THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE

Camp On This ^ | TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 | Steve Camp

[streetpreacher]

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE
...the ineffectual intersection of politics and faith

 

 

“The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good.”

-Francis Beckwith

 

 

The ultimate goal of the church biblically

is not the public good,

but the glory of God in the proclamation

and advancement of His gospel of sola fide.

God, not the audience, is sovereign.

The “public good” is political speak for tolerance.

The gospel, however, does divide;

it is a stumbling block, offensive and foolishness

for those who are perishing.

 

 

Here we go again!

In the face of President Obama's economic wasteland and political indecision vacuum concerning Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq; coupled with an abortion provision being slipped into the latest health care bill championed by Harr Reid yand company - the religious right has found reason again to try itself in the political arena through The Manhattan Declaration.

It is nothing more than ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and Justice Sunday revisited. Same framers and advocates of the benign philosophy of political remedy for moral malady. The religious right of the past 24 years has all but been silenced. And despite the grass-root efforts by many well respected evangelical leaders and politicians, our country remains unchanged on key social and family issues. So once again, those who are impassioned about important social issues from a "faith perspective" such as abortion, same sex marriage, and religious liberty and freedom, are all but silent about the real "faith solution" for these same issues. The solution being regeneration through the Lord Jesus Christ and not political legislation. The solution for the Christian must be Gospel-Centered; Christ-Centered; and Cross-Centered. Anything less is ineffectual in bringing real resolve spiritually to these concerns.

The lack of sea change in American society to a conservative political ethic for many of us has been frustrating. But attempting to fight spiritual battles with carnal weaponry is just as disappointing. Christians who in the past have sought real change on key cultural issues did so, in part, absent of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. IOW, the gospel became the afterthought, not the primary thought. That failed strategery to keep the proclamation of the gospel center in a righteous quest I have defined as Evangelical Co-Belligerence (ECB).

I offer the following definition:

Creating alliances with individuals or groups who do not share belief in or with orthodox biblical Christianity, in order to fight an agreed upon social, moral, cultural cause that seeks to undermine the traditional family and family values. This includes, but not limited to: gay marriage; abortion; euthanasia; etc. and those who aid, influence, or control such societal moral decline such as the Supreme Court, Congress, state and local officials, and a run-a-way Federal Judiciary. This is accomplished by using boycotts, petitions, picketing, legislation... any political remedies available to resolve the moral maladies in our nation.

This is further accomplished by organizing evangelicals/local churches as PAC's, lobbyist groups, or as some refer to as "Christocrats", as Christian voting blocks to threaten with militant tones sitting politicians with the prospect of not being reelected if they fail to adopt the ECB moral/family agenda. This tactic is being championed by many evangelical leaders, seminary presidents and pastors absent of the authority of Scripture, absent of the preaching of God's Word, and absent of the heralding of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. -Steve Camp, July 14, 2005

Christianity in culture does have impact and does produce change. But it only does so as long as Christianity doesn't become a political organization and remains at its very core deeply gospel-centered. Is it wrong for believers to enter politics? Of course not. Is it wrong for Christians in politics to use their office, driven by a biblical worldview, for the good of society and their fellow man as say Wilberforce did on the issue of slavery? Absolutely not. But the church itself is not driven by the brilliance of U.S. Constitutional ethics, but by the Scriptures of the living God.

So again, what is the solution to the plight our nation finds itself in? The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.And that brief answer is not about offering cultural reform back to an era of family values and more virtuous days. Jesus Christ did not come to transform America, but to transform Americans. The gospel is not the new nationalism for the conservative, but the hope for any sinner (like me and you) who by God's sovereign electing love trusts that eternal life and salvation is attained only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord alone.
 

IOW beloved, in this hour in our nations history may I propose a simple mandate: it is time for the church to be the church.

Gospel-driven Worship:

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

Gospel-driven Welfare:

44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Gospel-driven Witness:

47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

[Halgr]

What I see happening here is the same thing that got OBAMA elected....

Christians and Republicans and Conservatives get caught up in mental masturbation and the devil does an end run around them.

What a waste of time and energy.

And like democrats who are clueless, there are many so called conservative who really don’t know Jesus or have salvation.

Keep it simple folks. just as Jesus did.

[HarleyD]

What bothers you is of no importance

True. But God takes a very dim view to those who modify what He has said.

What? 1) They didn’t separate their writings from the Bible. They simply assumed, correctly, that their writings were not inspired.

Isn't that what I said? The scriptures are inspired. All other writings are subject to error.

At least one list of canonical scriptures included 1 Clement if I am not mistaken.

Not according to the Jewish Christians and the early church fathers. I doubt if Clement would have said his writings were to the same level as Paul, John, or James.

Whoa! Nice slight of hand there, buddy! So, if something isn’t in the bible it isn’t from God?

