accursed. If any person shall paint in an Image the human nature, being deified by the uniting thereof to

God the Word; separating the same as it were from the Godhead assumpted and deified; let him be holden

as accursed.” Regarding this council Philip Schaff writes, “The counsel, appealing to the second

commandment and other scripture passages denouncing idolatry (Rom. 1:23, 25; John 4:24), and opinions

of the Fathers (Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, etc.), condemned and forbade the

The second commandment (read Ex. 20:4-5; Dt. 5:8-11) forbids worshiping idols,

images of God and the religious use of images as aids to worship or devotion.

Evangelicals will argue that a picture of Jesus or a person portraying Him in a movie or

play is permissible because: (a) it is known that the person playing the Messiah is not

really the Lord and (b) the portrayal is purely educational, not devotional. No one is

bowing down to or worshiping the image of the Savior on the movie screen (c) Jesus was

and is both God and man. Therefore, his human nature can be lawfully depicted in the

same manner as any other human such as George Washington or one’s spouse.

Although Evangelicals and backslidden Reformed Christians believe that images

of Jesus are permissible there are a number of sold biblical reasons why such images are

unlawful.

First, Christ is unique because He is both God and man in one person. This fact

means that all the divine attributes of God the Son (as well as everything relating toJesus’ human nature) are attributable to the one person: the divine-human mediator.

(Reformed theologians refer to this as the communication of the attributes.)

Consequently, the disciples of our Lord could lawfully worship the person of Christ.

They could bow before Him in worship, wipe His feet with their tears and lean upon His

breast with loving adoration. Because of who our Lord is (i.e. fully God and fully man inone person) any image or representation of Him is automatically religious or devotional

in nature. A picture of Jesus or a representation of Him in a play or movie shouldimmediately evoke thoughts of love and adoration to the Savior. If an image brings

thoughts of worship and praise toward the Son of God, then obviously the image is an aid

or medium to worship even if people are not bowing down to the image. Therefore, all

pictures, statues or portrayals of our Lord are idolatrous. Further, anyone who pretends to

be the Messiah in a play or movie is (whether he is aware of it or not) pretending to be

God which is blasphemous and incredibly wicked.

Second, the people who argue that pictures or representations of Jesus are lawful

do so on the false assumption that the two natures of Christ can be separated. Such people

will often admit that the Bible strongly condemns making representations of God. But(they will argue) pictures of the Savior’s human nature are permissible. But (we ask), if

only the Lord’s human nature is represented then are you not portraying the Messiah asinfinitely less than He was, is, and ever shall be? Are you not separating the two natures

of Jesus? Are you not teaching a false theology regarding God’s Son? All pictures,

statues, and portrayals of the Savior implicitly promote the ancient heresy of Nestorius

who separated the two natures of Christ – the human from the divine.

Third, all pictures or portrayals of the Savior are a violation of the ninth

commandment because they present a false representation of our Lord’s physicalappearance. If God wanted His people throughout history to have a picture or

representation of His Son then He could have given us a detailed description of Jesus in

public and private worship of sacred images on pain of deposition and excommunication....It denounced allreligious representations by painter or sculptor as presumptuous, pagan and idolatrous. Those who make

pictures of the Savior, who is God as well as man in one inseparable person, either limit the

incomprehensible Godhead to the bounds of created flesh, or confound his two natures like Eutyches, or

separate them, like Nestorius, or deny his Godhead, like Arius; and those who worship such a picture are

guilty of the same heresy and blasphemy.” (History of the Christian Church [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1987 (1910)], 4:457-458)

the gospel accounts. The Bible, however, gives us almost no information at all regardingthe Savior’s appearance. Therefore, all pictures or portrayals of Christ are inaccurate.

They are subjective, artistic, false representations of the Son of God. This fact raises an

important question. Is it appropriate to make an image of the God-man based on a human

fantasy?2 While there is certainly nothing wrong with portraying a great figure from

ancient history in a painting or movie, Christ is not like other people. He alone is both

God and man. He alone is the supreme object of a believer’s faith. Consequently,

everything we are to believe concerning Him must come from divine revelation alone.“That which is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23).

Pictures or movie portrayals of our Lord are lies of the imagination that can only

pervert the faith and degrade the doctrine of Christ. If we look to the work of a man’simagination for edification we certainly will be disappointed. When God has told us

exactly what He wants us to know and believe concerning His Son, He can only be

greatly displeased by the false images set up by sinful man (e.g. the blond, blue-eyed

effeminate Jesus; the black power Jesus; the long-haired Hollywood hippie Jesus; thewimpy evangelical movie Jesus; the “Christian” bookstore muscular Jesus; the tall, dark,

handsome Mel Gibson Jesus). Further, portrayals of Christ whether in pictures or movies

are invariably reflections of the artist’s or director’s theology and worldview. Modernists,

for example, portray the Lord as the meek, humble teacher who was merely a friendly

teacher of ethics who never preached about sin, judgment or the wrath to come.

Romanists, in their portrayal of Christ, are often mystical and give an undue emphasis to

the role of Mary, Jesus’ mother, and pervert the meaning of the atonement (e.g. they

detract from its efficacy because of their doctrine of the mass which teaches that the

Savior is re-sacrificed by priests).

Fourth, both the Bible and church history teach that religious images invented by

men for educational or devotional use are snares of the devil that corrupt the people of

God with idolatry and declension. Because of our sinful natures the hearts of men are

easily and sadly frequently drawn toward sensual, corrupt forms of worship. In 2 Kings

18:4 we read that godly king Hezekiah broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had

made because the people of Israel were burning incense to it. The bronze serpent (unlike

pictures of Christ) was a lawful image because it was commanded by God. Yet as soon as

2 An evangelical reviewer of the film admitted that it was a real struggle not to commit idolatry while

watching the movie. He writes, “I found it very troublesome that people identify Jim the actor with Jesus.

