# RC Sproul essay: why he won't sign the Manhattan Declaration



## lynnie (Dec 9, 2009)

This was posted 131 replies in on the other thread, by "awretchsavedbygrace", and I thought it might be worth its own title and thread if anybody searches for this topic one day.

________________________________________________________

The Manhattan Declaration: Why didn?t you sign it, R.C.? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog

The Manhattan Declaration: Why didn’t you sign it, R.C.?
from R.C. Sproul 

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.


----------



## smhbbag (Dec 9, 2009)

He puts the heart of the matter perfectly:



> 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.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Dec 9, 2009)

Some of those "Thanks" should be mine! Just kidding.


----------



## smhbbag (Dec 9, 2009)

haha, Julio, I already went back to the other thread and gave you some love!


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Dec 9, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> haha, Julio, I already went back to the other thread and gave you some love!



Thank you! I got your back!


----------



## Herald (Dec 9, 2009)

Has Mohler written as to why he signed the declaration?


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 9, 2009)

Herald said:


> Has Mohler written as to why he signed the declaration?



Look here: Why I Signed <i>The Manhattan Declaration</i> - AlbertMohler.com


----------



## Herald (Dec 9, 2009)

I don't believe we need more threads on the Manhattan Declaration, so I will post my thoughts on Al Mohler's decision to sign the declaration in this thread.

First, I have a great amount of respect for Dr. Mohler. He is a voice for good in the Southern Baptist Convention and the church of Christ at large. I do not possess his educational pedigree, nor do I chair a position in a major seminary that influences the lives of so many future pastors, missionaries, and scholars. But I must address Dr. Mohler's reasons for signing the Manhattan Declaration. Dr. Mohler's reason for signing the declaration is aptly summarized in this statement:



> There are several reasons, but they all come down to this -- I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement.



There is not a right thinking Christian man or woman who will disagree with the danger that exists, both for the church and society, from the attacks on the biblical definition of marriage and the sanctity of life. Dr. Mohler goes on to include the freedom of religion, which is something I place in a separate category. What Dr. Mohler does not address in a satisfactory manner is that these moral issues proceed from a right understanding of God. Not God in a pluralistic sense, but God as revealed through the bible, and contained in the message of the gospel. Christians do not believe in marriage being between one man and one woman, or the sanctity of human life, because other religions share an ancient Christian faith that has long since dissolved the theological bonds that joined us. Christians affirm these truths because scripture teaches them. In fact, scripture _requires _that we believe them. 

Dr. Mohler attempts to intercept the criticism he expected to receive by adding his name to a document that includes Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic signatures. He writes:



> 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.



I applaud Dr. Mohler's statement. I believe that he does, indeed, appreciate the theological differences between Roman Catholics, Orthodox and biblical Christianity. But the problem is that the Manhattan Declaration considers all members of these different groups to be equally Christian. I quote the Manhattan 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.



I agree with R.C. Sproul, who wrote:



> 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.



The Roman Catholic Church still affirms the anathemas of the Council of Trent. It still denies sola fide, sola gratia, and sola scriptura. It dismisses justification by faith in Christ alone. Yet, the Manhattan Declaration uses the word "Christian" in referring to Roman Catholicism. So, while we would agree with Rome on the importance of these great moral issues, we depart on the basis of authority for our common stand. 

Lastly, Dr. Mohler does not address the true moral issue of our time; one that the Manhattan Declaration also ignores. Sin and its remedy. Why is biblical marriage under attack? Why are babies murdered with the sanction of the state? These things are happening because of the depravity of the human soul and the natural consequence of an entire society rebelling against God's moral law. I am not saying that people should not stand up against such evil and join in fighting back. We should. Such efforts can even transcend political and religious divides. Many Christians have strong political convictions. They align themselves with political parties that contain a plurality of religions. But Christians are not being asked to participate by calling Christian what clearly isn't Christian. The religious dogma that is propagated by Rome and the Orthodox churches is not the gospel; it is not Christian. 

How should biblical Christianity, which includes the full spectrum of churches and denominations that preach the true gospel, respond to the premise of the Manhattan Declaration? First, we must realize that true moral change is only possible through repentance from sin and faith in Christ alone. Second, the universal church should turn to God with one heart and one voice by repenting from its lethargy and silence on these issues. We must plead for the mercy of our Heavenly Father to glorify His name by honoring His own definition of marriage, and defend against infanticide, both as expressed in scripture. The church must turn from its intimacy with the world and embrace all that is true and holy. 

Israel faced drought, plague, and foreign conquest because of her repeated sins against the LORD God. Our nation is being judged by God because of the unbridled depravity seen in the current attack on biblical marriage, and the murder of the unborn. Truly, what the LORD said to Solomon is appropriate.



> 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 13 "If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 14 and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."



God's people, Christians, need to "humble themselves and pray." They need to "seek My face and turn from their wicked ways." God does not promise to spare our land from the consequences of its sin, but the promise contained in the gospel applies to all who turn from their sin and embrace Christ.


----------



## WarrenInSC (Dec 9, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> He puts the heart of the matter perfectly:
> 
> 
> 
> > 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.




Absolutely - that's the core of it. Doesn't really seem all that hard to discern - therefore, how could some otherwise wise folks sign this?


----------



## NRB (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm with Al.
If I am unwise then the Lord will let me know at some point.


----------



## TKarrer (Dec 10, 2009)

I definitely agree with R.C. Sproul on this, and not Al Mohler.

