# The Manhattan Declaration



## SolaSaint (Nov 23, 2009)

Hi All.

Not sure where to post this, so here goes. Has everyone seen the Manhattan Declaration? It is a gathering of over 140 church leaders from many denominations including evangelicals and Catholics where they have come in unity on several social problems facing America and the church today. It is highly opposed to the current administration and it's attack on Christian values such as pro-life, sanctity of life, pro-marriage and religious liberties. Many good Christian men have signed it like Chuck Colson, Richard Land, Al Mohler, Wayne Grudem and many more. It's a long read but well worth your time, so I've attached the link. Press Kit - Manhattan Declaration Newsroom - DeMossNews.com

What do you all think the repercussions will be for this bold initiative by the visible church? Will it make a difference in America? Will you sign the declaration? Will you uphold what is in the declaration if pressed to do so by the government? This may the very thing needed today from the church to sepreate itself from the world, and return America back to the Christian nation it was founded as.


----------



## Sgt Grit (Nov 23, 2009)

As I see it the politicians in Washington know how we (Christians) feel, and they don’t care. I would not join an organization under the banner of Christ unless they were all Christian organizations and some of them are simply non-profits (not a church), and others are at best pseudo Christian organizations. There are some names I respect on this list, but not enough to attach my name to it.

I know we don’t need to agree on everything, so if John Macarthur and RC Sproul wanted to form a charitable group for a common cause I would be willing to join, but if it were the Catholic Church and RC Sproul/John Macarthur I would not. I would never link my Church to groups that deny the faith.

Sgt.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 23, 2009)

I was just going to post on this. One of the folks in my church brought this to my attention yesterday. There are some Reformed guys on there like Tim Keller, Bryan Chappel, and William Edgar. I'm still reading through it though.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 23, 2009)

It has been circulated in our presbytery by one of our "older" elders (a TE) with the suggestion that we prayerfully consider signing it.


----------



## Curt (Nov 23, 2009)

Sgt Grit said:


> I know we don’t need to agree on everything, so if John Macarthur and RC Sproul wanted to form a charitable group for a common cause I would be willing to join, but if it were the Catholic Church and RC Sproul/John Macarthur I would not. I would never link my Church to groups that deny the faith.
> 
> Sgt.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 23, 2009)

I have read through this thing 10 times now and I cannot reason (pun intended) why orthodox Reformed men would sign it.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 06:38:34 EST-----

Every time I read this document I find more and more historical inaccuracies in the preamble. Did anyone fact check this thing?


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Nov 23, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have read through this thing 10 times now and I cannot reason (pun intended) why orthodox Reformed men would sign it.



It's the Packer Effect.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 23, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have read through this thing 10 times now and I cannot reason (pun intended) why orthodox Reformed men would sign it.
> 
> -----Added 11/23/2009 at 06:38:34 EST-----
> 
> Every time I read this document I find more and more historical inaccuracies in the preamble. Did anyone fact check this thing?



What inaccuracies?

And why should Reformed men not sign it?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 23, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I have read through this thing 10 times now and I cannot reason (pun intended) why orthodox Reformed men would sign it.
> ...



For starters in the preamble:


> "Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery..."



While "true" the historical fact is that Rome was just as much involved in the enslavement of peoples in this period as the people it supposedly was "decrying". 



> "In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class."



While all of this is in some way "true" it is full of places that it could be torn apart at the seams by the very people to whom this document is trying to "speak".


----------



## ADKing (Nov 23, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> ... and return America back to the Christian nation it was founded as.



Hmmm...I think this statement is highy questionable. 

I would admit that the church has not done a great job in recent decades maintaining a biblical prophetic voice to our society and am sympathetic with those who desire to reclaim this. 

However, this particular declaration fails, in my opinion

1. Because of its syncretism. Say what you will, but I am thoroughly persuaded that Romanists and Eastern Orthodox (and several suppsed evangelicals named in the signatures) are not and should not be regarded as Christians. The Word of God clearly tells us: "And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD." (2 Chronicles 19.2). How can we expect positive benefit from unholy alliances with the followers of Antichrist and other heretics? 

2. For statements such as the following _nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
_ Christians should know better. Religious liberty is not the right to worship God however one desires. It is freedom to worship God according to his word. It is the plain teaching of Scripture (especially following the patterns of the godly kings of Judah) that idolaters ought not to be allowed to express their convictions publicly, either as individuals or as communities. This statement should not be supported.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 23, 2009)

ADKing said:


> 2. For statements such as the following _nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
> _ Christians should know better. Religious liberty is not the right to worship God however one desires. It is freedom to worship God according to his word. It is the plain teaching of Scripture (especially following the patterns of the godly kings of Judah) that idolaters ought not to be allowed to express their convictions publicly, either as individuals or as communities. This statement should not be supported.



Yes, that section on religious freedom was not worded very well. 

But do you disagree with them that "no one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will"? 

And where are they arguing that we have the right to worship "however one desires"? They clearly define "worship God" as the God who reveals himself in Christ, and its a declaration of professing Trinitarian Christians. Certainly we would not agree with how Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches worship, but they are not saying that anything goes.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 23, 2009)

I started a thread on this last week: http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/sig...ration-marriage-religious-liberty-life-55693/


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 23, 2009)

I can understand some of you that have opposed this declaration on reason of not wanting to associate with parachurch organizations and Catholics, but looking past this, can't any of you see the importance of standing against the evil policies of this present administration? There comes a time when we are to do the greater good instead of allowing evil to rule at the sake of siding with those who we disagree on doctrine. We are not siding with them on doctrinal issues, but instead we are standing together in agreement that evil has flourished in America because the visible church has stood still while liberals have pushed their agendas down our throats. 

As far as America being founded on Christian principles, I can't believe any reformed Christian would deny this. Just do a study of the early gov't documents and charters. Just do a study on Jonathan Edwards.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 08:54:52 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> I started a thread on this last week: http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/sig...ration-marriage-religious-liberty-life-55693/



Sorry, didn't see it. Thanks


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 23, 2009)

Where was this group then when the last evil administration was in operation?


----------



## PastorTim (Nov 23, 2009)

seems like an attempt to hide politics behind the cross


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 23, 2009)

Personally, I feel by attaching your signature to that document you legitimize romes claim as a christian church. The evil we as Reformed Christians ought to be fighting is rome and the perversion of the Christian Church.


----------



## PastorTim (Nov 23, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> and return America back to the Christian nation it was founded as.


 America, actually, in separating the church from the state. An undong, as it were, of the Edict of Milan. The church had been intertwined with the state since this time and n the light of the havoc this played with Europe it was the American experiment to seperate them for the first time. America was in no way a Christian nation, albeit it was a nation comprised of Christians.
If we are to affect social change then it must begin with the gospel. The compass that the world views must be affected by the truth of God. It cannot be mandated for His kingdom is not of this world. We shall never be able to legislate Christian ethics. This document is backwards as well politically motivated, albeit well intentioned. The founders had a view of the world that passed through the eyes of God via His Word, thus resting on Christian ethics. We cannot unite faiths that don't agree on fundamental issues on issues of faith. We cannot sign agreements with those whom we disagree. Any effort to do so will result in synchretism, whereby altering the truth of scripture.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 23, 2009)

I agree with Josh on his second point. But not the first.

If one was consistent in point one then you would give up the creeds "because people might think that you agree with Rome".

However I am troubled by the idea that I must defend the rights of non-christians to practice paganism. ( & by "non-christians" I mean people that do not baptise in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit".)


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 23, 2009)

The declaration itself doesn't mention the Gospel, it does however mention how far away from truths in scripture, that we as reformed and catholic agree on, that this administration has made as it's platform of reforming America from what used to be a Christian influenced population to one that is now so immoral that it is revolting. I see the majority in here feel that can't sign this due to their disagreement with the Gospel and that is fine, but I'll bet you didn't even read the whole document. That is sad that you are so afraid of being identified with a catholic that you would pass up on something that may be of God.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 10:52:08 EST-----



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Where was this group then when the last evil administration was in operation?



