Many Christian articles on a wide range of topics.
Preaching and Teaching the Word of God. Also real life
stories about witnessing and other related topics.
Local and Worldwide news events religious or otherwise which are impacting the
A resource guide of links with descriptions of
content from various websites for Christians and Non-Christians alike.
Letters on a wide range of subject matter that do not pertain
directly to this website. All those other letters that do pertain to this
site are kept personal and are not posted unless under special circumstances.
A collection of links in this site that are
listed by topic rather than from new to old. News Items are not featured
in the topical listing.
A collection of authors contained in this site
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 USA,
said that this film will inspire believers for decades or even centuries (Time,
March 1, 2004). Billy Graham has endorsed it strongly – a man who also endorsed
Pope John Paul II, accepting it when the Papal Antichrist called him his brother
– which reveals his spiritual blindness. Jack Graham, president of the Southern
Baptist Convention in the USA, endorsed it. James Dobson, that promoter of
psychoheresy, endorsed it. So have many others the world over. Utter blindness!
"They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall
fall into the ditch" (Matt.15:14).
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 which 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 which 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
Let us, then, consider these four reasons for rejecting this film with
1. This is a movie made by a vile Hollywood superstar.
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
The great tragedy of this whole sordid business
is that so many, claiming to be Christians, see nothing much wrong with
Hollywood. It wasn’t that long ago that Evangelical pastors regularly preached
against ungodly movies and (long before movies were invented) ungodly stage
plays. No members of their churches were permitted to attend the theatre or the
cinema to watch ungodly productions. But as the tide of wickedness rose higher
and higher, the voices boldly preaching against it grew fewer and fewer. The
professing "Church" was engulfed by the world.
The world entered the professing
"Church", and the "Church" justified this by saying it needed to be "relevant",
to "keep up with the times", etc. Church members started attending ungodly
movies, they let their guard down and began to soak up the filth of Hollywood in
their own homes via their television sets... and the pastors did nothing. In
fact, for the most part they were as guilty as their flocks. Holiness,
separation from the world – such things became quaint left-overs of an earlier
era. And today we see the tragic results all around us: men and women,
hypocritically calling themselves "Christians", for whom the TV guide is more
important than the Bible, and who know the names and histories of their
favourite movie stars better than the heroes of the faith.
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
Hollywood right into the home at the touch of a button, and the majority of
those who name the name of Christ don’t care. They happily indulge in it all,
and look with disdain at those lone voices in the wilderness who dare to lift up
their voices against such wickedness. Yet the Word of God speaks plainly: "I
will set no wicked thing before mine eyes" (Psa.101:3); "whatsoever things are
true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever
things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good
report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these
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
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
Jas.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
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!
The Bible was written by holy men of God, as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost; 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" (Matt.24:49). Like drunk 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 Hollywood is so acceptable to them. Hollywood, with all
its violence, adultery, fornication, sodomy, foul language, etc., etc.! This is
an extremely violent movie, and not that many years ago most people would not
have been willing to watch a movie with such extreme brutality as this one; but
years of constant, daily exposure to Hollywood "blood and gore" have
desensitised people to such things, and today the average moviegoer is quite
used to it, sees little or nothing wrong with it, and in fact all too often
actually craves it! Like the ancient Romans in the amphitheatres, who had an
insatiable bloodlust and watched with relish the agonies of Christians being
torn to pieces by wild animals, today’s moviegoer craves ever more "reality" in
the movies he watches; and Hollywood (including Mr Gibson!) is all too ready to
provide it for him.
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, March 1, 2004). It went on to say that this is a film for "cast-iron
stomachs; people who can stand to be grossed out as they are edified." It stated
that Mel Gibson has invented "a new genre – the religious splatter-art film". It
is a "relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed flesh. Gibson gives us
Christ’s blood, not in a Communion cup, but by the gallon. Blood spraying from
Jesus’ shackled body; blood sluicing to the Cross’s foot." It is so violent,
that in some places cinemas have actually provided "sick bags" for the audience!