My mind and emotions never made the transition to actually believing that Jim was Jesus. At one time I

began to feel emotion as Jesus, nailed to the cross, cried out for God to forgive His murderers.

Interestingly, my mind immediately intervened and kept me from seeing Jim as Jesus. I simply could not

and ultimately did not want to see the real Jesus in this movie. I could not identify with this human playing

my Lord and my Savior. My mind told me that making such a leap would be to succumb to idolatry.”(Tim Challies, Internet Article, Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ, Part 2,http://www.challies.com/archives/000195.html) The reviewer cited above does not seem to understand that

the point of a film is to cause an audience to completely forget that actors are up on the screen so that the

characters are regarded as really the people being portrayed. That is why portraying Jesus is so sinful and

blasphemous. Once we understand the point of any play or film, we also understand why films should

never be made about Christ. Any identification of the actor with the Savior is immediately idolatry. Any

image of the Messiah whether in art, sculpture, movies or plays is an enticement to devotion to a false

image of God. When we meditate on Jesus our minds should go immediately to the text of Scripture and

not some idolatrous fantasy.

it became a religious devotional object Jehovah ordered it destroyed as an item of

superstition and idolatry.

In the ancient church, pictures were made to honor the saints, the virgin Mary and

Jesus. This practice led to all sorts of superstitious, corrupt idolatrous practices: prayer to

dead saints; the adoration and worship of Mary; kissing the feet of statues of the saints;

keeping and worshiping of relics; saints days; pilgrimages; the dressing up of statues in

different clothes for different holy days; parades with statues and pictures in honor of

saints, the virgin mother and Christ; cathedrals built to honor the relics of dead saints and

so on. There is no question that many of the poor deluded souls who led the church down

the dark demonic path of Romanism were sincere. They probably were very pious and

had the best of motives. But their love of human devices, their additions to the worship

that God had authorized led to the full-blown, damnable religion of popery. “But say thePapists, images are laymen’s books, and they are good to put them in the mind of God.One of the Popish Councils affirmed, that we might learn more by an image than by along study of the Scriptures...For Papists to say they make use of an image to put them inmind of God, is as if a woman should say she keeps company with another man to put herin mind of her husband.”3

The fact that many prominent Evangelical leaders in America (e.g., James

Dobson, Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Lee Strobel, Greg Laurie, etc.) are vigorously

promoting a movie that expressly violates the second and ninth commandments; that is in

many ways a Roman Catholic propaganda piece reveals the sorry state of so-called

conservative Christianity in our nation today. It (generally speaking) is antinomian,

pragmatic, arminian, ecumenical, pluralistic and lukewarm. “What profit is the image,that its maker should carve it; the molded image a teacher of lies, that the maker of its

mold should trust in it, to make mute idols?” (Hab. 2:18).

(2) The second question the Gibson film raises is: “Is drama, either in the form of

a play or film, the lawful, God-ordained method of spreading the gospel?” This question

is important not only because Evangelical and Romanist leaders are speaking of the

Gibson movie as one of the greatest evangelistic opportunities of all time, but also

because Evangelical churches in our time are more and more turning away from theimportance of preaching and doctrine toward more “exciting”, sensual, entertainingmediums such as drama, video, film and music. (With the popularity of the “church

growth movement”, the decline of exegetical doctrinal teaching and the reliance onpragmatic methods and gimmicks in many churches today we should not be surprised

when the vast majority of Evangelicals promote such papal idolatrous trash.)

A study of the New Testament reveals that God has chosen the foolishness of

preaching and not drama to save the lost. This truth is demonstrated in Scripture by both

historical example and explicit teaching. Preaching was the method of both Christ (Mt.

4:17; 10:7; 11:5; Lk. 4:18, 48; Col. 1:28; Eph. 3:8; 2 Tim. 4:2) and the apostles (Lk. 9:2;

Ac. 10:42; 15:20; Rom. 1:15; 10:7; 1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 2:12), not drama. The apostles and

evangelists of the first century could have used drama or stage plays to make people

aware of Jesus for drama was popular with Greeks and Romans. Yet, they never resorted

to such methods. Paul says that Christ sent him “to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17); that

“it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who

believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ

3 Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1965 [1692, 1890]), 61.

crucified” (1 Cor. 1:21-23). The apostles were obedient to the resurrected Lord who saidto them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15).When the apostle Paul discussed how people come to a saving knowledge of Christ he

spoke of gospel preaching. “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have notbelieved? And how shall they believe in Him of whom the have not heard? And how

shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As itis written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring

glad tidings of good things’...So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word ofGod” (Rom. 10:14-15, 17). The God-ordained, authorized method of reaching the lost is

not through dance troupes, rock and roll bands, puppet shows, juggling clowns, or

Hollywood movies. It is through preachers who are qualified (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Eph. 4:11-

12), ordained (Ac. 13:2-3) and sent out by the church (Rom. 10:15; Ac. 12:3).

Why did God choose the medium of preaching to spread the gospel throughout

the world? After all, preaching is not very flashy or popular. Although the Bible does not

specifically answer this question (other than to say that it pleased God, 1 Cor. 1:21), it is

not hard to deduce the answer to this question. Pictures, dramas or movies where

historical events are acted out can never do biblical justice to the message of the gospel.

Why? Because the gospel involves not only historical facts but also the Spirit-inspired

interpretation of those facts. A movie simply cannot theologically convey or define

Christ, God, the atonement, justification or sanctification.