Would that be Bush or Clinton?


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

Joshua,

What I meant was that one won't sign because of a disagreement with the Gospel view, I worded it poorly, my fault, sorry. 

I must ask though, did you read the whole declaration?


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

Here's a portion of Al Mohler's response as to why he signed the declaration:

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues -- the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

So Joshua, it's great that you read it, but where did it proclaim the gospel?

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 11:35:44 EST-----

strike my last question Joshua, I just read your earlier post. Sorry again. I see where you disagree on the the general quote of the Gospel in the declaration and that you cannot sign because it doesn't differentiate between RC and reformed. But still the Gospel from either side isn't spelled out.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

More from Al Mohler:

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 24, 2009)

I have read it, but have not parsed it in great detail.

One thing that strikes me about this document (as opposed to others) is that it seems to say nothing about articles of faith. In that sense it is vastly superior to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together nonsense.

I was also surprised by the number of opponents of ECT, and Reformed evangelicals that signed.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

Joshua said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> > So Joshua, it's great that you read it, but where did it proclaim the gospel?
> ...



Thanks and I'm OK with that. God Bless!


----------



## BJClark (Nov 24, 2009)

I think the very beginning of declaration speaks clearly as to who is standing together..it's NOT organizations...

So I guess I'm not understanding where anyone would be in agreement w/ "Rome" if they signed this declaration..



> We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

Rev. King stated:

"2. For statements such as the following nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
Christians should know better. Religious liberty is not the right to worship God however one desires. It is freedom to worship God according to his word. It is the plain teaching of Scripture (especially following the patterns of the godly kings of Judah) that idolaters ought not to be allowed to express their convictions publicly, either as individuals or as communities. This statement should not be supported."

I'm not sure I understand. Wasn't Judah a theocracy? America isn't a theocracy, but I'll assume you are not speaking about America but instead the invisible church, is that correct?


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 24, 2009)

For those interested, here is James White on the troubling things about The Manhattan Declaration.


----------



## jason d (Nov 24, 2009)

I've been thinking about this since I saw all the hussle and bussle about it last week and I thought James White had some wisdom on this and said this better than I could:



> The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration
> from Alpha and Omega Ministries,
> The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James White
> 
> ...


----------



## William Price (Nov 24, 2009)

"To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus." Charles Spurgeon


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 24, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> I have read it, but have not parsed it in great detail.
> 
> One thing that strikes me about this document (as opposed to others) is that it seems to say nothing about articles of faith. In that sense it is vastly superior to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together nonsense.
> 
> I was also surprised by the number of opponents of ECT, and Reformed evangelicals that signed.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 24, 2009)

Maybe some things in this to consider? 

George Gillespie, "Another Most Useful Case Of Conscience Discussed And Resolved, Concerning Associations And Confederacies With Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, Or Any Other Known Enemies Of Truth And Godliness," A Treatise Of Miscellany Questions (1649)

A treatise of miscellany questions ... - Google Books


----------



## Ivan (Nov 24, 2009)

I know this is highly hypothetical, but if you (speaking collectively) could abolish abortion in the USA would you team with Muslims (or Mormons, JWs, Catholics, etc.) to do it?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Where was this group then when the last evil administration was in operation?
> ...




Both.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

I understand the reluctance of some in here to agree with this document and especially to sign it, but where I'm confused is the concern for what is good in the document and not the propossed bad (associating with non-Christian folks). I read Dr. White;s comments and understand his concerns, especially with the recent push for eccuminical oneness. However most of us think nothing of sending our kids to schools that teach not just non-Christian agendas, but anti-Christian ones as well. I'll assume there are many non-church activities we all do side-by-side with catholics and non-Christians without questioning their stance on the Gospel. So why do we get all flustered when asked to side with these same people against the immorality of this evil administration?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 24, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> However most of us think nothing of sending our kids to schools that teach not just non-Christian agendas, but anti-Christian ones as well. I'll assume there are many non-church activities we all do side-by-side with catholics and non-Christians without questioning their stance on the Gospel. So why do we get all flustered when asked to side with these same people against the immorality of this evil administration?



I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything. I agree with your zeal for righteousness. But I just wanted to clarify some things. First, most people on this board do in fact think quite a bit about sending our kids to public schools. That's why there are so many home and private schoolers here. Just want to correct a misperception on your part. 

Most of us here hold to Reformed worldview. All of life is holy and to be lived in light of the gospel. And our prophetic voice in the culture is informed and founded on this Reformed worldview. Roman Catholicism and EO also have complete world and life views, which are at odds with our own. Yes there is overlap on some things, but the crucial core from which the whole worldviews is built is completely different. That's why many oppose uniting with them. We may agree on these issues, but we don't want to legitimize their false worldviews. 


But, moving back to the thread, I think perhaps the crucial question is, do we still consider Papists and EO to be part of the visible Church? And if we still consider them part of the visible church, then why not join them over this matter of common Christian conviction? If we don't consider them part of the visible church, then I don't see how we can join them. Perhaps others can give their input on this...


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 24, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> But, moving back to the thread, I think perhaps the crucial question is, do we still consider Papists and EO to be part of the visible Church? And if we still consider them part of the visible church, then why not join them over this matter of common Christian conviction? If we don't consider them part of the visible church, then I don't see how we can join them. Perhaps others can give their input on this...


Patrick,

This is an interesting comment. I don't want to completely derail the thread, but I think my question is relevant. (I have not decided about the Manhattan Statement itself)

If one accepts Roman (or EO, for that matter) baptism as valid baptism, wouldn't that mean that he does consider them a part of the visible church? And if we are willing to consider that level of "unity" or "fellowship" with Rome in a *sacrament of the Church*, then why would it not make sense to consider unity in cultural matters? As I think about this, I don't see how one could argue out of both sides of one's mouth, to wit: (1) Rome is sufficiently "gospel" or "Christian" to baptize, but (2) not sufficiently "Christian" to speak on marriage (a civil institution ordained by God).

Your thoughts?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Nov 24, 2009)

I will not sign the declaration. While I appreciate some of its political goals, I am troubled by

1. The weight it gives to human reason as an overarching moral authority, and;

2. It's ecumenism. I am not sure I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with Rome for political ends. The ecclesiastical hazards are too great, in my opinion.

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 09:40:04 EST-----



SolaSaint said:


> I can understand some of you that have opposed this declaration on reason of not wanting to associate with parachurch organizations and Catholics, but looking past this, can't any of you see the importance of standing against the evil policies of this present administration?



The problem is not with this administration, but with sin. Only the gospel can cure that, not dubious alliances for political purposes.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 24, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > But, moving back to the thread, I think perhaps the crucial question is, do we still consider Papists and EO to be part of the visible Church? And if we still consider them part of the visible church, then why not join them over this matter of common Christian conviction? If we don't consider them part of the visible church, then I don't see how we can join them. Perhaps others can give their input on this...
> ...



Actually Fred, I was hoping to get your thoughts  

I haven't decided on whether to sign or not yet either. And this issue seems to me to be the crucial question (at least for me). Confessionally, we do accept their baptism. Hodge even argued that they were somehow part of the visible church. They do profess faith in Christ, they confess with the same historic Creeds (unlike Mormons, JW's etc.), though certainly they have heretical understandings about that profession. We also believe that the visible church is more or less pure, certainly the Papists and EO would be considered much less pure if we consider them part of the visible church at all. 

But if we do consider them part of the visible church, and they are basically going to answer these 3 civil questions the same way we would, "what does the Triune God say in the Scriptures," (which they seem to be attempting in this document) I find it hard to refuse confessing this truth with them. It would be a "Christian" confession of the visible church about one of the things that are still pure within it. But if we don't consider them part of the visible church, again I don't see how we can join them. It would be equivalent to joining Muslims or Mormons. 

Confessionally, it could go either way. We accept Roman baptism. But we do not allow our children to marry them because they are "idolaters" (perhaps a more relevant WCF chapter for this Declaration?). Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'd appreciate any input. I'm still wrestling with it....