Cultural depravity will know no bounds so long as God's Gospel is profaned and disbelieved. In His Providence, God is able to turn the tides; He doesn't need our watering down the essentials of the faith to accomplish change. What He demands we employ as means for change is conformity to the life and example of Jesus Christ, and to all the words of His Holy Book. 

With all due respect to Dr. Mohler- I've often thought it seems he gets a little too caught up in political reform. And though seeking God's honor in the political arena isn't wrong; he seems to do so, often, too much like a Jerry Falwell, and not enough like a Jonathan Edwards. What do I know though, I'm only 25 yrs old.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 10, 2009)

This sentence says it all:


> The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them.



I don't know how anyone can read Gal 1:8-9 and not tremble at the thought of obscuring the Gospel.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 10, 2009)

> http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/
> 
> 
> Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
> ...


.


----------



## thegospel (Dec 10, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> This sentence says it all:
> 
> 
> > The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them.
> ...



I could not agree more! I wonder what the effect Dr. Mohler's signing of the declaration is going to have on how the ungodly view true Christianity, not just those that claim its name.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 10, 2009)

This could almost have been simply written:



> 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.
> 
> Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.





Also, from _Christianity Today_
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...son&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a




> What Does the Manhattan Declaration Really Mean?
> Tobin Grant | posted 11/24/2009 12:16PM
> 
> 
> However, notably absent are leaders from political groups seen by many as the "Christian Right," including the American Family Association, American Center for Law and Justice, Concerned Women for America, and Traditional Values Coalition. The John Hancocks of Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson and Sojourners founder Jim Wallis are also missing.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Dec 10, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> This sentence says it all:
> 
> 
> > The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them.
> ...



I imagine that Dr. Mohler just made a mistake and didn't fully think through the fact that to sign your name to a declarative document means you agree with everything it says and implies as true...

He has been mightly used by the Lord but this time I think he may have just made a human error, like all men are prone to do.

I don't include Dr. Mohloer in this category, but there are many who take the bible very lightly these days who signed that document alongside him.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 10, 2009)

Just to be fair, somebody sent me this today:

The Manhattan Declaration: A Statement from Ligon Duncan - Reformation21

It is illegal to print the text online, sorry.

It is Ligon Duncan ( PCA) on why he signed this, and I will be the first to say that he is a truly fine orthodox teacher. I do think RCS has a more compelling position. But at least read both sides.

They must have quite the discussions at their alliance meetings 

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 02:35:17 EST-----

poor julio, I got 27 thanks and he only got 4, and he is the one who found this


----------



## Herald (Dec 10, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Just to be fair, somebody sent me this today:
> 
> The Manhattan Declaration: A Statement from Ligon Duncan - Reformation21
> 
> ...



I don't believe this article adds anything new to the position of those Protestant Christians who signed the declaration. Mohler did a good job of explaining his reasons, which are similar to what Duncan wrote.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 10, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > This sentence says it all:
> ...



To be clear, I am not stating that every signatory intended this but I am responding to the notion that the issue is one where the document can be treated ambivalently on this point as if the confusion of the image of God in all men and the Gospel of Grace are interchangeable. I agree with Dr. Sproul that the document might have been fine if it had focused on the point of contact with all men because these issues touch on Creation Ordinances and even fallen men are bound by them.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Dec 10, 2009)

Joshua said:


> awretchsavedbygrace said:
> 
> 
> > Some of those "Thanks" should be mine! Just kidding.
> ...



I love you Josh. I really do, your one of a kind!


----------



## Herald (Dec 10, 2009)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > awretchsavedbygrace said:
> ...



Rat brains.


----------



## KMK (Dec 10, 2009)

I didn't sign it either.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 10, 2009)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> I love you Josh. I really do, *your one of a kind*!



So is the Ebola virus.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 10, 2009)

KMK said:


> I didn't sign it either.



Funny, noboby asked me either! 

Mohler and Duncan are two of my hero figures today. However, R.C. gave (in my opinion) a better reason NOT to sign. It is probably a tougher call for me than for some of you (what with more than five decades in broad evangelicalism), but at this point, my co-belligerency includes opposing all manner of moral evils side by side with people who share my moral conclusions, but ends at the point of the Gospel. Sproul nailed it: 



> 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).


----------



## Grafted In (Dec 11, 2009)

*The Privilege of Persecution*

In Mohler's statement he said that "freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest conviction."

I would argue that this statement is spoken by a man that presumes that, as many Christians do, that Christians hold a position or status of privilege in this country. I would argue that whatever status of privilege that we once held in the marketplace of ideas is gone. 

I think that we might do the Church a disservice when we talk about the government taking away our "freedom of religion and the rights of conscience." The change in government does not change the freedom of religion or conscience, but it merely changes the consequences of doing so. The scriptures do not say that everyone who desires to live a godly life will be respected, it says that they will be persecuted (2 Tim. 3:12). 

I think that we should exercise our freedom as citizens to petition our government for that is our right as American citizens. But, at the same time, when speak with one voice as Christians we have the duty to proclaim the gospel as "the power of God unto salvation," realizing that we do not have the right to have our message received as a privileged one. Our privilege as witness bearers is the privilege to share in the persecution and suffering of our Lord.


----------



## bill (Dec 11, 2009)

I agree whole heartedly with R.C., but the best BIBLICAL defense for not being a part of this I found on Steve Camps blog. (CAMPONTHIS) I encourage you to look at it if you are interested or have not made a decision where you stand yet.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 11, 2009)

Might want to be more specific: CAMPONTHIS: THE NEW DOWNGRADE...12 dangers of Evangelical Co-Belligerence related to the Manhattan Declaration


----------