A movie is very good at shocking an audience or manipulating people’s emotions.However, can a movie adequately explain the incarnation: that the Son assumed a human

nature; that Jesus is both God and man in one person? A movie can dramatically portray

suffering on the cross. But, can a movie ever come close to explaining the depth of theSavior’s suffering, that the greatest anguish was not caused by the physical pain but bythe separation from the Father’s love and favor? Can a film explain the vicariousatonement, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the meaning of regeneration or thenature of saving faith? Obviously, drama or movies are a very poor medium for

conveying doctrinal truths. Preaching from God’s Word contains the historical facts of

the gospel, the interpretation of those facts and their application to particular people. Afilm cannot rebuke a person for violating God’s law or command them to repent ofparticular sins. A film does not tell particular people to place their trust in Christ. A

movie is impersonal. It can never address a sinner in a prophetic, applicatory manner.

God has chosen preaching to reach the lost. Therefore, we ought to trust God, obey Him

and stop trusting in our own wisdom or devices. The modern evangelical obsession with

human inventions and gimmicks in order to grow the church is ushering Christendom

into a new dark age of superstition and apostasy. In light of the rush into the depraved

abyss of human pragmatism, Reformed churches have an important responsibility to

stand up for the commandments of God (i.e., both tables of the law and not just thesecond table as many hypocritical antinomian “theonomists” have done) and be faithfulto their godly standards.

Further, movies must of necessity take certain liberties with the historical facts as

presented in the gospels. A film must be based on a screen play that is based on the

gospels or on a historical novel or both. Thus, the adaptation of the life of Jesus to the

screen will involve detracting from and adding to the Bible in order to produce a flowing,

interesting film. The Gibson film is especially guilty of adding to Scripture because it is

largely based on a book (The Dolorous Passion of Christ) written by a nun (Anne

Emmerich). A reviewer of the Gibson film informs us of Emmerich’s Romanistcredentials. He writes, “Emmerich is known as being a Mystic, Stigmatist, Visionary, and

Prophet. She apparently received many visions in which God provided her details aboutJesus’ last days that are not contained in the Bible. This extra-Biblical account of Jesus’

suffering provided many of the smaller details in the movie such as Pilate’s wifeproviding the cloth to Mary as well as Simon and Jesus linking arms as they held the

cross. It also provided inspiration for some of the words Peter spoke, such as his

expression of unworthiness before Mary. Most troubling is that it provided many of the

words Jesus spoke. A great number of Jesus’ words from the movie are drawn not fromthe Bible but from Emmerich. The movie makes no attempt to show what was drawn

directly from the Bible and what was drawn from extra-Biblical writing...Readingthrough The Dolorous Passion of Christ after seeing the movie I was shocked by how

closely the script of The Passion of the Christ follows this book. So much of what I

assumed was artistic license was actually drawn from supposed extra-Biblical

revelation.”4 Given Emmerich’s perverse papal theology and her delusional false

revelations we should not be surprised to discover that the Gibson film greatlyexaggerates and distorts Mary’s importance and role in salvation history. Whenever a

movie places historical events in the context of the gospel accounts that never really

occurred, or places words on the lips of the Savior that were never spoken, or detracts

from the gospel narratives (Gibson, for example, has removed from the subtitles thephrase spoken by the Jewish mob, “His blood lay on us and our children” in order toappease certain Jewish groups and secular humanists), then all those responsible for that

film are guilty of a great sin. The Bible explicitly and repeatedly condemns adding to or

detracting from what God has said in His Word (read Dt. 4:2; Pr. 30:5-6; Josh. 1:7-8).

There is even a curse pronounced by Scripture itself against anyone who would dare add

to or detract from the Bible (Rev. 22:19).

(3) The third question that the Gibson movie raises is: “What is the theology or

gospel that Mel Gibson is advocating?” Gibson is what is called a Tridentine Roman

Catholic. What this means is that he rejects the changes of Vatican II and thus strictly

follows the old style Romanism of Trent (A.D. 1564). In other words Gibson is not a

lukewarm, secularized Roman Catholic but a hard core adherent and advocate. He

believes that outside of the papal fold there is no salvation; that the great reformers of the

Protestant Reformation are damnable heretics. Therefore, the Gibson film is essentially a

propaganda piece for Romanism. It does not point men to the Christ of Scripture; nor

does it teach the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The deceived Evangelical leaders who are deficient in their understanding of

Scripture and theology need to understand just how unscriptural and deadly the papal

doctrine of salvation is. In order to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic doctrine of

salvation is a damnable heresy let us briefly contrast the biblical teaching on salvation

with Romanist doctrine on this topic.

The Bible teaches that all those who believe in Jesus (as revealed in the holy

Scriptures) are completely saved by Him. His sacrificial death on the cross (that occurred

once and for all) expiates the sins of the elect (i.e., it removes the guilt and penalty or

4Tim Challies, Internet Article, Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ (Part Two), available athttp://www.challies.com/archives/000195html.

liability of punishment of all of a believer’s sins: past, present and future); propitiatesGod’s wrath (i.e., Jesus removes God’s anger, wrath and judgment against believingsinners by enduring the penalty they deserved. His death was vicarious); reconcilesbelieving sinners to God (i.e., The Savior restores believers to God’s full favor andfellowship); and redeems the elect in the broadest sense of the term (i.e., believers are

justified, sanctified, eventually glorified; and, are released from the grip of the devil).

