Updated March 29, 2005 (first published February 6, 2004) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” has been re-released in a recut version, with some of the violence removed, and advertising had been increased during Lent and Easter this year, so we want to renew our warning about it.

While Jewish and many secular reviewers have treated the film with great negativity, it has been extremely popular with Evangelicals and Catholics.

After a private showing, Billy Graham praised it. He even said, “Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind.” Mission America Coalition plans to use the movie for evangelism. Campus Crusade is promoting it. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in southern California purchased 18,000 tickets. The Evangelical Free Church of Naperville, Illinois, purchased more than 1,000. Two members of Wheaton Bible Church in Wheaton, Illinois, have offered to buy out two screenings of the movie at a local theater.
Southern Baptists are agog at Gibson’s movie. Jack Graham, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said, “The movie is biblical, powerful and potentially life-changing.” Morris Chapman, president of the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “I don’t know of anything since the Billy Graham crusades that has had the potential of touching so many lives.” Not to be outdone, popular SBC preacher Adrian Rogers even believes this Hollywood movie “is going to bring the Church away from me-ology back to theology” (“Gibson’s Words Fuel Controversy,” AgapePress, Feb. 20).

After Gibson showed part of the movie to a convention of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship, he received a standing ovation. Afterward, the daughter of the organization’s president laid hands on Gibson and asked Jesus to “bind Satan, bind the press, we ask you, Lord” (Peter Boyer, “The Jesus War,” The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). (Thus we see yet another unanswered charismatic spiritual warfare prayer.)

Worship Leader magazine for Feb. 2004 offered a free guide to Gibson’s movie and says, “There has never been a film like it! Powerful, life changing, an unprecedented opportunity for evangelism & discipleship.”

Robert Schuller was given a private showing and afterward proclaimed to Gibson, “It’s not your dream, this is God’s dream. He gave it to you, because He knew you wouldn’t throw it away. Trust Him” (“The Jesus War,” The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003).

The movie has been recommended by psychologist James Dobson and by Don Hodel, the current president of Focus on the Family. Ted Haggard, president of the National Evangelical Association, called Gibson “the Michelangelo of this generation.” The American Tract Society proclaimed on its Web site that the movie is “one of the greatest opportunities for evangelism in 2,000 years.” According to Teen Mania, at least 3,000 youth leaders have bought kits that instruct young people in how to use the film for evangelism.

A ROMAN CATHOLIC MOVIE

Mel Gibson belongs to a Traditionalist Catholic group that performs the mass in Latin, abstains from meat on Fridays, eschews ecumenism and other such things that were changed at the Vatican II Council in the 1960s. Gibson built his own Catholic chapel, called Holy Family, near his California home. During the filming, Gibson attended a Catholic mass every morning with the misguided desire “to be squeaky clean.”

The script was translated into Aramaic and Latin by Jesuit priest William Fulco.

What gospel is Gibson trying to preach through this movie? It is the Catholic gospel of sacramentalism. When asked by a Protestant interviewer if someone can be saved apart from the Roman Catholic Church, Gibson replied, “There is no salvation for those outside the Church” (Peter Boyer, “The Jesus War,” The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). This was the official teaching of Rome prior to Vatican II.

According to Romanism, Jesus Christ died on the cross and purchased redemption and then delivered this redemption to the Catholic Church to be distributed to men piecemeal via the seven sacraments. Man cannot receive eternal salvation directly from Christ through faith; he must approach Christ through the Catholic Church, via baptism, confirmation, mass, confession to a Catholic priest, etc. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was not once for all sufficient but must be perpetuated in the mass, which is called a non-bloody sacrifice. Consider this statement from the Vatican II Council: “Hence the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated … For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II Documents, “The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery,” Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108).

The New Catholic Catechism of 1992 said, “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice ... In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.” The creed of Pope Pius IV, which authoritatively summarized the teaching of the Council of Trent, stated: “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In accordance with Catholic theology, Gibson identifies the Mass with Christ’s sacrifice. He told Eternal Word Television Network that the “sacrifice of the cross” and “the sacrifice of the altar” are “the same thing” (EWTNews Feature, Jan. 13, 2004, http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=42801). He depicts this in the movie by juxtaposing the crucifix scene with that of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

A MOVIE BASED ON VISIONS AND CENTERED ON MARY

The movie is not based solely on the Bible but also on the visions of Roman Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. Gibson obtained the writings of these mystics when he purchased the library of a closed nunnery.