That's not what I stated. I said what is in the scripture is given for our edification and training. These aren't my words but Paul's:

2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Now given this list, what more can Catholic Canons add?

Where in scripture does it say that St. Matthew wrote the gospel named after him? Where in scripture does it say that Matthew’s gospel is inspired?

The Jewish and early church fathers stated it. They knew what was inspired and what wasn't. We have already established the fact that everything else is NOT inspired-including what comes from Roman. At least to the same degree as the scriptures. The infallible word of God is closed forever. Nothing else is infallible.

Whoa! Another leap there. Abortion. Where is it in the Bible? Nowhere.

On the contrary, we are instructed not to murder. Abortion is murder. People know it's murder; they just try to ease their conscience by calling a baby a "fetus". It's that simple though we would like to make it complicated. As Paul states, every answer for us to live a righteous life is found in scripture.

I don’t think you have any idea of what you’re talking about.

I don't pretend to understand everything in God's word but I know that it is true and is all that I need. Other works are helpful but not inspired. And I don't need a Christian organization to tell me what is written when I can read it for myself.

[HarleyD]

Pinging you both to my reply as I noticed you ping me. So by the ping you give that you shall reap.

Just to be clear for our Catholic friends, this, btw, is non-inspirational writing.

[the_conscience]

LOL

Don’t worry, even if it was inspirational I’ve been told I don’t have what it takes to get it.

Maybe you guys can check with vlady about the super-added gift. He thinks he’s in charge of distribution.

[Mr Rogers]

“So, if everything needed for salvation is in the OT, then why was the NT written? You probably never even thought of that, right?”

Wrong. First, the OT DOES include everything required for salvation. Remember Jesus talking to the disciples on the road to Emmaus? “27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”

Second, Paul was addressing not the extent of the canon, but the authority and power of scripture. It is God-breathed. It is from God, for us, and results in the man of God being fully equipped for every good work. That is the nature and power of scripture.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

But the extent of scripture is authenticated by God...it is “God-breathed”, not “Church-breathed”. As a practical matter, one can call anything you want scripture and attempt to live by it. We accept the teaching of the Apostles because A) it doesn’t contradict previous revelation, and B) the Apostles’ preaching was accompanied by signs and wonders - it was backed by the power of God.

And even now, it carries God’s power to save the lost, if they believe. And if they do not, they are lost. But of course, atheists don’t believe scripture, so they don’t believe they are lost. But then, atheists don’t believe in the authority of the Catholic Church (or any Baptist one), so saying the Church authenticates scripture is of no value...people accept both or neither.

“And yet all of those things are implicitly in scripture anyway.”

Where? Purgatory is contradicted by the sufficiency of Christ. Priests contradict the offices & roles explicitly taught, since there is no sacrifice for them to offer, other than the sacrifice offered by all believers - thanksgiving and good deeds. Scripture explicitly teaches our righteousness is found in the merit of Christ - there is no storehouse of merit for a pope to transfer the merit of one person’s good deeds to cover another’s sin. There is no Pope...not explicit, and not implicit.

“So the only thing that separates you from the Mormons is that they they have a feeling about their BOM which you don’t have.”

What separates you from Mormons is you have feelings about a Church that they do not share. In the end, each individual is responsible for his decisions, regardless of how they come to them.

Paul & Peter says the authority of scripture comes from God. Paul says all scripture is “God-breathed”. Peter says, “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Scripture’s authority is based in God, not in a Church decision 400 years later...

“Your feelings probably didn’t tell you to include anything about tradition.”

My THOUGHT is that tradition cannot contradict scripture...and for Catholics, it does.

“So do the Chinese have the common good or not?”

The Chinese government claims it works for the common good. That is why I told you it is important to define common good. Unbelievers run governments, and they define common good differently than believers...and you say government works for the real common good.

In Acts 17, we find, “26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us...”

Yes, God has provided natural revelation (”having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place”), that men “SHOULD SEEK GOD”. Men should, but they do not...even though God “is actually not far from each one of us”, they do not find Him. We look for the wrong thing, because we want to be judged righteous on our own, instead of by faith.

“18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

That is not doing violence to the scripture, but reading them.

[wmfights]

Everything in scripture is given for our edification and training. We don't need more than what God has given to us.

Amen

1John 1:3-4 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.

1John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life,...

Unless the Holy Spirit moves us, the simplicity of the Truth and it being written for us to read is to easy and seems like foolishness. Our fallen nature always wants to make the Truth more complicated than it is. The NT was written by people who actually witnessed the events, or those that traveled with them. The books were widely read by other witnesses who could quickly reject any accounts that "added" to the events or words that were said. These books were written so we would know the Truth and it could never be perverted into something else.

The foolishness is to trust anything other than Scripture as the rule of your faith.

[RnMomof7]

Amen !