The very moment that a person believes or trusts in the person and work of Christ

(as defined by Scripture) he is justified before God. That is, the believing sinner is

declared righteous in the heavenly court solely because of what Christ accomplished or

His merits. Believers are declared righteous because their guilt is imputed to Christ on thecross, and Jesus’ perfect righteousness is imputed to the believer’s account. Thus, on the

day of judgment we are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus. When God looks at us,

He sees the perfect righteousness of the Savior. Christ’s sacrificial death is perfect, final,never to be repeated, sufficient and efficacious. All those for whom Jesus died will

certainly be saved because the Messiah’s work of redemption not only is the foundationor ground of a believer’s salvation but also is the guarantee of its application as well.

The Bible teaches that we obtain everything that Jesus accomplished for us by

faith alone apart from the works of the law. Faith is the alone instrument by which we lay

hold of the merits of Christ. Faith, which is a gift of God, is non meritorious. We are

saved through faith, not because of faith. Faith is like a steel wedding ring that in itself

has no intrinsic value but holds a flawless, perfectly cut ten carat diamond (the person

and work of Christ). After we lay hold of Jesus by faith we live a life of good works and

obedience out of gratitude for what our Lord has done, not as a means to obtain salvation.

The Roman Catholic Church has a view of salvation that contradicts the teaching

of Scripture at several key points. The papal theory does not regard the sacrificial death

of Jesus as sufficient for the salvation of sinners. It is a syncretistic system which

combines the merits of Christ with the inward holiness and good works of the sinner. It

confounds justification which is a once and for all, objective, instantaneous act of God

with sanctification which is a long gradual process within man which is never even

completed in this life.

A key to understanding Romanism’s perversion of Christ’s work is their rejectionof the biblical doctrine of imputation for the idea of an infused righteousness. Roman

Catholics do not view justification as a legal act but as an inward process. According to

Papal doctrine initial justification occurs when a person submits to Roman Catholic

baptism during which a person is regenerated and has grace infused into him. This

infusion begins collaboration between God and man.5 There is the merit of Christ and

5 “...in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of his passion, the grace wherebythey are made just” (Trent, 6th session, ch. 3). “Justification of the impious is...a translation...And thistranslation, since the promulagation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration”(Trent, 6th session, ch. 4). “...the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is

the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified” (Trent, 6th session, ch. 7). The Catechism

of the Catholic Church (1994) reads: “Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It

conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy...The

grace of Christ...is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in baptism” (Trent 6th session).

Trent says, “If any one saith, that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, andthat the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend that Christ has satisfiedfor them: let him be anathema” (Trent 6th session). “If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the

also the merit of man as he cooperates with God’s grace. Romanists deny that they areteaching salvation by faith plus works by arguing that man’s merit is a result of God’sgrace. God started the process, therefore man’s earned merit is ultimately due to God.

According to Rome a person can increase his justification by doing good works,

doing penance, going to mass and keeping the sacraments of the church. If a person is

bad his justification can decrease and a person can even lose his justification. The

ultimate goal of an infused righteousness is for a person to become a pure, sinless saint

and thus be qualified to enter heaven at death. Those who do not achieve sinless

perfection must go to purgatory after death to eliminate their remaining sins before they

are fit to enter heaven. In this system (where God does His part and man contributes his

own merits) there can never be real peace with God or assurance of salvation. Why?

Because, in the Romish system, man’s faith is divided between an insufficient sacrifice

and the supposed merits of sinful man. Buchanan says the papal church “did notrecognize One only Mediator, and One only sacrifice for sin: it taught the merits and

mediation of the saints, - the repetition of the one sacrifice on the Cross by the sacrifice

on the Altar, - and addition satisfactions for sin in the austerities of penance, and the

pains of purgatory. It made the pardon of sin dependent on the confession of the penitent

and the absolution of the priest, - thereby placing the church in the room of Christ, and

interposing the priest between the sinner and God: and when absolution was granted on

condition of penance, or some other work of mere external obedience, it led men to look

to something which they could themselves do or suffer, instead of relying by faith simplyand solely on Christ and His finished work.”6 The beauty and perfection of Christ’scompleted work are replaced by the filthy, stinking rags of human merit. Roman

Catholicism offers a deadly mixture of faith and works in the matter of justification but

labels this mixture “pure grace”. One can label a bottle of deadly poison anything he

wants to, but the contents remain the same. To offer up a system of salvation by works

and excuse the whole thing by saying it all flows from grace is contradictory and

deceptive. Paul says that as soon as works of any kind enter the picture, grace is no more

grace. “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt” (Rom.4:4). “You who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).

One of the greatest achievements of Martin Luther was his rediscovery of the

biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Protestant Reformers pointed out

(with irrefutable, exegetical argumentation) that the Romanist doctrine of justification

contradicts the Scriptures in several areas. First, the biblical terms used to speak of

justification, dikaioo, always means to declare righteous and never means to make

righteous (see Lk. 7:29; 10:29; 16:15; Mt. 11:19; Rom. 3:4). Justification is a judicial,

forensic term and is often contrasted in Scripture with judicial condemnation (see Dt.

25:1; Pr. 17:15; Isa. 5:23; Job 34:17). Second, when speaking of justification the Bible

speaks of the imputation of righteousness and not the infusion of righteousness (see Rom.

sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace andthe charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that thegrace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema” (Trent, 6th session, canon11). “If anyone saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else

is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any waynecessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will: let him be anathema” (Trent,

6th session, canon 9).

6 James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977 [1867]), 125.

4:12, 22-24). Third, the Bible describes justification as something achieved in an instant

of time. It is never described as a long process (see Jn. 5:24; Lk. 18:24; 23; 43; Rom.

