Monumental

[Guest]

I just watched it and it was an excellent documentary of the foundations of America and what we lack in this nation today. I highly recommend this to Christians; men, women, and children should view it together as families.

[John81]

It's interesting but one has to be very careful if they plan to use any of the information from the film in ministry or debates. As is typical with anything that has any association with David Barton, there is a good helping of slanted history along with a dosage of leaving out the inconvenient facts that don't promote their viewpoint.

[Guest]

More "ones" need to view this than not. The view of this film is based on the Solid Rock and that Rock is Christ. Your objection and negativity are noted.

[John81]

The film features a Mormon, has Cameron saying he didn't even approach the film as a Christian, paints a false portrait of Puritans while calling us to be more like them; which is something most IFBs object to and separate from.

 

This could have been a great project had they held to the facts and took a biblical, Christ-centered stance with a focus upon the importance of the Gospel of Christ.

[HappyChristian]

How does the film present the puritans, John? I haven't seen it yet so am curious.

[woolysheep]

I watched this a few weeks back. I thought the statue was very interesting. John 81,who was the Morman? I have to admit K.Cameron's reasoning for the movie of going back to the early days a little puzzling.It seemed more like a feel good approach for America to turn back to God.

[Guest]

The film features a Mormon, has Cameron saying he didn't even approach the film as a Christian, paints a false portrait of Puritans while calling us to be more like them; which is something most IFBs object to and separate from.

 

This could have been a great project had they held to the facts and took a biblical, Christ-centered stance with a focus upon the importance of the Gospel of Christ.

I see your predicament, you’ve allowed someone without faith, a Mormon, to instruct you. If Christians refuse to echo God’s word throughout the land, he could shame them by sending a Mormon; after all he sent his word through the mouth of an ass to a corrupt ‘prophet.’ 

[John81]

The Puritans are presented as the ideal we should model ourselves after. They are held up as prime examples of liberty and freedom. Among other things, the Puritans were Calvinists, preferred the Geneva Bible because of the Calvinist notes, believed in liberty and freedom for themselves within the constraints of their view of Scripture, but very much against anyone else having liberty or freedom who disagreed with them. The Puritans were quick to persecute any Christians who differed from them, including Baptists.

 

Glenn Beck is the Mormon I referred to above. How do we call a film Christian when it relies upon the celebrity status of a vociferous Mormon to prop it up? How can we say to separate from Billy Graham and the Getty's, who are Christians, while embracing the Mormon Beck who is greatly responsible for the mainstreaming of Mormonism into being viewed by many Christians now as just another branch of Christianity?

 

The project is flawed in that it doesn't hold to biblical Christianity or historical fact.

[HappyChristian]

Ok - I'm not trying to argue, because I haven't seen it. But I have read about it.  And it seems to me that, rather than Puritans, the film is discussing the Pilgrims.  They were the group who went to Holland, back to England, and then on to Plymouth.  They were known as Separatists because they separated from the Anglican church, preferring to worship as the Bible instructed rather than the king mandated.  The Puritans, on the other hand, wanted to purify the church while remaining within the fold.  

 

The reason that the Pilgrims preferred the Geneva Bible is not actually because of the Calvanist notes within it.  They preferred it for the simple reason that it was more clear within the covers of the Geneva that kings were not divine....

 

I agree totally that Puritans were not truly interested in liberty for others.  That's the reason Roger Williams was booted, and so many others who were actually godly.  And that's the reason John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, and my 11 generations back g-grandpa John Crandall were jailed (for meeting in a member's home and teaching the Bible...and not teaching that infant baptism was biblical - for that, a death sentence was considered good....).  The interesting thing that most people - even Baptists - don't realize is that our liberties in this country are thanks to the Baptists.    But the Pilgrims were indeed vital to the founding of liberty in this country.

 

To be quite honest, I don't particularly care if Glen Beck promotes the movie or not.  If it's historically accurate, every American needs to see it.  I don't agree with Kirk Cameron on everything biblically, but I do appreciate what he's trying to do for people with the movies he's been responsible for.  Yes, there should be more biblically strong movies.  But, sadly, those who could make them aren't.  Although Shiloh Baptist Church in MI has begun that.  As with Roses tells the story of the first blood shed for religious liberty here in America. The Overmountain Men begins the story of the fight for freedom and liberty. I am anxiously waiting for the second one to come out.

 

(As to Billy Graham's Christianity: is one truly a Christian if they don't believe Hell is literal???  )

 

Thanks for your input, John. I was interested to find out what you felt was wrong - and, again, I totally agree that, if they are labeled Puritans when they should be called Pilgrims, that is misrepresentation (but the reviews I read called them Pilgrims).  A book that has been mentioned on here before that you might find of interest, John, is The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People by  James Beller.  http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-Destruction-Baptist-People/dp/0966876644  It actually points out many things, but one fact is the way Puritans have been lifted up as liberty-lovers rather than the oppressors they really were! 

[Miss Daisy]

Great posting above!

Billy Graham doesn't believe in a literal hell?

[HappyChristian]

Great posting above!

Billy Graham doesn't believe in a literal hell?

He stated in the past that he has to wonder if Hell isn't a burning in our hearts, an insatiable thirst for God.  He has also said that the fire in Hell is not literal.  His views on Hell are not biblical, and so cannot be of a literal Hell. Even though he says he believes in a future Hell.  One without flames.  (edited to add: sorry for going off topic, Dave)

 

 

 

When it comes to a literal fire, I don’t preach it because I’m not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched. (1993)

[John81]

One can be a Christian and say all sorts of unchristian things. Billy did believe in a literal hell when he was saved, and if what he's said recently is true, he's moved back to his earlier views on hell and salvation.

[HappyChristian]

One can be a Christian and say all sorts of unchristian things. Billy did believe in a literal hell when he was saved, and if what he's said recently is true, he's moved back to his earlier views on hell and salvation.

Yes, one can...even Kirk Cameron. :-) I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but could you point to where Billy said differently? I know as late as 2010 he was still saying he wasn't sure about Hell being literal. I hope he has come in line with scripture on it.

Anyway - back to Monumental...

[Genevanpreacher]

I have not seen Monumental, yet. But I would like too.

I saw the preview video a relative loaned us, and really am encouraged by what I saw.

As for opinions here on it, I view things a little different. I use the Geneva Bible in all my sermons and teachings in our services.

I am not a puritan by no means, yet it doesn't bother me if the Pilgrims were them or not.

The reasons why I use the Geneva are conviction based, and what the text says itself.

The notes are 'neat', but I do not base my decision to use the Geneva on the notes at all.

 

Now that is my opinion and I am sure some would call me a heretic, but that is what opinions are for.

By the way, the Geneva Bible was the most widespread used bible in the home before the KJV, up until about 1644.

Multitudes designed their lifestyles based upon it's text, and the value of it leading their families to Christ.

Yes it has plenty of notes, but the text is just precious! 

Edited June 25, 2014 by Genevanpreacher

[HappyChristian]

GP, we are well aware of your preferences. But it's time to remind you to that this is a KJV site. Do not promote any other version. This not open for discussion. Thank you.