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 24, 2009)

Knotty issues . . . all of them!

Francis Schaeffer used to speak of the principle of "co-belligerency." I will work with a Mormon, Papist, and even a . . . Presbyterian (mainline ) to stop a fire, prevent a flood, staunch an epidemic, or advocate for a signal light at a dangerous intersection.

The issue only becomes problematic for me when the "joint statement" incorporates a theological rationale that implies an acceptance of others' errors or involves me in a compromise of truth. So, yes, I would rather eschew some of the high flown rhetoric of ecumenism in favor of more modest language of shared concerns along co-belligerent lines.

Will I stand shoulder to shoulder with other Americans in opposing gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia? You betcha. Will I enter into long theological declarations with those with whom our disagreements are as profound as are our shared beliefs? Nah.

Packer and Colson worry me at times (this one included). However, on balance, I'm sure glad that they stand in the public square rather than retreating to their study's.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Nov 24, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Confessionally, it could go either way. We accept Roman baptism. But we do not allow our children to marry them because they are "idolaters" (perhaps a more relevant WCF chapter for this Declaration?). Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'd appreciate any input. I'm still wrestling with it....


We don't all accept Roman baptism. The RP Church historically did not; and it is now left at the option of the baptizer/baptized as to whether or not to be rebaptized upon conversion (not sure when that was changed). A young man raised in Romanism was rebaptized at his own insistence upon becoming a member of the Colorado Springs RPC in late 2003, shortly before I deployed from Fort Carson.

When we think of the three marks of a true church, how does Rome (or the Eastern churches, for that matter) measure up on any one of them? Especially the right preaching of the Word? If the sacraments are "visible gospel," and the gospel is denied and anathematized by them, how can their sacraments be valid? Is Trinitarianism the only mark of a true church?

Hope to see you tomorrow night, Patrick.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> The problem is not with this administration, but with sin. Only the gospel can cure that, not dubious alliances for political purposes.



Kevin,

Thanks for the reply but, I don't think the declaration was meant to be a cure for the sinfulness of our country. It's a proclamation that Christians won't bend a knee to their sinfulness; wouldn't you agree?

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 11:02:37 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> Knotty issues . . . all of them!
> 
> Francis Schaeffer used to speak of the principle of "co-belligerency." I will work with a Mormon, Papist, and even a . . . Presbyterian (mainline ) to stop a fire, prevent a flood, staunch an epidemic, or advocate for a signal light at a dangerous intersection.
> 
> ...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 24, 2009)

Kaalvenist said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Confessionally, it could go either way. We accept Roman baptism. But we do not allow our children to marry them because they are "idolaters" (perhaps a more relevant WCF chapter for this Declaration?). Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'd appreciate any input. I'm still wrestling with it....
> ...


I didn't know that about the RP church. I knew some Southern Presbyterians took that position. I wrestle with those questions to. I do appreciate Thornwell's argument. Could the sacrament be visibly preaching the gospel, even though the church is not? Historically the Reformers and Westminster Divines seemed to think so, or at least the sacrament remained "Christian" enough to be considered legitimate. 



> Hope to see you tomorrow night, Patrick.



Look forward to seeing you too. And congrats on the new baby!


----------



## PastorTim (Nov 24, 2009)

n response to questions which I have received as to whether I will sign this declaration I offer these thoughts. A few days ago many leaders of American churches (Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical) completed and became signatories to a document entitled "The Manhattan Declaration". This declaration speaks to the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage between man and woman, religious liberty, rights of conscience and the need for social change on these matters. The points made on these matters are such that any Christian can, and must agree with, and they are also ones that I find myself passionate about , however they must be declared secondary to the gospel itself. This document does not do this.
Firstly, the signatories to this document (many of whom I respect greatly) do not even agree as to what the gospel is. By finding some neutral ground by which they can agree relegates it to a matter of opinion and not the very thing that defines our faith. This thereby renders us a cause without any power because the gospel is the power to change lives, and as such can change societies. To imply that the secular world has the power to advance on the kingdom of God is to speak of the sovereignty of God in an untrue light. We are to be reminded of when Elisha believed he was the only one left who followed God and how he was sternly shown him that God, himself, had reserved those who were His (1Kings 19). Jesus is on His throne and reigning over His kingdom, which is found within and without the kingdoms of this world. The powers of this world only have the power over those in God's kingdom, thus the kingdom itself, that is given them from above. (cf. John 19:11)
Secondly, to attempt to further merge church and state by mixing faith and politics is a proven disaster. In 313 AD, with the Edict of Milan, Emperor Constantine of Rome began to merge the church and the state, an act which proved detrimental to both. With the passage of time came synchretism, the blending of beliefs. To maintain peace the church needed to evolve into an institution that was more palatable to more people. As it gained more power with the people it become virtually indiscernable from the state and even exercised more authority over both. The history of Europe is packed with the bloody struggles between the church and the state. It was the Reformation and a return to biblical standards that dismantled this relationship. Learning from the history they were escaping, the puritans came to America to establish an experiment whereby the church and the state would be entirely different institutions, to truly establish a New World. You cannot legislate ethics, for those very ethics will be determined by the legislators. The church's failure to remain true to its task, and stay out of the state's business, is what has allowed the ethics to deteriorate. By mixing roles it has done neither well. We, as prophetic voices to the people, by the power of the gospel, can determine those ethics whether the state is in agreement or not. Our kingdom is not of this world. To attempt to synchretize the gospel itself by joning those who disagree together on some "common" ground only does the work of the state by taking away the power of the gospel. Any attempt to merge the church and the state will only destroy and corrupt the church. They are too closely tied already whereby creating churches that look more American than Christian. The full seperation of church and state is the ideal that forged this nation and is critical to the success of both.
Thirdly, the document opens early on with a declaration that it is by "trinitarian" Christians. Rightly so, the writers had a deep sense of the importance of defining Christianity, but in an effort to include those they needed to effect influence they did so simply along the lines of belief in the trinity. Interestingly enough, this was the issue of the Council of Nicea's role in defining Christianity, also a work of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. They also cited Martin Luther King, Jr and his work, one who claimed that "to say that the Christ...is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental". He does not meet their own criteria, yet again, his name works in merely looking for those who can effect influence. I must reiterate that it is the true gospel alone that can effect influence.
Charles Spurgeon once said that "To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus". Following this I must answer the initial question with an emphatic NO. How can I be a signatory of an an agreement with those whom I do not agree with on many core foundational Christian teachings, mainly that of what is the gospel itself. I urge those who are passionate on these matters to rely upon the heavenly power of the gospel by proclaiming it, rather than on the power of the state. If we do our part in this, we can, and will, change the world. We've done it before.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 24, 2009)

If you are in the PCA, don't worry about this declaration, just continue favoring the PCA's support of NAE.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 24, 2009)

I cannot sign this document, as much as I am in sympathy both for the majority of what it says, and also what it is trying to do. This quotation alone would nix the project for me: 



> Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.



This is way too vague to be of much help. What is the Gospel of costly grace? 

Now, against those who would say that this document would throw us together with Rome doctrinally, or even with regard to ambiguity, I would respond by saying that _this is not a churchly document_. The document itself makes quite clear that the signatories are not speaking for their respective organizations. Theoretically, then, with respect even to the point raised above, one could sign it in the sense of retaining one's own understanding of what the phrase "Gospel of costly grace" means. Undoubtedly, that is what many have done. However, because the relationship of the Gospel to these three particular social issues is not spelled out, I cannot agree with all of it. At the very least, the document is vague in a place where it should have been clear. It could easily, for instance, have included something like this: "We believe that the Gospel has implications for these social issues, even though we do not agree on the substance of the Gospel among ourselves." This could have alleviated much of the discomfort that I'm seeing among PB members, and I bet PB'ers aren't the only ones.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 24, 2009)

How about looking at this issue sociologically/psychologically ... just for a moment.