5:1). Fourth, the Scriptures repeatedly declare that all that a person needs to be saved is to

believe in Jesus Christ. “Everyone who believes is justified from all things from which

you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Ac. 13:39; cf. Ac. 16:31; Jn. 3:15-16;

5:24; 11:25-26; Rom. 10:9; 1 Th. 4:14). Fifth, the apostle Paul says that God “justifies the

ungodly” (Rom. 4:5). This proves that God does not justify people because they arepersonally righteous but because of the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness.

Sixth, God’s word makes a clear distinction between justification and sanctification. “Butyou were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the LordJesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Justification deals with the guilt of sin

and the merits needed for eternal life, while sanctification deals with the pollution of sin.

Sanctification proves that a person has already been justified but does not contribute oneiota to a person’s salvation. Seventh, the Bible teaches that the good works of believers

are tainted with sin and are non-meritorious (Is. 64:6; Lk. 17:10; Gal. 5:17; Rom. 7:15 ff.;

Phil. 3:8-9). This side of heaven not one believer is without sin (1 Jn. 1:8). Eighth, the

Scriptures say that faith alone is the instrument which appropriates Jesus Christ and His

saving work (Rom. 3:22, 25-31; 4:5-25; 5:1, 18; 9:30-32; Gal. 2:16; 3:11-13, 24; 5:1-4).

After one is justified, the sacraments and other means of grace are used in order to help

the believer grow spiritually (i.e., for sanctification not for justification). Ninth, God’sword teaches that Jesus Christ actually accomplished a perfect redemption for His people,

the elect (Mt. 1:21; Jn. 10:11-29; Ac. 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27). Romanism erroneously

teaches that Christ merely made salvation a possibility if people cooperate with grace.But, as noted, such a view must presuppose that either Christ’s death was insufficient tosave or that God is unjust by punishing the same sins twice. Both options are thoroughly

unscriptural.

Roman Catholic ViewBiblical ViewVerse

Justification is God’s workof grace in man.Justification is God’s workof grace in Jesus Christ.“Being justified freely byhis grace, through the

redemption that is in ChristJesus” (Rom. 3:24 DB7).

As a man, by grace,

becomes more and morerighteous by obeying God’slaw, Church canon law, and

the use of the sacraments,

God will accept him.

God accepts men solely on

the merits of Jesus Christ.

“For we account a man tobe justified by faith, withoutthe works of the law” (Rom.3:20 DB).

Faith and good works are

the basis for justification.

Faith in Christ alone is the

basis for justification.

“By grace have ye beensaved through faith, and

that not of yourselves, it is

the gift of God; not of

7 DB=Douay Bible (1914). The Old Testament is the Douay version, the New Testament is the

Confraterenity edition; the complete Bible is commonly called the Douay Bible or Douay Version.

Officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

works, that no man shouldglory” (Eph. 2:8-9 DB).

God’s transforming graceinfuses righteousness into

men who cooperate with

grace. Thus, justification issubjective.

The righteousness of Christ

is imputed or credited to the

believer through faith.

Thus, justification isobjective.

“When a man does nothing,

yet believes in him who

justifies the sinful, his faithis credited as justice...Blestis the man to whom theLord imputes no guilt”(Rom. 4:4-8 NAB8).

The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is diametrically opposed to the biblical

method of justifying sinners. It contradicts the experience of Abraham and the teachings

of Jesus Christ and all the apostles. Therefore, the Protestant reformers opposed the papal

doctrine with every fiber of their being. Also, the Reformed churches rightfully opposed

the Romish heresy in all their confessions.

The fact that modern Evangelicals are united with papists in their love and

advocacy of an unscriptural Romanist film is very disturbing. It means that not only is

modern Evangelicalism grossly off course in the sphere of worship but also on the crucial

doctrine of salvation. The doctrine of justification by faith that thundered from

Wittenberg, Geneva and Edinburgh has been largely replaced in Evangelical circles with“accept Jesus as your personal Savior” or “let Jesus come into your heart”. The law-

centered, forensic nature of the gospel has been displaced by an autonomous act of the

human will that lets Jesus in the heart. According to modern Evangelicalism, God does

His part and man does his. It is a cooperative effort between God and man (syncretism) inwhich man’s will plays the decisive role. (Evangelicalism today is semi-pelegian or

Arminian.) Romanists and Evangelicals are in agreement that Jesus’ sacrificial death doesnot in and of itself have the power to save any particular individual unless the

autonomous human will cooperates with grace and allows salvation to occur. The biblical

view is that the death of Jesus is definitely efficacious for everyone for whom He died.

Christ actually saves sinners. He did not simply open an opportunity for men to cooperate

with a salvation process. Further, the modern Evangelical’s emphasis on allowing Jesusinto the heart is fully compatible with the Romanist concept of an infused righteousness.Both focus a person’s faith on a subjective experience instead of the perfect objective

obedience of Christ. The bottom line is that Romanism and Arminian Evangelicalism are

first cousins theologically. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see Evangelicals

praising and endorsing a Romanist movie project. Birds of a feather flock together.

As a hard core Romanist, Mel Gibson not only holds to a heretical doctrine of

salvation but also to an idolatrous view of the virgin Mary. Gibson has allied himself with

people in the papal church who believe Mary should be regarded as a co-mediatress

alongside of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is afforded a role in the film that goes beyond the

text of Scripture. One reviewer says of Mary in the film, “She is presented as being Jesus’support and strength during His trials. Many times Jesus falls and is unable to get up, but

after looking at His mother He finds the strength to carry on. The disciples call Mary

8 NAB=New American Bible, New Testament (1970). Officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

‘mother’...The movie shows Mary as the suffering servant, suffering along with Jesus”.9In other words, Gibson faithfully follows the Romanist concept of Mary as the co-

mediatress, the Queen of heaven.