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’ (Luke23:49). 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
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 (Rev.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 Rome on the set of the movie, who
offered mass and heard the confessions of anyone who wished to confess. As
reported in The New Yorker, Sept.15, 2003, when asked in an interview if someone
can be saved apart from the Roman Catholic "Church", Gibson replied, "There is
no salvation for those outside the Church". A devout, fanatical Romanist,
spouting official Romish doctrine! And yet this is the man who is being hailed
as a true Christian by blind "Evangelicals" the world over!
"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 Latin Mass.... The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences
by brashly juxtaposing the ‘sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the
altar – which is the same thing,’ said Gibson."3 So as far as Gibson is
concerned, this film’s purpose is to show the supposed connection between the
cross and the Roman Catholic blasphemy of the so-called "sacrifice of the mass".
This is exactly what Rome has always claimed: "The sacrifice of Christ and the
sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ‘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 is offered in an unbloody manner.’"4 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" (Jn.19:30), 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 swear-word 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 (Rev.17:5). No members of their
churches were permitted to have any spiritual fellowship with Papists (2
Cor.6:14-18; Rev.18:4,5). But this has all changed now!
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 Tim.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
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 (Exod.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 (Jn.1:14),
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 (Col.1:15; Heb.1:3), so that he could say to those who saw him
that they had seen the Father (Jn.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 (Deut.4:15,16)."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!
All such idolatry was always viewed with detestation by Christians. 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:
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.
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,
September 15, 2003). If this was really a movie based on the Gospel accounts,
why did Gibson need to "think of" anything? All that we need is in the
Scriptures. But of course Rome has never believed that. Those two nuns did not
believe it. That’s why they readily added their own "stuff", and why Gibson
readily swallowed it.
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."
There are non-biblical "flashbacks" to Jesus’ childhood with Mary (again
promoting Romanism, the cult of Mary).
Satan is depicted as "an androgynous creature, a Gollum with weird sex appeal,
who slithers through the crowd, working mischief" (Time, March 1, 2004).
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, Rome has been doing all in its power to woo the so-called
"Evangelicals" into its embrace; and it was having much success. But this movie
has pushed "Evangelicals’ even further into the arms of "Mother Rome"! The
barriers are collapsing. Evangelicals are rushing to embrace Roman Catholics as
"brothers and sisters in Christ", so great is their ignorance of the Bible. They
are hailing Mel Gibson as a "born-again Catholic Christian", an outright
oxymoron, for no Roman Catholic is a true Christian. When the Lord saves an
adherent of this false religion, He does not leave him in that error and heresy.
He draws him out, just as He does for any member of any false religion whom He
saves. If Gibson was truly converted to Christ, he would repent of his sins,
which would include repenting of acting in and making his past movies, and he
would forsake Romanism. This he has not done. "Ye shall know them by their
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 23:41,47).
The reality and purpose of Christ’s sufferings
are received by faith not by sight. The use of the film as a supposed aid to
faith embraces the unscriptural notion that visual aids to faith are necessary.""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 Cor 1:21) and the
tactics employed by the Apostles was simply the preaching of the gospel of
Christ using discreet but plain language."
"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 feats is not
a meditation upon His physical sufferings alone."
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" (Deut.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 Hollywood! What utter
drivel! But now, children and adults will say to themselves, "Well, if Mel
Gibson made a movie about Christ, and if Mel Gibson loves the Lord as our
pastors tell us he does, what’s wrong with seeing all his other movies as well?
One can obviously be a Christian and still star in, and produce, all kinds of
films. It doesn’t matter!" This is, in fact, what is already happening on an
ever-increasing scale: actors and actresses coming forward and saying, "I’m a
Christian; I love the Lord" – and yet having no qualms about acting in films
containing sexual immorality, foul language, blasphemy, and graphic blood and
gore. Such is the state of what passes for "Christianity" these days, that this
is all acceptable. And so professing "christians" will go on indulging in "the
lust of the flesh" and "the lust of the eyes" (1 Jn.2:16), and will justify it
all in the name of "entertainment" and "Christian liberty"!
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 Hollywood paraphernalia. 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" (Rom.1:16); 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 Cor.1:18); for "it pleased God by the
foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor.1:21).