Imagine 90% of Orthodox Trinitarians in America sign the document in agreement to what it basically is, not a document speaking primarily of unity in theological traditions, but as a document speaking out against the encroaching secularism of the state. 10% refuse because they want no association with another group in the fold.

What will the world think? 
"Ain't that something, for once the Christians agree about something. Wait a sec ... what's up with them? Aren't they Christians?"
"Yeah, but they disagree with some of the others on matters of doctrine"
"But don't they agree with the stuff the document was talking about?"
"Yeah, they pretty much do."
"Oh, so they agree about some things in private, but they don't want to be associated with one another in pubic."

In my humble opinion, the world doesn't care about the finer points of theology and our family squabbles, but it is interested to see whether we, who believe in a Tri-une deity, will even attempt to demonstrate what that might look like in society. I think there are enough verses in the bible to support the idea that Christians should, in some ways, be mindful about how the world views us when they look at us, especially when it comes to unity.

What does it look like when Christians refuse to demonstrate their agreement on things that they DO agree on, because of the things they don't agree on? According to this rationale, would you refuse to sign the Nicene creed, because that would lump us together with Rome and the East?


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 24, 2009)

I would sign my name without hesitation along side of the most evil and vile heretic as long as the statement was not about theology but about taking action. That being said as a hopeful future pastor I could not in good conscience sign it because that would violate my vocation as being an ambassador of the Kingdom of God in a special way. If you have a secular vocation (as Colson, Packer, etc... do) then it is acceptable but if you are a pastor then I think getting involved in politics (of either the left or right) is a confusion of the two kingdoms.


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 24, 2009)

Ivan said:


> I know this is highly hypothetical, but if you (speaking collectively) could abolish abortion in the USA would you team with Muslims (or Mormons, JWs, Catholics, etc.) to do it?



That and more. I would stand with anyone of any religion to end abortion, but I will not affirm them as my christian brothers in order to show solidarity.

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 03:51:52 EST-----



> In my humble opinion, the world doesn't care about the finer points of theology and our family squabbles, but it is interested to see whether we, who believe in a Tri-une deity, will even attempt to demonstrate what that might look like in society. I think there are enough verses in the bible to support the idea that Christians should, in some ways, be mindful about how the world views us when they look at us, especially when it comes to unity.



In my humble opinion, I don't care what the world thinks of me. My concern is how God views me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 24, 2009)

This document purports to be Christian, and yet Christ doesn't get a mention until the 9th paragraph. They spend all that time talking about themselves.

I parsed that far, and I quit. There are so many questionable statements on just the first page. Beside the questionable historical statements already mentioned, there is the "progressive" political and social "achievements" that are simply assumed as positive developments, with no discernable nuance.

But in the end, it is the "common cause" religion--which is indiscipherable, deliberately so--that means I cannot in good conscience publicly align myself. Why is this necessary anyway? Do we not already publicly stand for righteousness? Why is it necessary to affirm a common confession, especially one that is so vague it cannot speak of the Law of God ("thou shalt not kill"), but instead resorts to loose statments regarding the positive value of the "image of God"?

And if it is a creed of sorts (it is), then it needs clarity, not vagueness as to the foundation. Neither Christ, nor his gospel is foundational to this document. But rather, the works of people called Christians, regardless of their fidelity to the Christ of the gospel.


----------



## ADKing (Nov 24, 2009)

Those who are truly concerned, as I believe we should be, to bring the claims of God's word to bear on our nation would do well to study documents in which this was done well in the past. The Covenanters in the UK and our own country have left us a great legacy. For an American Covenanter, check out the newly published: Politcal Danger 

Political Danger

We need to address or society from a distinctly and self-consciusly Christian perspective, recognizing the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. Anything less is attacking the symptoms and not the cause, in my opinion.


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Nov 24, 2009)

JMac has also declined on the document: The Manhattan Declaration

Where the Gospel is not preached, no Christian unity is to be had.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Nov 24, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I didn't know that about the RP church. I knew some Southern Presbyterians took that position. I wrestle with those questions to. I do appreciate Thornwell's argument. Could the sacrament be visibly preaching the gospel, even though the church is not? Historically the Reformers and Westminster Divines seemed to think so, or at least the sacrament remained "Christian" enough to be considered legitimate.


Aside from the other sections of the Confession already mentioned, I would also refer to Chapter 25, Section 5:


> The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.


I've always understood this to have at least partial reference to the Romish church (hence frequent reference in Puritan days to the "Romish synagogue," etc.).

It should also be noted that the Scottish General Assembly received the Westminster Confession of Faith, not as replacing, but in addition to, the Scots Confession of 1560 -- to which they were and are still bound, according to the terms of the National Covenant, or Second Scots Confession:


> *Article XVIII. Of the Notes, by the which the True Kirk is Discerned from the False, and Who shall be Judge of the Doctrine.*
> 
> Because that Satan from the beginning has laboured to deck his pestilent synagogue with the title of the kirk of God, and has inflamed the hearts of cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true kirk and members thereof, as Cain did Abel; Ishmael, Isaac; Esau, Jacob; and the whole priesthood of the Jews, Christ Jesus himself, and his apostles after him; it is a thing most requisite that the true kirk be discerned from the filthy synagogue, by clear and perfect notes, lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace to our own condemnation the one for the other. The notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the immaculate spouse of Christ Jesus is known from that horrible harlot, the kirk malignant; we affirm are neither antiquity, title usurped, lineal descent, place appointed, nor multitude of men approving an error; for Cain in age and title was preferred to Abel and Seth; Jerusalem had prerogative above all places of the earth, where also were the priests lineally descended from Aaron; and greater multitude followed the scribes, Pharisees, and priests, than unfeignedly believed and approved Christ Jesus and his doctrine; and yet, as we suppose, no man (of whole judgment) will grant that any of the forenamed were the kirk of God.
> 
> ...


The last portion of Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, "Of the Marks of the True Church, and wherein She Differs from the False Church," is here quite appropriate, as well, as it refers directly to the Romish church:


> As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.


The thing that tended to confirm this position for me was the fact that, as an Historicist, I understand the Revelation to describe the true church under the figure of a pure, virgin bride; and the Romish church under the figure of the filthy, Babylonish whore. Regardless of the eschatological opinions of those on this Board, it is incontestable that this was the opinion of all of the Protestant Reformers, and of virtually all Protestants until the 19th century.

Simply put, the bride and the whore are two entirely distinct entities. They cannot be confused one for another. How can their sacraments be confused?


Puritan Sailor said:


> Look forward to seeing you too. And congrats on the new baby!


Thank you! Laura is still recovering... Olivia was a little over 11 lbs, so she had to be delivered by Caesarean. Her baptism will be the Lord's Day after next.


----------



## historyb (Nov 24, 2009)

I signed it yesterday


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Nov 24, 2009)

The Manhattan Declaration


Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009




(By John MacArthur)


Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:


• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.


• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.


• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.


• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.


• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.


In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.


John MacArthur


----------



## Reformed Rush (Nov 24, 2009)

My wife and I will not sign this declaration, for we refuse to associate ourselves with the programs and efforts of the Roman Catholic Church, in any way.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 25, 2009)

Thanks for that post Julio, I respect John MacArthur a lot and I see he has placed the same concerns about the Gospel in his response as many on the PB have. I already signed the declaration and have no remorse for doing so, but I do respect what you all have said and I feel I should press on with a more respectful view of the Gospel in the future. Thanks for all the helpful replies and please bear with me as I grow in Christ in a reformed way which is new to me.


----------



## john_Mark (Nov 25, 2009)

I did not sign it. Nor do I believe I will.


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

I will not sign it. The most effective way for the church to oppose evil in the world is walk in the Spirit, and for ministers of the gospel to preach the gospel in power and truth.
That said, I do pray that God uses the Manhattan Declaration for His purpose, just I pray He uses all means and methods to glorify Himself, but I will not be tendering my signature to this document.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 25, 2009)

I really like John MacArthur, and have learned a great deal from his teaching and commentaries. I respect his views on the Manhattan Declaration (posted above), but it seems his main objection is that it is too broadly ecumenical and not Gospel-centered. I agree with both of those comments, but are they grounds to reject the document as a whole? The purpose of the Manhattan Declaration isn't to proclaim the Gospel directly, but to use the Gospel as a foundation for addressing these social issues. The assumption of the document is that the Gospel is the focus of our lives. It seems the point of the MD is simply to affirm truths that should be obvious in the Bible. 