A brief comparison between the biblical view of Mary and the Roman Catholicview will reveal the insidious doctrine behind Gibson’s portrayal of Jesus’ mother.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary was born without original sin (this

doctrine is referred to as the Immaculate Conception). This teaching was set forth as an

official doctrine of Papal church in a degree of Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. Is this

teaching found in Scripture? No! The Bible teaches that only Jesus Christ, the second

Adam, was born without original sin (read Rom. 5:18; Heb. 4:15). Not only does God’sWord say that all human beings beside Jesus Christ are stained with original sin but also

that everyone without exception has committed sins themselves. “Therefore, just asthrough one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus deathspread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12; cf. I Cor. 15:21-22).

In her desire to exalt Mary the Papal church also teaches that Mary never ever

committed any actual sins. “The Catholic Church, an infallible interpreter of HolyScripture, declares that she was kept sinless her life long by a special favor of God.”10Note, once again, that Romanist teaching explicitly contradicts Scripture. The apostleJohn says that any person who claims to be without sin is a liar: “If we [professingChristians] say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 Jn1:8)”. Paul concurs: “For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they areall under sin. As it is written: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one’” (Rom. 3:9-10).

Mary acknowledged her own guilt when she admitted her need of a Savior. “And Mary

said: ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior’” (Lk.1:46-47). Obviously, a person without sin does not need a savior.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary (i.e., She

remained a virgin her entire life)11. This doctrine came into the papal church because of

9Tim Challies, Internet Article, Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ (Part Two) found athttp://www.challies.com/archives/000195.html

10 Bertrand L. Conway, The Question – Box Answers (New York: Paulist, 1903), 377; cf. Council of Trent,

4th sess, can. 23.

11 Roman Catholic apologists have a few arguments they use to justify their position against the biblical

evidence. First they argue that the Greek word for brother (adelphos) does not accurately convey themeaning of Jesus’ spoken words which were Aramaic. In Aramaic the word used for brother is not as

specific as the Greek term and thus could mean cousin. This argument should be rejected because: (a) It is

an argument from silence. Romanist apologists in this instance are guilty of inserting their own

presuppositions (i.e., human traditions) back into what was supposedly said by Christ. To the Romanists we

ask: Why not simply accept the plain words of Scripture at face value instead of looking to unsubstantiated

speculation? (b) The Jews were comparing the miracle working Savior to His ordinary brothers in an

attempt to question the validity of His ministry. It would have been absurd to compare Jesus with His

cousins who had a different mother and who lived in a different household. Second, Papal apologists argue

that Joseph already had children from a previous marriage when he married Mary. This argument also has

serious problems. (a) There is not a shred of biblical evidence that Christ had any brothers or sisters when

He was young. Once again we have an argument from silence. (b) Matthew, a Jew writing to a Jewishaudience, refers to our Lord as Mary’s firstborn son. This expression was used by Jews if other childrenwere born after the first one; otherwise, “only son” would have been used.

Further, the Bible teaches that marriage and celibacy are not to be combined. For Mary to remain a

virgin her whole life, after the birth of Christ, she would have had to disobey the clear teaching of

the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology. This influence led to various

forms of asceticism; the exaltation of celibacy over the estate of marriage and the totally

unbiblical idea that even lawful sexual relations in marriage were somehow inherently

degrading and sinful. While the Bible explicitly teaches that Mary was a virgin when

Jesus was born (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:18-20, 23, 25; Lk. 1:26-27, 35), it plainly says that afterthe birth of our Lord Mary had other children. Matthew even tells us their names. “Is notHis mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And Hissisters, are they not all with us?” (Mt. 13:55-56). Luke concurs: “These all continued with

one accord in prayer and supplication with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, andwith His brothers” (Ac. 1:14).

The latest official addition to the Roman Catholic Church’s idolatrous redefinition

of Jesus’ mother is the doctrine of the bodily assumption of Mary. This teaching was

made an official part of Roman Catholic dogma by Pope Pius XII in 1950. According to

this doctrine Mary was miraculously taken to heaven by Jesus and therefore never had to

suffer the sting of death or bodily corruption. This dogma is the logical correlation to the

false papist idea that Mary never had original or actual sin. (Obviously if Mary was

without sin in every way then there was no reason for her to die.) What can be said

regarding this teaching? Is it biblical? No! Once again the Romanist Church has

fabricated human traditions regarding Mary that have absolutely no support from

Scripture. If something as miraculous and unusual as a person ascending directly to

heaven without death occurred, would it not be mentioned in God’s Word? Yet, the New

Testament says absolutely nothing about such an event. Further, would not such an event

have at least made a strong impact on the early church? Yet, in the first three centuries

after the birth of the church there is not one reference to the assumption of Mary.

Obviously, this doctrine, just like all the other Papist additions to Scripture was a human

tradition. It arose because of superstitious, idolatrous views of Christ’s mother.

The Papal church encourages her members to venerate (i.e., worship) Mary and to

pray to her (see the Council of Trust, 25th sess.). The Bible teaches that such behavior is

rank idolatry and is blasphemous. Scripture teaches that there is only one mediator

between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5). Only someone who is God, who

is omnipresent and omniscient, can simultaneously hear the prayers of millions of people

all over the earth. The Romanist exaltation of Mary detracts from the glory and the honor

that is due to Christ alone. Mary would be horrified to see the many deluded souls who

are bowing and praying to her when they ought to be worshipping and serving Jesus

alone (cf. Ex.20:4-5; Ac. 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10).