Of the visions of Emmerich Gibson said, “She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of” (The New Yorker, Sept. 15, 2003).

Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) was a German nun who allegedly had the stigmata or wounds of Christ in her body. Emmerich supposedly “had the use of reason from her birth and could understand liturgical Latin from her first time at Mass.” During the last 12 years of her life, she allegedly ate no food except the wafer of the Catholic mass. Her visions on the life of Christ were published in 1824 under the title “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” They are still in print and were consulted by Gibson. An advertisement for Emmerich’s Life of the Virgin Mary says, “This book is filled with unusual, saintly descriptions that are not recorded in the Gospel story -- descriptions that supplement and illustrate the Biblical narrative in a way that makes the actual Scripture passages truly come alive.” Thus these alleged visions go beyond the Bible. According to Emmerich’s visions, Protestants also go to purgatory but they suffer more than Catholics because no one prays for them or offers masses for them. She taught that it is more holy to pray for souls in purgatory than for sinners who are still alive. Her deceptive visions on the suffering of Christ describe His scourging and crucifixion in great detail, giving many “facts” which do not appear in Scripture. For example, she claimed that Christ “quivered and writhed like a poor worm” and that He “cried in a suppressed voice, and a clear, sweet-sounding wailing” as He was being beaten. She even claimed that Christ “glanced at His torturers, and sued for mercy.” She also claimed that Jesus suffered from a wound on his shoulder more than any other.

Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) was also a Catholic nun and visionary mystic. Her entire family entered monasteries and convents in 1618, which means that her mother and father disobeyed 1 Corinthians 7 and separated for the sake of the Catholic church. She was given to trances and even claimed that she could leave her body and teach people in foreign lands. Her book The Mystical City of God is about Mary. Like the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, those of Mary of Agreda go far beyond the Bible. For example, she claimed that though Joseph ate meat, Jesus and Mary seldom did.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Gibson’s film contains gross errors when judged by the biblical account. It is, indeed, a Catholic movie. For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the devil is depicted with Christ, whereas the Bible says nothing about this. And the devil is depicted as a woman. Mary Magdalene is depicted falsely as the adulteress that Jesus saved from being stoned. After Christ is whipped, Mary gets down on her knees and wipes up the blood. Mary is depicted as accompanying Christ all of the way to the cross and basically enduring the suffering with Him. On the way to the cross, Jesus tells Mary, “Behold I make all things new.” As Jesus falls on the way to the cross, there is a flashback to his childhood, when he supposedly fell and Mary ran to pick him up. Mary is depicted as holding Jesus in her arms when He is taken down from the cross. The apostles address Mary as “Mother” throughout the movie. Mary is even depicted with supernatural powers. One man who saw the movie described the following scene: “Mary was walking across a stone courtyard and then stopped and went prostrate on the ground, placing her ear to the stones. The camera went down, as if through the earth, and showed Jesus hanging in chains from the stone ceiling of a jail cell. Jesus felt Mary's presence, and looked up at her, as if to see her through the stones.” In another scene, “Mary is watching Jesus being flogged and Jesus in turn looks to Satan who is standing amongst the Roman soldiers holding what looks like (for lack of a better description) a pale oversized retarded or demonic baby that mocks and laughs at Jesus.”

Then there is the relentless torture itself, which goes far beyond what the Bible depicts. One movie reviewer rightly observed that if Jesus had actually been treated as described in Mel Gibson’s movie, he would have been dead long before he reached the cross!

In an interview with Rachel Abramowitz of the Los Angeles Times (“He’s Bruised, Defiant over Persecution,” Jan. 15), Gibson said, “Now the message he [Christ] brought was one of peace and love and tolerance -- all the messages of tolerance that I put in there, particularly toward the end.” The message of peace, love, and tolerance is popular today, but it is not exactly the message that Jesus Christ preached. He did exemplify the greatest love known to mankind, but He also proclaimed Himself as the only Lord and Saviour, that no man can come unto God except through Him (Jn. 10:7, 8; 14:6). He preached frequently on eternal hellfire, warning that all men will go there unless they are born again through faith in Him (Jn. 3; Mat. 25:46). He warned that men will be judged in every area of their lives, even every idle word (Mat. 12:36). He warned that He did not come to bring peace to the earth but division and a sword (Mat. 10:34; Lk. 12:51).

Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in the Gibson film, is also a staunch Roman Catholic. He prayed to St. Genesius of Arles and St. Anthony of Padua for help in his acting career. He has visited Medjugorje to witness the site where Mary allegedly appeared to six young people. One of the things that Mary allegedly told them is that the pope “should consider himself as the father of all people and not only the Christians.” Caviezel said, “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son” (Interview with Jim and Kerri Caviezel by Catholic priest Mario Knezovic, Radio “Mir” Medjugorje, December 2003; http://www.medjugorje.hr/int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm). Caviezel also said that his goal with the movie is to “bring mankind back together.” Caviezel said that he was given “a piece of the true cross, which he kept with him all of the time during the filming of the movie. He also had relics of “Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste Maria Goretti, and saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors.” He prayed the Rosary to Mary every day.

The Jesus in Mel Gibson’s movie is depicted in the typical fashion with long hair, whereas the Bible is clear that Jesus would not have worn long hair (1 Cor. 11:14). Gibson got his inspiration for the long-haired Jesus from the Shroud of Turin. He attempted to re-create the face depicted on the Shroud.

ROMAN CATHOLICS UNDERSTAND THAT “THE PASSION” IS A CATHOLIC MOVIE

When Gibson’s movie opened in February 2004, Roman Catholics understood that it is a Catholic film. Following are comments by Catholics that were placed on the FreeRepublic.com web site:

“It is also a very Catholic film. It is, in essence, a filming of the Stations of the Cross. It also has a strong emphasis on Mary and the Eucharist.”

“As the author above said, the movie is profoundly Eucharistic. Mel has woven the Last Supper together with the actions of the Passion in a very similar manner to the way that old Catholic devotional books used to do.” [He does this by a flashback to the Last Supper during the beginning of crucifixion, when Jesus is raised up on the cross.]

“The other thing about the movie is how Marian it is. You go through the whole thing at the side of Mary with John and Magdalene. You see a lot of the action through her eyes. She goes every step of the way of the cross and really suffers with Him. At the end, she holds her Son's dead Body and looks straight into the camera and right through into the core of your own soul. Her gesture seems to offer Him to you personally.”

“The flashbacks used throughout the motion picture were perfectly placed, and they served to beautifully emphasize our Blessed Mother's role as Mediatrix, the Eucharist, the Holy Ghost, and many other crucial aspects of our Faith.”

In light of the grossly unscriptural Catholicism of the movie, what does the widespread support of the same by Evangelicals tell us? The following important question is raised by former Catholic priest Richard Bennett: “WILL HISTORY REVEAL THIS DAY AS THE TIME WHEN EVANGELICALISM, ON A POPULAR LEVEL, MERGED WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?” (Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar, “The Passion of Christ: Mel Gibson’s Vivid Deception,” http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/mel_gibsons_vivid_deception.htm).

WHY IS THE MOVIE SO BRUTAL?

The film is rated R because of its violence. The scourging and crucifixion are shown in great detail. In fact, it goes far, far beyond the biblical account. In his review of the film, Roger Friedman observed:

“But the real problem with ‘The Passion’ is that it is graphic beyond belief, and unrelenting. How anyone will be able to sit through this thing is the real mystery. There is blood, blood, everywhere. The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque. Basically, the entire second half of the film is spent watching Jesus endure physical torture never before seen in a movie. By the time it’s done, actor James Caviezel’s body is a map of bloody rivers and lakes with craters of flesh excised from his torso. Is this disgusting? You bet. It’s also puzzling, because what Gibson hasn’t done in ‘The Passion’ is explain his love of Christ or his own passion or devotion. We have no idea why Christ is so reviled by the Jews, what he’s done to earn their anger, or what he’s done to earn Gibson’s respect. From the moment the film begins, Jesus is simply a target for unbridled, unrestrained bloodlust. Yes, we get to see the nails driven through him, blood spurting in every direction, skin being torn in the process. Is there anything that’s learned by witnessing this enactment? I wish I could say there was, but there isn’t. IT’S SIMPLE BRUTALITY, WITH A HARD ROCK MUSIC TRACK PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND” (Fox News, Feb. 25, 2004).

A woman who saw the film and posted her review of it on the FreeRepublic web site said:

“The film is unrelentingly violent. It’s blood-soaked. Jesus gets so whipped you can see his ribs, blood spatters all over the cobblestones, and the sound is frighteningly realistic. And it doesn’t stop after a pivotal scene or two -- it goes on and on and on. Non-stop violence. ... He drags the cross while enduring more whipping. There’s a trail of blood on the ground behind him. He falls, gets up, falls, gets up, falls, over and over. ... When it comes to the crucifixion, Jesus doesn’t just get his hands nailed to a cross, no -- once he’s nailed to the cross the Romans flip the cross over and Jesus lands face first into the ground. Finally they prop up the cross and he dies pretty quickly after that...” (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084596/posts?page=56#56).