I don't really have a problem with those who sign it or those who don't. I'm just not sure I follow MacArthur's logic regarding the lack of Gospel presentation, since that wasn't the purpose of the paper....


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I really like John MacArthur, and have learned a great deal from his teaching and commentaries. I respect his views on the Manhattan Declaration (posted above), but it seems his main objection is that it is too broadly ecumenical and not Gospel-centered. I agree with both of those comments, but are they grounds to reject the document as a whole?



2 Corinthians 6:14-15 14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 

Why would I muddy the definition of the gospel by joining with others, through my signature, that deny the biblical gospel? No. I would rather preach Christ from the pulpit. That does not mean I would not sign a biblically based document that calls on our nation to repent and believe, but I've yet to see such a document.



> I don't really have a problem with those who sign it or those who don't. I'm just not sure I follow MacArthur's logic regarding the lack of Gospel presentation, since that wasn't the purpose of the paper....



Then the purpose of the declaration was faulty. The church does not exist to proclaim moralism. It exists to proclaim repentance and faith in Christ alone.


----------



## jason d (Nov 25, 2009)

Frank Turk & Challies won't sign either, this from Challies blog:



> The Manhattan Declaration
> from Challies Dot Com
> 
> Last week saw the release of The Manhattan Declaration, a document crafted by Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George and signed by a long list of Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox leaders. I have not been able to gauge the interest in the Declaration or whether it has had an immediate impact. But I have seen a bit of buzz about it through the Christian blogosphere. Today I want to address it, even if only briefly.
> ...


----------



## john_Mark (Nov 25, 2009)

In my objection to sign I quoted the article where the Gospel is referenced or affected. I keep reading in so many words that this is not a theological document, yet Colson says it is. 

Read the document and find the theological foundational references. I believe you will come up with the Gospel as the grounding and uniting source. However, this is the very reason for my and others' objection to signing.


----------



## historyb (Nov 25, 2009)

11And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.


John 17:11


Can we Christians of various flavor's ever be united or must everyone conform to our brand of Christianity.


----------



## historyb (Nov 25, 2009)

I guess I don't share that opinion


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

historyb said:


> I guess I don't share that opinion



What part of what Josh said do you disagree with,
that Christianity must be biblical or that the Roman Catholic
church is apostate?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 25, 2009)

Herald said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I really like John MacArthur, and have learned a great deal from his teaching and commentaries. I respect his views on the Manhattan Declaration (posted above), but it seems his main objection is that it is too broadly ecumenical and not Gospel-centered. I agree with both of those comments, but are they grounds to reject the document as a whole?
> ...



These are good points, Bill. However, I disagree with your last statement that the document "proclaims moralism." The document affirms biblical teaching based on the truth of the Gospel - I don't think that's moralism. That said, I think you make good points, especially about joining with those who proclaim a false gospel. I'm not sure which way I would go on this - I see strong points for and against.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 25, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> I cannot sign this document, as much as I am in sympathy both for the majority of what it says, and also what it is trying to do. This quotation alone would nix the project for me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lane, I agree that they were vague. However, I would argue that the only way you get people with radically differing views to sign the same paper is to equivocate all over the place on fundamental terms and definitions. This drives pinheads like me crazy. Do I recognize that all they are really trying to say is that "we believe Christianity has social implications and regardless of what stripe of 'Christian' you are, you ought to stand for these minimal standards as necessarily implied when you call yourself a Christian," or do I camp on the vague and mushy ecumenical-speak that they adopt trying to imply that we agree more than we do???

I need to read the thing more seriously before reaching a conclusion on signing it. However, no one has offered it me so it has not been an existential issue yet. I have SOOO much respect for Colson for trying to stand in the public square and SOOO much frustration with him for trying to keep papering over our differences from Rome (cf. ECT)!!!


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...



The moralism occurs when we give credence to other religions. There is a form of tacit approval in this. The declaration had an opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the gospel as the one and true instrument of moral and social change. Instead of scoring a touchdown it punted In my humble opinion.


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

Ivan said:


> I know this is highly hypothetical, but if you (speaking collectively) could abolish abortion in the USA would you team with Muslims (or Mormons, JWs, Catholics, etc.) to do it?




Politically, but not theologically. If a Muslim, Mormon, or JW is a fellow member of my political party I could agree to partner with them in a big picture sense. But in matters of theological conviction, no.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 25, 2009)

Those who are vehemently against signing it, it's because: You don't believe that any Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians are going to heaven, that they are no better than pagans and are not brothers of ours in any way, _right_?

Are you willing to admit this?


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> Those who are vehemently against signing it, it's because: You don't believe that any Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians are going to heaven, that they are no better than pagans and are not brothers of ours in any way, _right_?
> 
> Are you willing to admit this?



Where have you read that Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians are not going to heaven? The criticism against the Manhattan Declaration's ecumenical approach has nothing to do with individuals. It is quite possible that an individual may come to faith in Christ and, because of a variety of factors, remain in those religions. Roman Catholicism, and it's eastern cousin, are both apostate _as _institutions. They have denied the true faith as revealed in scripture. I don't even know how that is debatable among Reformed Christians.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 25, 2009)

Joshua said:


> I am against signing it because the so-called "gospels" of Rome and EO are no gospels at all. They are against the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. This does not mean that I believe there is absolutely no person without exception caught up in said churches that is a Christian. That said, folks who whole-heartedly affirm the false gospels of EO and Roman Catholicism are not my brothers in any Christian sense. They are my brothers only in the sense that they are fellow humans created in the image of God.



Thanks for your frankness. 
Are you saying that prior to Luther, there were no real Christians on earth?


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 25, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > I am against signing it because the so-called "gospels" of Rome and EO are no gospels at all. They are against the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. This does not mean that I believe there is absolutely no person without exception caught up in said churches that is a Christian. That said, folks who whole-heartedly affirm the false gospels of EO and Roman Catholicism are not my brothers in any Christian sense. They are my brothers only in the sense that they are fellow humans created in the image of God.
> ...



In all frankness, you owe Josh an apology. You have leapt way past his words and are imputing beliefs to him that I know he does not have. 

Listen again to what he said. EO and RC belief systems are FALSE GOSPELS.

This does not mean that he thinks there were no Christians before Luther, nor does it mean that there are no Christians in RC and EO churches. What it does mean is that he is unwilling, because of the promotion of a gospel that Paul anathematizes in his epistles - and thus which we must anathematize as well, to sign a document with self-professed purveyors of those cursed lies that masquerade as truth. The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration include Romanist and Orthodox priests - who sell the damnable lies of the Romanist and Orthodox doctrines. I, too, would NEVER sign a document that calls such people "brothers" and implies that I believe they are Christians. 

Again, please consider seriously giving this some thought and apologizing to Josh for your leaping to conclusions. You have impugned his good name by your illogical reasoning and your statement above.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 25, 2009)

I did not intend to impugn you Josh, but I do apologize if you were offended by my question. And it was an honest question, not a charge. I read it with the assumption that one normally belongs to a church by confessing and accepting the essential dogma taught by the church. I didn't read "whole-heartedly affirm" deeply enough, and for that I'm sorry.


----------



## itsreed (Nov 25, 2009)

It would have been so much simpler (and easier on our consciouses), if the drafters of this document had simply written something like this:

"We (the undersigned) may disagree on many things with reference to our prospectives faiths.

Yet we all agree on the following: (list the secondary issues at hand, abortion, marriage, homosexualtiy, liberty of conscious).

The civil authorities in this land appear to be moving in the direction of enacting laws that will force us to act against our consciouses in these matters. 