It is interesting to note that although the gospels speak of Mary as greatly blessed

of God because she is the God-bearer, the mother of the Messiah, they also clearly teach

that she had no special role in the apostolic church at all. She was a regular member along

with her believing children in the local church at Jerusalem. In the New Testament never

Scripture, which a godly woman like Mary would have refused to do. “Nevertheless, because of sexualimmorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband

render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have

authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over

his own body but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may

give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of

your lack of self-control” (1 Cor. 7:2-5). The apostle Paul rejected papal pagan ascetic nonsense when hedeclared that “the marriage bed is undefiled” (Heb. 13:4).

do we find anyone praying to Mary, asking her for advice, offering her special honors or

any such thing. In fact, once her God-given task of rearing Jesus is completed Mary

completely fades into the background.

There are only five references to Mary in the New Testament after the beginningof Christ’s ministry, none of which afford her a special role.

(a) Mary was present at the wedding feast in Cana where Jesus and His disciples

were guests. Commentators believe Mary had some responsibility for helping with the

party because she informs Jesus of the problem of the gathering running out of wine. OurLord responded, saying, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hourhas not yet come” (Jn. 2:4). Note that Christ respectfully asserts His independence of His

mother; He calls her woman and not mother; and His answer implies that she has no right

to determine the when, where, and how of His mission. Mary accepted her proper role,

submitted to her Son and told the servants to obey whatever Jesus commanded (Jn. 2:5).

(b) We next encounter Mary attempting to speak to Christ while He was teaching

a large gathering that filled a house. “While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold,His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him,‘Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You’.

But He answered and said to the one who told Him, ‘Who is My mother and who are My

brothers?’ And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ‘Here are Mymother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is Mybrother and sister and mother.’” (Mt.12:46-50; cf. Mk. 3:31-35; Lk. 8:19-21). This

narrative teaches us the following: First, Our Lord essentially ignores Mary and Hisbrothers’ request. His answer indicates that He will not allow Himself to be interrupted

from His task of preaching. If Mary was the queen of heaven, the co-mediatress along

side of the Savior, such a response was totally inappropriate. Second, Jesus indicates that

faith is more important than even blood; that spiritual ties are more important than evenone’s own physical family. Keep in mind that at this time Christ’s brothers did not yetunderstand who our Lord was. Mary may not have even fully comprehended Him yet.

Third, the Messiah declares that all His true disciples are worthy of the title: mother,

brothers and sisters. Jesus was born of a woman, under the law to establish a spiritual

family. The exaltation of His physical family to some unique exalted place in thekingdom by the Romish church clearly contradicts the Savior’s own words. (The Roman

Catholic Church which this author attended as a little boy had a large statue of Mary on

one side of the front of the church and a large statue of Joseph on the other. Behind the“altar” was a five foot tall painted crucifix.)

(c) The next mention of Mary is an indirect reference. Luke 11:27-28 reads, “Andit happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised hervoice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed

You!’ But He said, ‘More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep

it!’” In this passage Jesus does not say that the woman’s comments regarding His ownmother are wrong for the Bible does say that Mary was blessed (Lk. 1:42, 48).12

12 When the birth narratives speak of Mary as highly favored by God (Lk. 1:28) or blessed by God (Lk.

1:42) the point is not that Mary is someone intrinsically great who has done works of supererogation and

thus merits our worship; but rather that God has sovereignly chosen her for the special task of giving birth

to the Messiah – the Son of God. Mary was a godly woman who gave birth to Jesus. However, her role in

redemptive history was interchangeable with hundreds of other godly women. Like the great Protestant

However, our Lord’s reaction to the woman’s statement is a direct refutation to theveneration of Mary. Why? Because everyone who believes in and thus obeys God’s wordhas a greater blessing than even giving birth to the Messiah. Like the previous verse, this

passage teaches that the all-important thing in life is not a physical relation but a spiritual

union with the Savior. In our Lord’s ministry He goes out of His way to suppresssuperstitious ideas that exalt His earthly mother by teaching that all who truly believe in

Him receive the same blessing and have the same spiritual standing. There is no room inChrist’s theology for saint worshipping or Mariolatry.

(d) The final appearance of Mary in the gospels is at the crucifixion of Christ.“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary thewife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and thedisciple whom He loved standing by, He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother.’ And

from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (Jn. 19:25-27). There are a number

of interesting things to note regarding this section of Scripture.

First, note that our Lord fulfilled His moral obligation as the first born to care for

His mother in her aged years. With His death imminent He passed the responsibility on to

his closest friend, the godly apostle John. From this account we can surmise that Josephhad passed away and that Christ’s brothers were not yet converted. If they were, the

responsibility for Mary would have fallen on them.

Second, note that John (along with the church) is to take care of Mary and not the

other way around. If the Roman Catholic position on Mary were true we could

reasonably expect to see the apostles and the presbyters going to Mary for direction and

the special mediation to Christ and the Father that supposedly she could provide. Such, of

course, is not the case. Mary was a regular church member just like everyone else. As a

woman, she had no position of leadership or authority in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1

Tim. 2:12).

(e) The last mention of Mary in Scripture is found in Acts 1:14, “These allcontinued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary themother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” In this passage we learn the following: Mary

was active at this time in the church at Jerusalem. She was with the 120 when Matthias

was chosen to replace Judas and during the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of

Pentecost (Ac. 2:1 ff.). Also, at this point in time Jesus’ brothers (who earlier in thegospel accounts were presented as unbelieving) are active members of the church.

Once again note that after the beginning of His official ministry Jesus refers toMary as “woman” not “my mother” (Jn. 2:4). Our Lord taught specifically that union

with Christ and the spiritual relations that are a result of salvation are far more important

than blood relations (Mt. 12:46-50). Mary had no special authority in the church, but was

a regular church member just like everyone else (Ac. 1:14; 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11ff.).