Happy New year Wm !!

[wmfights]

Back at ya Mom of 7. I'm tired just thinking about the number. I have 2.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Wrong. First, the OT DOES include everything required for salvation.”

Then why did the Holy Spirit both with the New Testament? Those who had ONLY the Old Testament didn’t know what it meant until Christ explained it. It was the same with St. Paul. He opened the scriptures of the OT with the oral traditions from which the New Testament information would be drawn.

“Second, Paul was addressing not the extent of the canon, but the authority and power of scripture. It is God-breathed. It is from God, for us, and results in the man of God being fully equipped for every good work. That is the nature and power of scripture.”

Excect, in verse 15, it is clear that he meant the Old Testament.

“Where? Purgatory is contradicted by the sufficiency of Christ.”

No, it exists because of it.

“Priests contradict the offices & roles explicitly taught, since there is no sacrifice for them to offer, other than the sacrifice offered by all believers - thanksgiving and good deeds.”

No, they offer Christ re-presented as the perfect sacrifice.

“Scripture explicitly teaches our righteousness is found in the merit of Christ - there is no storehouse of merit for a pope to transfer the merit of one person’s good deeds to cover another’s sin.”

That’s not even what an indulgence is. If you attack something, don’t you think you should know what it is first?

“There is no Pope...not explicit, and not implicit.”

Matthew 16.

If this is an example of your sputtering, then this thread will only get more pathetic in the Protestant department. I see that you summoned others of the usual suspects to the thread too. Desperate? Can’t stand on your own?

[RobbyS]

The thing is that Calvin was not a Calvinist. Many confuse the man with John Knox, although Calvin was French and Knox was a Scot.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“This is rather simple; we rest upon the promises of God for everything, including our salvation. God promises us salvation in His word.”

Harley, here’s the problem - if you are not one of the “elect” then the very Scriptures you are trusting in DON’T APPLY TO YOU.

And you can’t objectively know if you are one of the “elect”. The best you can do is point to your subjective feelings.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Why are you any more certain than the Calvinist? Do you not have a propensity to sin as much as anyone else? Do you know when you’ve believed enough? By what objective measure?”

Because my “transaction” is out in the open - not hidden in the gauzy pre-time state.

It goes like this: God openly makes His offer thought Scriptures that anyone who wants to may come and be saved. I am in the set of “anyone” therefore if I come and believe I will be saved. I don’t have to have the magic lottery number.

It is an open, all cards on the table type of transaction. It makes the word of the Bible all that more trustworthy because they apply to anyone who reads them.

______________________

“To answer your other question more directly, without faith it is impossible to please God. As faith is a gift of God, the unbeliever does not have it.”

To refine further: Is it possible for someone to have faith and be, in some measure, pleasing to God before they hear the Gospel and are spiritually regenerated?

[RnMomof7]

They do grow up...eventually :)

[HarleyD]

Harley, here’s the problem - if you are not one of the “elect” then the very Scriptures you are trusting in DON’T APPLY TO YOU.

There is no problem that I see. If a person is trusting in the scriptures, the ONLY reason they are trusting in the scriptures is because they are one of God's elect. If they do not trust in the scriptures, the ONLY reason they don't is because God has not brought them to repentance.

And you can’t objectively know if you are one of the “elect”. The best you can do is point to your subjective feelings.

On the contrary. You know if you are one of the "elect" simply because you believe in God. If God Himself came up to you tomorrow and said, "Would you also leave Me?", your reply would be as Peter's, "Lord, where else can we go? You have the keys to heaven." This isn't just a loyalty response. This shows a complete understanding of the positional situation we find ourselves in with God. We desire to go to heaven and the only way there is through our Lord and Savior. We know there is no other place to go. While we may stumble from time to time, God's truth has been etched into our minds and we will ALWAYS come back.

If someone "falls" away, as John says, they were never from us for they would have continued with us. They simply don't believe in heaven nor the one who can take them there. They never had a positional understanding.

[Mr Rogers]

“Those who had ONLY the Old Testament didn’t know what it meant until Christ explained it.”

No, the disciples on the road needed it, but the 12 did not...with the Resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit, it was plain enough. The scriptures the Bereans searched to see if what Paul preached was true were the Old Testament.

But as I pointed out, in 2 Tim 3, Paul was discussing the power and role of scripture - hence “all” (or every - I believe it can be translated either way) has the characteristics Paul describes.

And why? Because it is “God-breathed”. It derives its power and authority, not from church councils, but from God - which is also what Peter taught. Pity those who pretend to follow him don’t pay attention to what he wrote...

The sacrifice of Christ made us perfect in God’s eyes. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” - Hebrews 10 He “has perfected” - past tense - us “for all time”. Therefor, “he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”

Or, if you prefer, Ephesians, “4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us [past tense] alive together with Christ— by grace you have been [past tense] saved— 6and raised [past tense] us up with him and seated [past tense] us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been [past tense] saved through faith.”