Contrary to Gibson’s Catholic movie, the Bible does not focus on the violence of the crucifixion. Following is how the Bible describes the crucifixion.

“... and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. And they crucified him...” (Matthew 27:26-35).

Thus we see that the Bible does not linger on the details of Christ’s suffering. The Bible’s description is not R-rated.

While it is true that “by his stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5), this does not mean that salvation came through Christ’s beating. The focus of the Scriptures is not upon Christ’s suffering but upon Him being made sin in the sinner’s place. It was not Christ’s suffering in itself that made the atonement; it was our sin being laid upon Christ during His suffering. That is why Christ cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” God laid the sins of the world upon Christ. That is what has made our salvation possible. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Further, it was not Christ’s suffering in general that made the atonement; it was precisely His blood and death. “Much more then, being now justified BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God BY THE DEATH of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:9, 10).

Why does Gibson make Christ’s suffering the very focus of his film, then? Why did he not give a more comprehensive life of Christ and thus give the viewers the entire story that leads up to the crucifixion?

The reason is found in Catholic theology. In the gospel according to Rome, the focus is on suffering, not only Jesus’ suffering but the suffering of others. Allegedly, Jesus, by His suffering, purchased merit which was delivered to the Catholic Church. This cache of merit was and is increased by the suffering and good deeds of the “saints.” The salvation thus purchased through suffering and good deeds is distributed to sinners via the seven Catholic sacraments, the chief of which are baptism, the mass, and confession to a priest. Rome’s gospel focuses not on the once-for-all atonement which Christ purchased on the cross, but on a continuing, never-ending suffering which is repeated in the mass.

Thus, in Catholic churches Christ is depicted as perpetually suffering in the Seven Stations of the Cross; He is perpetually hanging on the cross. He is rarely depicted as the victorious, resurrected Christ but always rather as the weak, ever-suffering, always-dead Christ on the cross or in Mary’s arms either at birth or following the crucifixion.

Whereas the Bible focuses more on Christ’s resurrection than His actual suffering, the Roman Catholic Church focuses far more on His suffering. This is exactly what we see in Mel Gibson’s movie.

Further, the demonic visitations of “Mary” at Medjugorje and other places focus on the sufferings of Christ and teach wrongly that men must make atonement for the suffering that He endured. One of the messages from the alleged Mary at Medjugorje said, “Dear children, this evening I pray that you especially venerate the Heart of my Son, Jesus. Make reparation for the wound inflicted on the Heart of My Son” (Message of April 5, 1985).

This is exactly the opposite of the message of the Bible, which tells us that Christ suffered for our sins and that there is nothing that man can do to add to that complete salvation. Hebrews 1:3 proclaims that Jesus Christ “BY HIMSELF purged our sins.” Eight times in Hebrews 7-10, the Bible tells us that Christ suffered “ONCE” for our sins.” “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12).

THE MORAL FILTH ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MOVIE

Monica Bellucci, the actress who plays Mary Magdalene in Gibson’s movie, posed for the 2001 GQ Italia Totally Nude calendar. She has appeared in the nude or nearly nude in many movies, including Irreversible, Melena, Brotherhood of the Wolf, a Dracula movie, and Under Suspicion. Describing the film Irreversible, a professional movie reviewer says it “makes pure pornography look pretty appealing in comparison.” The reviewer, Steve Rhodes, said it should be rated X, and based on his reviews of other films, it is obvious that he is no “prude.” The movie has a ten minute anal rape scene featuring Mrs. Bellucci, which is “complete with penetration shots and depictions of sodomy” (http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/343/34312). The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards gave this warning about Bellucci’s Irreversible: “Premiered at last years Cannes Film Festival, 'Irreversible' proved so shocking that 250 people walked out, some needing medical attention” and described the movie as “hard-core pornography” (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0303/S00182.htm).

