Posted on 12/10/2009 10:55:18 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
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
Ping for later
Was in a church that had a legalistic bent like his for years. Have escaped. Signed the document.
That’s not a good vacuum cleaner because it doesn’t butter my toast.
There’s still a few true Bible believers around. Thank God!
Getting in an “I’m more Christian than you are” match doesn’t seem to me to be the most productive choice. We’re all fallible, and we’re all probably wrong about something. Unite on what we can. Debate if you want. But, foremost, rely on the Grace of the Almighty to correct for our inevitable doctrinal shortcomings.
Getting caught up in legalisms is a fool’s errand — and allowing those legalisms to get in the way of doing Godly work with people that disagree about doctrinal minutae is ridiculous.
SnakeDoc
Legalism short circuits the power of God which proves His Word anyway.
Holier-than-thou.
Self-righteous.
Pedant.
It’s not supposed to be a religious document, Pastor Clod. Its basis is Judeo-Christian faith, but it is neither an explicit nor an implicit endorsement of any particular catechism.
Politics being vastly less important than spiritual matters, I’m sure you’ve no objection to RINOs, correct?
The irony is that traditional Christianity HAS NEVER PREACHED THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. Jesus preached the gospel, he sent his apostles forth to preach the gospel but the church has never preached the gospel.
Jesus said “repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”
That was the gospel. That is what the apostles went out preaching. Not that Christ was dying for your sins and would resurrect. This is the gospel of traditional Christianity but it is not the gospel of Jesus.
So McArthur and all these big guys have fallen into the tradtions and doctrines of men bin. Wish someone would just read the actual scriptures.
I’ll just say this a bit broadly.
Most of us here have complete contempt for people who are all for saving whales and trees, but at the same time are pro-abort. We wonder what the statistical correlation is between the two positions - you know, how many of Group A are also members of Group B.
I just wonder what the correlation is between people who have contempt for RINOs and RINO-enablers on the one hand, but don’t think that anyone should ever have a definition of what it means to be a Christian, on the other.
In short, he won't sign because there are too many Catholics involved.
What a bigot.
You are dead-wrong, and palpably so. Check 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, for starters.
Would you sign your name to a document that said repeatedly that Democrats, Republicans, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, and Communist Party members all equally shared and pursued the values and vision of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, if that document also said abortion was bad?
The Boss has already addressed these “authentic Gospel” people:
38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is on our part.
41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Uh, no.
What MacArthur said is the moral equivalent of "I am not getting in that pool with all them negros."
And you blog about how right he is.
Err... did you get that from the Bible??
THE RULES
Rule One: "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the Universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
All Else Is Irrelevant
============================================================
The creature "John MacArthur" admirably embodies "Rule One" thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.