If the civil authorities continue in this direction, they should expect us to disobey such laws, and obey our consciouses, no matter then civil or criminal penalties the civil authorities may impose on us." 

What's wrong with brevity? Less worry about innuendos, loop-holes, unintended consquences, etc.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 25, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> This does not mean that he thinks there were no Christians before Luther, nor does it mean that there are no Christians in RC and EO churches. What it does mean is that he is unwilling, because of the promotion of a gospel that Paul anathematizes in his epistles - and thus which we must anathematize as well, to sign a document with self-professed purveyors of those cursed lies that masquerade as truth. The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration include Romanist and Orthodox priests - who sell the damnable lies of the Romanist and Orthodox doctrines. I, too, would NEVER sign a document that calls such people "brothers" and implies that I believe they are Christians.



This is an honest question, for the sake of my clarity on your position ..
Would you affirm the statement:

Those who believe RC and EO doctrine are damned, and are not Christians.

?


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 25, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > This does not mean that he thinks there were no Christians before Luther, nor does it mean that there are no Christians in RC and EO churches. What it does mean is that he is unwilling, because of the promotion of a gospel that Paul anathematizes in his epistles - and thus which we must anathematize as well, to sign a document with self-professed purveyors of those cursed lies that masquerade as truth. The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration include Romanist and Orthodox priests - who sell the damnable lies of the Romanist and Orthodox doctrines. I, too, would NEVER sign a document that calls such people "brothers" and implies that I believe they are Christians.
> ...



They certainly are not christians, but as to the eternal state of their souls, that is for God to judge.


----------



## historyb (Nov 25, 2009)

Herald said:


> historyb said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I don't share that opinion
> ...


The RC part


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 25, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > This does not mean that he thinks there were no Christians before Luther, nor does it mean that there are no Christians in RC and EO churches. What it does mean is that he is unwilling, because of the promotion of a gospel that Paul anathematizes in his epistles - and thus which we must anathematize as well, to sign a document with self-professed purveyors of those cursed lies that masquerade as truth. The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration include Romanist and Orthodox priests - who sell the damnable lies of the Romanist and Orthodox doctrines. I, too, would NEVER sign a document that calls such people "brothers" and implies that I believe they are Christians.
> ...



I would say, rather, that they believe damnable doctrine, are most certainly not Christians, and need to be evangelized just like any other unbeliever. If the RC and EO doctrines are what they carry with them to the time of their death, professing and describing them as the source and place of their trust, then they will go to hell. They, like any other unbeliever, will, if they are elect, come to trust in Christ as Lord and Savior through the true preached Gospel before they die. Short of embracing the true faith, they will die damned. As it is, currently, if they identify with and embrace the false teachings of EO or RC, they are outside the church. The identity of the elect from non-elect among the RC and EO who currently embrace RC and EO doctrine, though, is not something we can discern. We must evangelize them, though, and not embrace them as Christians.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 25, 2009)

historyb said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > historyb said:
> ...



Doug -

The Roman church is apostate - this is demonstrably true. They no longer hold the doctrines of the early church - whether you are speaking of Christology, anthropology, ecclesiology, soteriology, theology proper, whatever - you name it. The RC church professes outright heresy in nearly every subject area of the Bible. They are the very definition of an apostate church. I'm not sure how anyone who accepts the Biblical doctrines embraced and promoted by the Reformed confessions could possibly think otherwise concerning the Roman church. 

Unless of course you define apostate in some way other than is normal. Could you explain?

Todd


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 25, 2009)

It would seem that there is a congruity between how one sees the MD and the ECT. If you accept the validity of the RC "_expression_ of Christianity" and the "eastern orthodox _expression_ of Chrisianity," then both the ECT and the MD make a whole lot of sense. If you do not accept that premise, then it is utterly illogical to enter into statements that go well beyond co-belligerency" into shared theological rationale for social action.

BTW, my seminary has been so into ecumenism, that they fairly recently had Cardinal Maloney speak at chapel and commissioned "An Ancient-Future Concert Mass," which the executive director of the local arts council called "stunning." The seminary prez dubbed it a "powerful performance, and with a terrific instrumental and choral group” and declared it to be “a major event" in the seminary's history.


----------



## historyb (Nov 25, 2009)

> It would seem that there is a congruity between how one sees the MD and the ECT. If you accept the validity of the RC "_expression_ of Christianity" and the "eastern orthodox _expression_ of Chrisianity," then both the ECT and the MD make a whole lot of sense



The MD makes a whole lot of sense to me, I never read the ECT. I willingly stand with Catholics and Orthodox Christians in he stance that the MD takes. I even stand with the mormons with thier fight for prop 8 in Ca here.


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

historyb said:


> > It would seem that there is a congruity between how one sees the MD and the ECT. If you accept the validity of the RC "_expression_ of Christianity" and the "eastern orthodox _expression_ of Chrisianity," then both the ECT and the MD make a whole lot of sense
> 
> 
> 
> The MD makes a whole lot of sense to me, I never read the ECT. I willingly stand with Catholics and Orthodox Christians in he stance that the MD takes. Heck I even stand with the mormons with thier fight for prop 8 in Ca here.



But that's not the issue. You seem to be indicating that the Roman Catholic Church is not apostate, that it is a true church. Is that what you believe? Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a true church? Do you believe that it is not apostate? As a moderator I would like you to answer those questions plainly.

For your consideration please read the following from the confession you claim to subscribe to:



> 1689 LBC 26:4
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.



Do you take exception to this paragraph? If so, why?


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 25, 2009)

Not that I'm an administrator, bit this conversation has floated off topic somewhat. I'm sure this has happened quite often concerning the mixing of faiths. Back to the declaration, what if it had been a strictly reformed document, would you then sign it, or should we refrain from making declarations as this?


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> Not that I'm an administrator, bit this conversation has floated off topic somewhat. I'm sure this has happened quite often concerning the mixing of faiths. Back to the declaration, what if it had been a strictly reformed document, would you then sign it, or should we refrain from making declarations as this?



Rick, if the declaration championed the biblical gospel, and called on the citizens of the this nation to repent and believe, I would sign it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 27, 2009)

Since I posted so much on the thread already, and indicated my wrestling with the issue, I thought I would inform folks of my own decision to NOT sign the document. I agree with moral positions of the document. I even agree with most of the reasoning. But, the language about the "gospel" is unclear and undefined and the assumption is that all parties agree what that term means. But in fact, all parties do not agree what that term means. Evangelicals believe it's the true gospel of free grace that alone will set people free from the sins of murder, adultery, and tyranny. There is no point in signing a document of agreement with Rome or EO, whose "gospels" are fundamentally no different than the secular opposition they are fighting against, both preaching a gospel of self-righteousness and self-improvement through man-made traditions and effort.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 27, 2009)

Thanks for reopening Josh.

I personally would sign it (if only Canadian Christians could step up in the same way as our American brothers). My reasons:

1. The document is not about the differences in theology, everyone involved knows there are real differences. The document is about common beliefs and agreement.
2. it was signed by highly respected and Reformed brethren who stand up and fight for the gospel in their ministries.
3. It is a rare and visible demonstration of solidarity among orthodox Trinitarians, which I believe pleases God.
4. A united voice speaks a louder word to the world than individual denominational campaigns.

cheers.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 27, 2009)

Thanks for reopening this Josh, again I still stand by signing the declaration, but as posted earlier I now have a deeper understanding of why some won't. Another reason I support this declaration is my stance against abortion. I believe this is such an evil practice and not to stand against this goes against my conscience. I do believe there are other ways we can stand up against the pro-abortion crowd. So I don't feel every pro-life supporter needs to sign this if he/she is offended by it's theological problems. I just feel it's the greater good.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 27, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> Thanks for reopening this Josh, again I still stand by signing the declaration, but as posted earlier I now have a deeper understanding of why some won't. Another reason I support this declaration is my stance against abortion. I believe this is such an evil practice and not to stand against this goes against my conscience. I do believe there are other ways we can stand up against the pro-abortion crowd. So I don't feel every pro-life supporter needs to sign this if he/she is offended by it's theological problems. I just feel it's the greater good.



