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
Minus_The_Bear
The Bible is God’s *WORD*...and Christianity is about proclaiming JESUS CHRIST to ALL people—everybody needs salvation, whether they be gay or straight, an abortionist or a pro-life activist, Democrat or Republican— the only way to Heaven is through *saving* faith in Jesus Christ. Christ didn’t come to take Caesar’s position “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” —He did not come to establish a moral crusade—the Jews were already living righteously, at least outwardly.
Only CHRIST can truly and wholly transform and save sinners (of which we are all), and transformed, redeemed individuals can transform society from the inside out. The Manhattan Declaration is focusing on the outside in.
We as Christians are to put our faith and hope and trust in GOD and the work of the HOLY SPIRIT. And the HOLY SPIRIT works through us most powerfully when we boldly preach and live out the unadulterrated truth of the Gospel of Our Lord, JESUS CHRIST. Glory to the KING and HIS KINGDOM, which NO earthly government can ever beat.
cut//
Wish someone would just read the actual scriptures.
Perhaps you should try reading the Scriptures:
1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.The Gospel Paul is preaching is little different than what you claim the Gospel to be.3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. The Resurrection of the Dead
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope [2] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
All the denominations are a mixture of believers and tares; has he stopped going to his church because of the tares that are there?
John MacArthur takes a position and articulates it. Good for him.
Petronski,
You think this way becuase you probably identify by a label “Catholic” and not by a truth, “Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.” When you define yourself by something you BELIEVE and not by an establishment you’re a part of or by the color of your skin, then you will not participate in anything that compromises your belief.
Macarthur doesn’t see the document as productive. Christ didn’t come to establish morality (the Jews were quite “moral”) or to stand up to Caesar. Christ came to save and redeem SINNERS—of which we are all, whether you’re gay or straight, whether you’re pregnant or you’ve had an abortion. WE ARE ALL SINNERS in desperate need of redemption by Christ. Faith transforms, and transformed individuals will transform society regardless of who’s at Caesar’s throne. Change comes from within. From inside out. I believe the document is promoting change from the oustside in.
I don’t recall any of the early members of the persecuted church signing “Manhattan Declarations” and calling on their abusive governments to respect them...Yet they continued to stand for the faith.
You wrote:
“The irony is that traditional Christianity HAS NEVER PREACHED THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST.”
Yes, it has.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160359.htm
http://www.theworkofgod.org/devotns/euchrist/holymass/gospels.asp?key=98
I have no objection to agreeing with a RINO when he agrees with my principles. My objection would be to altering my principles to conform to a RINO.
MacArthur’s objection was to signing a document that he agreed with (anti-gay marriage) because people that he disagreed with (Catholics) also signed it. That doesn’t make much sense.
SnakeDoc
But do you object to people like Snowe, Collins, Specter (before he “came out”) posing as Republicans while voting like Democrats?
That is a misreading of MacArthur. MacArthur explains exactly why he wouldn’t sign it; t isn’t because Roman Catholics signed the documents.
Although I respect Macarthur, he will be suprised when he sees these ‘apostates’ sitting at the banquet table in heaven with him.
How is he “legalistic”? Specifically? And if you could define “legalistic,” that’d be helpful as well.
Please note the last part of the statement. He may love and admire, but still lists some signatories of the declaration as apostate.
“That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.”
Who are the various apostate traditions? He should have just come out and named them in my opinion.
Freegards
Like I said — I have no problem allying with someone who agrees with me. MacArthur and the signatories agree on the principles outlined in the document. He won’t sign because they disagree on principles that are not the subject of, and therefore not included in, the document.
SnakeDoc
Mind-reading is not permitted on the religion forum. Also, you're not any good at it.
Let's try this. How would you answer my question to m'man dead?
Who believes God’s word but not in God?
Sounds like a mythical entity.
I suppose it depends on the phrasing. If it says “in the interest of defending the Constitution,, we, the Conservatives and various wackos of this Country, believe abortion is nuts.” Then yeah, I’d sign it. If the document implied an endorsement of liberalism, then no. I did not see an implied endorsement of Catholicism in the document.
SnakeDoc
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.