In fact, Mary is scarcely mentioned after the birth narratives and is never mentioned inthe epistles. When discussing the incarnation Paul simply says, “...born of a woman,

born under the law” (Gal. 4:4). Mary is blessed among women, not blessed over women

(Lk. 1:42). There is not a shred of evidence in Scripture for the special status of Mary in

Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox), Mary’s focus was not on herself or her own merit or

righteousness but on the Lord Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics should obey Mary’s words, “Whatever He

[Jesus] says, do it” (Jn. 2:5) and not the lies of Romanism.

Roman Catholic dogma. The papal worship of Jesus’ mother has more in common withthe ancient Middle Eastern fertility cults than it does with the Bible.

In order to understand the extent to which Roman Catholic teaching concerning

Mary has departed from the Scriptures, Dr. Joseph Zacchello has placed Roman Catholic

teaching on Mary in one column and the Word of God in another column. The Roman

Catholic teaching is from The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri

(Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931). The Bible quotations are from the Douay Bible.

Mary is given the place belonging to Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

“And she is truly a mediatress of peace

between sinners and God. Sinners receivepardon by...Mary alone” (pp. 82-83).“Mary is our life...Mary in obtaining thisgrace for sinners by her intercession, thusrestores them to life” (p. 80). “He fails andis lost who has not recourse to Mary” (p.94).

The Word of God:

“For there is one God, and one Mediator

of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1Tim. 2:5). “Jesus saith to him: I am theway, and the truth, and the life. No mancometh to the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6).

“Christ...is our life” (Col. 4:4).

Mary is glorified more than Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

“The Holy Church commands a worship

peculiar to Mary (p. 130). Manythings...are asked from God, and are notgranted; they are asked from Mary, and areobtained, for She...is even Queen of Hell,

and Sovereign Mistress of the Devils” (pp.127, 141, 143).

The Word of God:

“In the Name of Jesus Christ...For there

is no other name under Heaven given tomen, whereby we must be saved” (Ac. 3:6,4:12). “His Name is above every

name...not only in this world, but also in

the world which is to come” (Eph. 1:21).

Mary is the gate to heaven instead of Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

“Mary is called...the gate of heaven

because no one can enter that blessed

kingdom without passing through her (p.

160). The way of salvation is open to none

otherwise than through Mary, and since our

salvation is in the hands of Mary...he whois protected by Mary will be saved, he whois not will be lost” (pp. 169-170).

The Word of God:

“I am the door. By me, if any man enter

in, he shall be saved” (Jn. 10:1). “Jesus

saith to him, ‘I am the way...no mancometh to the Father but by me” (Jn. 14:6).

“Neither is there salvation in any other

[than in Jesus Christ]” (Ac 4:12).

Mary is given the power of Christ

Roman Catholic Church:

“All power is given to thee in Heaven and

on earth, so that at the command of Mary

all obey – even God...and thus...God has

placed the whole Church...under the

The Word of God:

“All power is given to me in Heaven and

in earth” (Mt. 28:18). “In the Name of

Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:9-

11). “That in all things He may hold the

dominion of Mary” (pp. 180-181). “Maryis also the Advocate of the whole humanrace...for she can do what she wills with

God” (p. 193).

primacy” (Col. 1:18). “If any man sin, wehave an Advocate with the Father, Jesus

Christ the Just: and he is the propitiation

for our sins” (1 Jn. 2:1-2).

Mary is the peacemaker instead of Jesus Christ our peace

Roman Catholic Church:

“Mary is the Peace-maker between

sinners and God” (p. 197). “We often morequickly obtain what we ask by calling on

the name of Mary than by invoking that of

Jesus. She...is our Salvation, our Life, our

Hope, our Counsel, our Refuge, our Help”(pp.254, 257).

The Word of God:

“But now in Christ Jesus, you, who

sometimes were far off, are made nigh by

the blood of Christ. For He is our peace...”(Eph. 2:13, 14). “Hitherto you have notasked anything in my name. Ask, and you

shall receive, for whatsoever we shall askaccording to His will, He heareth us” (Jn.16:23, 24).

Mary is given the glory that belongs to Christ alone

Roman Catholic Church:

“The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a

name...above every name, that at Thyname, every knee should bow, of things inheaven, on earth, and under the earth” (p.260).

The Word of God:

“God also hath highly exalted Him, and

hath given Him a Name which is above all

names, that in the Name of Jesus every

knee should bow, of those that are inheaven, on earth, and under the earth”(Phil. 2:9, 10).

Liguori, more than any other person, has been responsible for promoting

Mariolatry in the Roman Church, dethroning Christ and enthroning Mary in the hearts of

the people. Yet instead of excommunicating him for his heresies, the Roman Church has

canonized him as a saint and published his book in many editions (recently under the

imprimatur of Cardinal Patrick Joseph Hays of New York).13

After a brief examination of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on salvationand on Mary – the mother of Jesus – it is obvious that the papal church is apostate,

heretical and spiritually very dangerous. It has more in common with an idolatrous cult

than with the bride of Christ. This cesspool of heresy and idolatry is the theologicalpresupposition behind Mel Gibson’s movie. The fact that evangelical leaders and pastors

have vigorously endorsed this film reveals almost a complete lack of spiritual

discernment and theological acumen on their part. Now that you have read this

monograph on The Passion, it is your duty to warn others about the dangers of Roman

Catholicism and point everyone to the true meaning of the person and work of Jesus

Christ. May God enable you by the power of the Holy Spirit to behold the precious

Savior with the eyes of faith. Amen. “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and

believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom.10:9).

Copyright 2004 © Brian Schwertley, Haslett, MI HOME PAGE

你可能感兴趣的:(《耶稣受难记》电影合乎圣经的批判)