Let’s not go jumping on R.C. Sproul, John McArther, et al., for not signing.
They had their reasons for not signing. They have to follow their own conscience.
Having heard R.C. Sproul’s Tabletalk for years, I do know that like the signers of the Manhattan Declaration, he refuses to compromise on life, marriage, and freedom.
However, I can understand Sproul’s refusal to sign the document after being invited to do so by Chuck Colson.
For Sproul “the faith” that Colson and the other drafters expresses in the document has been boiled down to a skeleton of basic beliefs (Trinity, resurrection) that can unite varied and disparate religious traditions into one big (and politically powerful) group.
R.C. Sproul and those who refused to sign the document believes that this Least Common Denominator (LCD) form of “Christianity” is NOT what is needed to “revitalize the church in America.”
Sproul is deeply concerned that Chuck Colson believes this document is a “form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.”
Unlike Colson, Sproul believes that this gospel-less document is nothing but a catechism for anything other than cultural Christianity.
Without the gospel, you cannot change hearts and minds. So while the document mentions the gospel and says we must preach it in its fullness, evidently, that fullness does not include the very doctrinal precision demanded by the inspired Scriptures themselves.
Let’s not go jumping on R.C. Sproul, John McArther, et al., for not signing.
Why jump on them when they did the right thing?
Sola te, R.C...
Sola te.
Sic semper brutus fulmen.
Disputandi pruritus ecclesiarum scabies.