Mel Gibson has made the millions that he used to finance the movie through his roles in R-rated films that have contributed significantly to the moral debasement of society, such as Mad Max, Braveheart, Payback, and the extremely violent Lethal Weapon series. In the latter Gibson played a rogue policeman who excels in violence. Most of his movies are filled with foul language and profanity, including those he has made during the past 12 years since, according to his own testimony, he has been dreaming about making The Passion of the Christ. The Payback movie, for example, contained at least 94 instances of cursing (including the most vile words) and filthy language and using the name of the Lord in vain, according to one reviewer. Gibson also starred in the sexually debauched 2000 film What Women Want. In this movie Gibson played “a character named Nick whose goal in life was to bed all the women his lustful heart desired.” One Christian reviewer summarized Gibson’s movies as follows: “The legacy of Mel Gibson has been sexual immorality, profanity, coarse jesting, extreme violence and vigilantism” (Joseph Herrin, The Passion of Mel Gibson, http://www.watch-unto-prayer.org/cast.html#gerini).

BUT WHAT ABOUT EVANGELISM?

Many are making much of this movie as an evangelistic opportunity. In light of its unscriptural nature, the only evangelistic opportunity we see is to assist the unsaved that have seen the movie.

I have heard from several brethren who are doing this. They know that the movie is not godly or scriptural and they are not using the movie itself for evangelism, because they know that it is not a proper medium and that it has as much potential to confuse the gospel as to present it; but they have prepared gospel materials to distribute to those who have seen the movie or who are thinking about the subject of the movie in order to lead them to the truth.

I must be quick to say, though, that I doubt that many people who see and love this movie will subsequently be open to full-orbed biblical truth that includes an exposure of idolatry, an emphasis on the pre-eminence of faith, and a bold defense of the faith against every heresy. Think about that.

CONCLUSION: IDOLATRY VS. FAITH

In conclusion, we would warn that attempts to portray Jesus Christ are idolatrous. The law of God forbids man to make any likeness of God.

“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” (Deut. 4:15-16).

Man has no divine authority to do this type of thing. It is presumptuous in the extreme for a fallen man to attempt to portray the holy, sinless, eternal Son of God. As for Christ’s deity, that would be impossible to depict, and even His humanity is not depicted properly in this film. The only thing the Bible tells us about Christ’s earthly appearance is the following statement from Isaiah: “he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). Further, we know that Jesus Christ was a Jewish man. Thus, whatever Jesus looked like, he certainly DID NOT look like the handsome Caucasian Hollywood movie star that plays the part in Gibson’s film!

The following warning about depictions of Jesus is from Andrew Webb: “Billy Graham in his endorsement of The Passion of Christ said, ‘Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind’ (“What Others Are Saying,” http://www.passionchrist.org). This is unfortunately part of the problem with all visual representations of Jesus. Although we may intend for them only to have a role in teaching, they inevitably become part of our worship and adoration. As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the ‘Jesus’ of The Passion of Christ, will become the figure countless thousands if not millions of people think of when they worship Jesus Christ. To do this is to fall into the trap of changing ‘the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man’ (Romans 1:23) and to violate the Second Commandment.” (For the complete article see http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:E3yWWAGCuC8J:forums.5solas.org/showthread.php%3Fgoto%3Dlastpost%26t%3D1518+%22s 2/19/04)

Note the following warning about depictions of Christ from former Catholic priest Richard Bennett:

“Creating a visual representation of the Lord Jesus, by definition, is to portray ‘another Jesus.’ The Lord Jesus in His Person, character, and work is divine and perfect. No Savior other than the One proclaimed in Scripture is permissible. Those who claim they are only depicting the humanity of Jesus Christ fall into the grievous heresy of Nestorius, as they wrongly attempt to divide the humanity from the deity of Christ, ending up with idols produced by the imaginations of their own hearts. The Lord God gave believers a Wordbook, not a picture book. ... The visual works of a man’s devising, for all their emotional power, are too dull a tool to bring to the individual conviction of sin and the explicit Gospel of grace that the Written Word and the truth preached bring” (Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar, “The Passion of Christ: Mel Gibson’s Vivid Deception,” http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/mel_gibsons_vivid_deception.htm).

God has ordained that men approach Him by faith, and faith does not come by seeing; it comes by hearing God’s Word.

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

“For we walk by faith, NOT BY SIGHT” (2 Cor. 5:7).

“For we are saved by hope: but HOPE THAT IS SEEN IS NOT HOPE: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” (Rom. 8:24).

“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 Pet. 1:8).

Evangelicals and fundamentalists who are supporting this movie are supporting godless movie theaters, a Roman Catholic producer who preaches a false gospel, an R-rated Hollywood movie star, and a movie that is based on the Mary-centered visions of deluded Catholic mystics.

There are many other articles warning about “The Passion of the Christ” at the Way of Life web site. See the End Times Apostasy Database.