An honest question for you though:

Suppose a very strong statement against abortion was made on the basis of "our Christian faith" and which proclaimed that "we all as Christian brothers and sisters condemn the sin of abortion", and was signed by Colson, Dobson, etc., as well as various Roman Catholic Archbishops, Mormon elders, Jehovah's Witness leaders, etc.

Would you still sign it, "for the greater good"?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Nov 27, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> Thanks for reopening Josh.
> 
> I personally would sign it (if only Canadian Christians could step up in the same way as our American brothers). My reasons:
> 
> ...



Just a few comments.

1. I personally just cannot lay aside "differences in theology" for this "greater good". I mean, were *not* talking second hand issues here. Were talking about " What is the Gospel". And if we cant agree on what the Gospel is, how can we produce a document that says that we are called to proclaim the gospel? I cannot do that with a clear conscience.

2. Um, And it was also *not * signed by highly respected brethren (James White, John Macarthur and others).


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 27, 2009)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for reopening Josh.
> ...



Among evangelicals, and even _perhaps _among Reformed people, nailing down a precise definition of the gospel may not be as easy as we think (this is controversial, so I don't want to go there). I just don't think anyone is asking the other to lay aside differences for the common good, but to seek agreement on those things which are good (like anti-abortion).



> 2. Um, And it was also *not * signed by highly respected brethren (James White, John Macarthur and others).



I was thinking Mohler and Grudem, who are ok in my books. But that's a subjective call.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 27, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> awretchsavedbygrace said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...



But the point is the document specifically calls its signatories "Christians" and proclaims that commonality among all - "Our Christian faith" is said to motivate the document. This is more than just seeking agreement and promoting a good cause - this is a document which unites the signatories under the banner of "Christian faith".

I'm not sure how an acceptable document could be put together that includes individuals who promote false teaching (e.g. the Jesuits and other Roman Catholic priests who have signed, or the Eastern Orthodox priests who have signed) as well as evangelicals and reformed folks, except to remove such references that call each other "brothers". 



> > 2. Um, And it was also *not * signed by highly respected brethren (James White, John Macarthur and others).
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking Mohler and Grudem, who are ok in my books. But that's a subjective call.



His point was that there are many respectable folks who have decided against signing - it is just as notable who has signed as it is who has NOT signed. He wasn't trying to claim anything more than that, I don't think. Surely Mohler and Grudem have their good points - I just don't think signing this document was one of them (and I, for one, am quite surprised that Ligon Duncan, who is the one whom I probably most respect of all the signatories, chose to sign it. I'm sure he's got a reasoned understanding for why he should sign, but I myself couldn't for the reasons stated above. I just can't call a Jesuit priest my brother in the faith.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Nov 27, 2009)




----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 27, 2009)

So, it really does come down to: what is a Christian, Who is a brother, and what is the true Church?

How you answer this question will determine your likelihood in signing.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 27, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> So, it really does come down to: what is a Christian, Who is a brother, and what is the true Church?
> 
> How you answer this question will determine your likelihood in signing.



Certainly, that seems quite true. An alternative, though, is that the primary question may be whether the answers to *those* questions have any bearing on your signing the document.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 27, 2009)

I just believe as I said earlier, it is for the greater good that I stand against abortion as opposed to refraining from signing to keep from appearing that I agree theologically with heretics. I know I don't agree with the heretics and God knows I don't, I'm not too worried about what others think.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 27, 2009)

Understood, Rick. Not trying to get you to change your mind. 

I just can't lie for the "greater good" by calling Jesuits and Eastern Orthodox priests Christians and/or my brothers who share the Christian faith. They don't. The anti-abortion cause doesn't need me to lie in order to go forward. There are many, many, many more ways in which I can work against acceptance of and perpetuation of abortion than signing a document that, in signing, I put my pen to something that affirms things I cannot affirm without making false statements.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 27, 2009)

Respectively Todd, I don't consider myself a liar because I signed a document that stands up against abortion just because in it's wording they say they are all from the Christian faith, when they are not. They are the ones who have to answer to that. Mormons and Catholics alike call themselves Christians, but I don't believe they are. I know this, and can with a good conscience agree with them solely on the three issues they cite. Maybe they should have put in a statement that cleared all the theological differences, but they didn't.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Nov 27, 2009)

I think that we are


----------



## Kaalvenist (Nov 28, 2009)

Join the protest. 

Reformed Christians Against the Manhattan Declaration | Facebook


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 28, 2009)

itsreed said:


> It would have been so much simpler (and easier on our consciouses), if the drafters of this document had simply written something like this:
> 
> "We (the undersigned) may disagree on many things with reference to our prospectives faiths.
> 
> ...



After considering the almost overwhelming milieu of opinion by many good people here, I think your post hits the nail on the head.


This could be done as a statement expressing support for biblical moral issues and religious freedom (freedom from civil government encroachment) without the theological pretext.

It could honestly acknowledge that all the signatories consider themselves Christians and have differences of doctrine, theology and practice, but they all agree and are united on these issues.

That sort of pretext would strengthen the import of this. 

There is usefulness in standing united to oppose evil and to support what is good even if the supporters do not hold right biblical views. 

God uses many means, and there is common grace.

Something like that could be used for good and the welfare of many, even unbelievers, without compromising the witness of biblical Christianity.


----------



## cris (Dec 2, 2009)

I think this declaration is similar to Rick Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan
The PEACE plan
There is nothing wrong with fighting these "giants":
* Spiritual Emptiness (not sure about this one, though, since it's an across the isle initiative)
* Self-Serving Leadership
* Poverty
* Disease
* Illiteracy
Only the way this "coalition" is supposed to work.

What do you guys think?


----------



## steadfast7 (Dec 2, 2009)

Many of the protesters would not sign because of the ambiguity on the RC and EO position and definition of the gospel. Suppose they did define the gospel, in a very ecumenically satisfying way - something to the effect of "The gospel is the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ alone."

Would you sign?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 2, 2009)

Two things:

1. I wish there was a simple "yes" or "no" poll regarding would one sign it.

2. When it comes to things like this Manhattan Declaration, why does it have to be done under the claim of religious faith, particuarly supposedly Christian faith? Why can't it be done as a populist movement? You know, "Hey, we're citizens and though our reasons are many, we share these convictions about marriage, abortion, etc., and we're prepared to engage in civil disobedience if the Government tries to make us party to what we believe is wrong." Why can't it be like that? I can support all the positions of the Manhattan Declaration, and I can gladly work alongside any group of people with civility for the common social good, but when it is framed as being a "Christian" thing, then including these other groups is problematic and the necessary theological minimalization has always borne bad fruit.


----------



## cris (Dec 2, 2009)

I wouldn't sign either


----------



## steadfast7 (Dec 2, 2009)

That's odd. I said "yes" but it stands at 0% yes. Did someone change it haha!

Anyway, I'd sign because as far as the document is concerned, I cannot say I disagree with anything on it. Yes it's reductionistic and ambiguous as per the gospel definition, and yes there are MANY issues with the other camps involved, but by not signing I would personally feel guilty of having an ad hominem rationale for it, which is outside the scope of the document itself.


----------



## SolaSaint (Dec 2, 2009)

You look kinda grinchy, Joshua?


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Dec 3, 2009)

My pastor signed the declaration. So I guess some Presbyterians are signing it...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 3, 2009)

My signature to such a document is an avowal of religious syncretism, which I emphatically deny.

AMR


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

Won't sign.


----------



## Webservant (Dec 3, 2009)

I read the entire declaration. It's kind of like when you get those Zogby surveys, and they ask you to answer yes or no to the question, "Is the nation headed in the right direction" - and you could answer yes, but they don't have a "yes, but". They don't give you a choice to sign stating that you agree with some of it. Once you sign, you are agreeing with the whole document. In the 3rd paragraph of the Declaration, it says, "We are Christians..." Obviously, not all of the denominations listed are Christian denominations. 'Nuff said.

