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
And, since there are two days between your post and mine, kneejerk doesn't work either, no matter how self-satisfying it might be to type.
By the way, it was all uphill from there. Thank goodness for life's little blessings.
Let me try to be clearer.
So are you, personally, rejoicing that no man has even one thing he can ever contribute to his own salvation, at any point? That he is a helpless, blind, dead, God-hating sinner? Do you rejoice that Jesus Christ has provided full and complete atonement for his people, never to be helped or supplemented by anything man can contribute, in any way? Do you rejoice that a sinner can and must be saved by grace alone, that full and complete salvation is received through faith alone, that salvation is only because the once-for-all death of Christ on the cross, and His person, alone, that we can learn the full truth of this good news through Scripture alone, and that this all thus redounds to the glory of God alone?
We can start there.
ROTFLMAO!
heh heh heh
Thanks for the QED.
Anyone wants to see a RC response to the Gospel, click the link.
Is it any wonder that so many Christians can't even unite on one road to fight hedonism, socialism, fascism, communism, etal? Their political vision, if they have any, seems to be obscured and stunted by their many "One Way" arrows pointed in all directions along the path to victory over the enemy.
If I were to sign the manifesto now circulating, I certainly don't feel I would go to Hell because a few words may offend my faith sensibilities....which are not that hyper-delicate, thank God. This would just be throwing the baby out with the holy water.
No wonder atheistic, amoral enemies of religion and our Republic laugh their heads off at us.
Leni
Whatever the pastor’s reasons are, I think it is good for him not to sign if that is how he feels about it.
It shows that people who are in the fog about everything else, including their own religion are still right on their opposition to abortion, the defining moral issue of our day.
Because, you know, nothing infuriates Catholics more than rejoicing in Christ, donchaknow.
Actually, that was a Catholic response to your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle
Be our protection against the wickedness
and snares of the devil;
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
Cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits
who prowl through the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen
Amazing that you hyperlink the phrase “the Gospel” not to Scripture, but instead to what seems to be your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Quite revealing...I’m certainly very glad you did it.
Worship of angels, perfect in-sync.
You don’t know what you don’t know
LOL; dude, seriously, step away from the fortune cookies!
***Do you rejoice that Jesus Christ has provided full and complete atonement for his people, never to be helped or supplemented by anything man can contribute, in any way?***
Your statement is logically false. Man must say “yes” to Jesus’ atonement. He is not saved without it. Therefore, man must “do something” for his own salvation.
And if man can never contribute anything, then what does St. Paul mean in this verse?
“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:” Colossians 1:24 KJV (some translations translate “behind” as “lacking”) How do you explain St. Paul saying that Christ’s afflictions were lacking and that he (St. Paul) could fill up this void?
And what does St. Peter mean here?
“But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.” KJV I Peter 4:13
Remember that your answer hinges on accepting Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God, so don’t try to argue that it doesn’t mean what it clearly says.
Oh no, it absolutely means what it says. But it can’t say something that contradicts Jesus’ cry that He had accomplished all, fully (John 19:30), nor Paul’s categorical statement that the redeemed man is he who does not work, but only believes in Christ (Romans 4:5), nor his emphatic assertion that salvation is wholly of God and leaves no room for human boasting nor contribution of any sort (1 Corinthians 1:30).
So I say that the apostles (A) cannot be contradicting themselves, and thus (B) cannot be saying what would be contradictory; and so (C) mean exactly what they say: we are still in the time of suffering for Christ (cf. Acts 14:22, among many others). Since they cannot be redemptive sufferings — or the whole Bible is undone, Christ is un-seated as Savior, and God’s word is made empty — they are sufferings due to our connection with Christ (Acts 9:4), and for our own good (Hebrews 12).
By “us” and “our” I mean those who trust Christ as he is presented in the Gospel, described in comment #117.
Hope that helps you.
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.