EDIT - There's a bit of inconsistency on that list of signers. Some of the more "heavy hitters" (none from the PCA that I know of) have endorsed a Federal government definition of marriage (thereby ceding to Caesar that which is not his). In fact, these same individuals (I am referring to two of them) would politicize a ham sandwich for the sake of God's Own Party. For that reason alone I would not want my name on that list.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Dec 9, 2009)

I would not sign it.

By the way, the list of "celebrity" pastors and teachers not signing it is pretty impressive, Sproul, Macarthur, Begg, Horton..etc


----------



## brianeschen (Dec 9, 2009)

Webservant said:


> I read the entire declaration. It's kind of like when you get those Zogby surveys, and they ask you to answer yes or no to the question, "Is the nation headed in the right direction" - and you could answer yes, but they don't have a "yes, but". They don't give you a choice to sign stating that you agree with some of it. Once you sign, you are agreeing with the whole document. In the 3rd paragraph of the Declaration, it says, "We are Christians..." Obviously, not all of the denominations listed are Christian denominations. 'Nuff said.
> 
> EDIT - There's a bit of inconsistency on that list of signers. Some of the more "heavy hitters" (none from the PCA that I know of) *have endorsed a Federal government definition of marriage (thereby ceding to Caesar that which is not his)*. In fact, these same individuals (I am referring to two of them) would politicize a ham sandwich for the sake of God's Own Party. For that reason alone I would not want my name on that list.


There's nothing wrong with that as long as the Federal Government's definition matches God's.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Dec 9, 2009)

R.C Sproul on why he didnt sign the declaration. Link: The Manhattan Declaration: Why didn?t you sign it, R.C.? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog

On November 20, 2009, a document called the Manhattan Declaration was presented to the public by a coalition of cobelligerents. The document is concerned primarily with three very important biblical and cultural issues: the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. Without question, these issues are up for grabs in our nation.

As anyone familiar with my ministry will know, I share the document’s concern for defending the unborn, defining heterosexual marriage biblically, and preserving a proper relationship between church and state. However, when the document was sent to me and my signature was requested a few weeks ago, I declined to sign it.

In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.

The framers of the Manhattan Declaration seem to have calculated this objection into the language of the document itself. Likewise, some signers have stated that this is not a theological document. However, to make that statement accurate requires a redefinition of “theology” and serious equivocation on the biblical meaning of “the gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4).

The drafters of the document, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, used deliberate language that is on par with the ecumenical language of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement that began in the 1990s. The Manhattan Declaration states, “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word,” and it identifies “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelicals” as “Christians.” The document calls Christians to unite in “the Gospel,” “the Gospel of costly grace,” and “the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Moreover, the document says, “it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”

Without question, biblical truth must be proclaimed and the gospel preached prophetically to our nation. But how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted. More than that, this new document practically assumes the victory of ECT in using the term “the gospel” in reference to that which Roman Catholics are said to “proclaim” (Phil. 1:27).

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents. Let me be unambiguous: Without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). The ECT initiative repeatedly avowed that the signatories had a unity of faith in the gospel. This included Roman Catholic signers who affirm the canons and decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which anathematizes sola fide. I believe there are true and sincere Christians within the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. But these people are Christians in spite of their church’s official doctrinal positions.

At least one of the document’s framers, Mr. Colson, sees the Manhattan Declaration as a way to revitalize the church in America. In his commentary on November 25, Mr. Colson said the Manhattan Declaration is “a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.” He suggests that the Manhattan Declaration is an antidote to “biblical and doctrinal ignorance” within the church. However, true reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal. 1:6–8).

The Manhattan Declaration puts evangelical Christians in a tight spot. I have dear friends in the ministry who have signed this document, and my soul plummeted when I saw their names. I think my friends were misled and that they made a mistake, and I want to carefully assert that I have spoken with some of them personally about their error and have expressed my hope that they will remove their signatures from this document. Nevertheless, I remain in fellowship with them at this time and believe they are men of integrity who affirm the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.

Lastly, I stand with the sentiments expressed by my friends Alistair Begg, Michael Horton, and John MacArthur, and I appreciate their willingness to say “no” to the call to get aboard this bandwagon as they continue to stand firm in their proclamation of the gospel and the whole counsel of God as it pertains to all matters of faith and life, including the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. It is only in our united proclamation of the one, true gospel of Jesus Christ that any heart, any mind, or any nation will truly change, by God’s sovereign grace and for His glory alone.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 9, 2009)

I would like to thank you for posting RCs comments. I found them very enlightning and helpfully articulated. After spending the summer reading Murray's bio of Lloyd Jones, it seems like the same old 60s-70s ecumenical mess rearing its head. But some very fine teachers are signing, so maybe comparisons with that blatant situation (total liberals being called Christians) are stretched.

Do you think this RC essay might deserve its own title thread, what with people doing searches here to find out what has been posted and not wading all the way to 130 replies?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Dec 9, 2009)

lynnie said:


> I would like to thank you for posting RCs comments. I found them very enlightning and helpfully articulated. After spending the summer reading Murray's bio of Lloyd Jones, it seems like the same old 60s-70s ecumenical mess rearing its head. But some very fine teachers are signing, so maybe comparisons with that blatant situation (total liberals being called Christians) are stretched.
> 
> Do you think this RC essay might deserve its own title thread, what with people doing searches here to find out what has been posted and not wading all the way to 130 replies?



Lol. You can post it as its own separate thread if you like.


----------



## Herald (Dec 9, 2009)

I actually commented on and linked R.C.'s comments on our church blog. It's a stand on the gospel.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Dec 9, 2009)

I won't sign it because I believe that Roman Catholics teach a different gospel and I don't want people to think that evangelicals agree that the biblical gospel is taught by Rome. Their apologists will have a field day with that.


----------



## Webservant (Dec 9, 2009)

brianeschen said:


> Webservant said:
> 
> 
> > I read the entire declaration. It's kind of like when you get those Zogby surveys, and they ask you to answer yes or no to the question, "Is the nation headed in the right direction" - and you could answer yes, but they don't have a "yes, but". They don't give you a choice to sign stating that you agree with some of it. Once you sign, you are agreeing with the whole document. In the 3rd paragraph of the Declaration, it says, "We are Christians..." Obviously, not all of the denominations listed are Christian denominations. 'Nuff said.
> ...


One day, they will use that authority to redefine it.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Dec 9, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> I won't sign it because I believe that Roman Catholics teach a different gospel and I don't want people to think that evangelicals agree that the biblical gospel is taught by Rome. Their apologists will have a field day with that.



Not only will Rome's defenders use this, but so will Islam's defenders. Consistency is important. Theology whether they want to admit it or not, CANNOT be laid aside in the name of unity and providing the greater good.


----------



## ronlsb (Dec 20, 2009)

May I also be considered a dogmatist like yourself on this issue!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Dec 20, 2009)

Mohler and Grudem signed it.

MacArthur, Sproul, Begg and Phil Johnson declined.

I wouldn't sign it either.

Theologically Correct dot Com :: LIVE Your Theology. Blog Archive The Manhattan Declaration: Why you should NOT sign it.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 21, 2009)

"What do you all think the repercussions will be for this bold initiative by the visible church? Will it make a difference in America? Will you sign the declaration? Will you uphold what is in the declaration if pressed to do so by the government?"

To anyone who says that people will not use this as a reason to equivocate on the Gospel, I experienced equivocation of the Gospel directly related to the MD and ECT last week from a comment made by my RC art professor (I go to an RC university... lots of weird syncretism goes on there). The woman is famous for turning documents into wax noses to shape to her [liberalistic, pluralistic] will, but professors of all stripes do this sort of thing as well. This also results in ostracizing Christians like me, who object to her comments.

We must remember, people don't respect authorial intention anymore. They despise authority, even an author's.

------------
That said, I would like to exhort men to lead in these increasingly deceitful times. 

"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings." 2 Peter 5:8-9


----------