That is a lot of past tenses for something that needs Christ to be ‘re-presented’! And if we are perfect - since God HAS MADE us perfect - then what is Purgatory for? If we are already seated with Him in the heavenly places, what would we do in Purgatory? Do you think He will kick us out, and then punish us until we are perfected a second time?

An indulgence is:

“the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.”

First, the idea that God punishes what he has forgiven is wrong. And second, it applies the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints to remit “the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven”.

Obscene. Believe it if you wish, but no Apostle taught it!

Matthew 16 did not teach Peter uber alles, since Jesus explicitly taught that no one was over all, save God. Remember, just 1.5 chapters later, we read, “At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Oddly enough, Jesus didn’t clarify things by replying “Peter - he is Bishop of Bishops, and will be my Vicar on Earth!”

Guess Jesus wasn’t feeling very explicit that day, huh?

I pinged others who might wish to pray for your salvation. And if they get the urge to pray for me, I’ll cheerfully accept it.

[HarleyD]

It goes like this: God openly makes His offer thought Scriptures that anyone who wants to may come and be saved. I am in the set of “anyone” therefore if I come and believe I will be saved.

Then essentially you're refusing to acknowledge the Old Testament. God never made His salvation offering to the Egyptians, the Canaanites, or a host of other people. He instead had a chosen few that He shepherd and guided.

[Mr Rogers]

“If a person is trusting in the scriptures, the ONLY reason they are trusting in the scriptures is because they are one of God’s elect. If they do not trust in the scriptures, the ONLY reason they don’t is because God has not brought them to repentance.”

Fair enough. I would add a ‘yet’ to the end, and hope and pray they might experience it in the future!

“You know if you are one of the “elect” simply because you believe in God.”

The only problem I have with this is the deceitfulness of the human heart. I had a roommate who acted and talked like a christian, until he became a Buddhist. If you had asked him a few months before he switched if he was a christian, I’m certain he would have said yes...and been sincere enough. The human heart is very deceitful, which is why only God knows with absolute certainty.

That is why, if anyone wants to pray for my salvation, I’ll accept it. I would like to believe I haven’t lived a lie for 35+ years, but any prayers offered for me will be received with thanks. I think that is also why the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith says, “This infallible assurance is not an essential part of faith, for a true believer may wait a long time, and struggle with many difficulties before obtaining it. [1] Yet we may obtain it without extraordinary revelation and by the right use of ordinary means, for we are enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given to us by God. [2] Therefore it is the duty of everyone to be as diligent as possible to make their calling and election sure, so that their hearts may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in carrying out the duties of obedience. These duties are the natural fruits of this assurance, for it is far from inclining people to loose living.”

http://www.grbc.net/about_us/1689.php?chapter=18

[the_conscience]

Rest in Christ and his promises. Faith is a mere instrument by which we receive that rest not a cause for how we are justified.

if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“No, the disciples on the road needed it, but the 12 did not...”

Really? So you mean that they ALL knew Jesus was going to rise from the dead? They sure acted like people who didn’t know it even though Jesus HIMSELF said He would rise from the dead.

“...with the Resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit, it was plain enough.”

Sure, AFTER they saw Jesus they got it. Doesn’t that prove my point? Did they know Jesus was going to rise from the dead without Jesus telling them and actually DOING IT?

“The scriptures the Bereans searched to see if what Paul preached was true were the Old Testament.”

Right, and you think he didn’t talk about Jesus? What st. Paul did was tell them what they DID NOT KNOW from just reading the OT. He explained to them what it meant - because they didn’t know what it meant about the Messiah. Jews today don’t know either - that’s why they deny Christ is the Messiah.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“First, the idea that God punishes what he has forgiven is wrong.”

So God didn’t take the life of David’s first son with Bathsheba? 2 Samuel 12:14 And no one suffers in this life after becoming a Christian? Really?

“Obscene. Believe it if you wish, but no Apostle taught it!”

Perhaps it’s not written about, but the teaching is obvious since early Christians suffered greatly and even saw a purpose to their suffering.

“Matthew 16 did not teach Peter uber alles, since Jesus explicitly taught that no one was over all, save God.”

Matthew 16 did teach that Peter was given a role - special from that of the other Apostles - by Jesus.

“Remember, just 1.5 chapters later, we read, “At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Oddly enough, Jesus didn’t clarify things by replying “Peter - he is Bishop of Bishops, and will be my Vicar on Earth!””

Uh, maybe because they were asking about HEAVEN? Do you actually read these passages or do you just imagine they say what you think they do?

“Guess Jesus wasn’t feeling very explicit that day, huh?”

Guess you didn’t actually read what the passage said, huh?

“I pinged others who might wish to pray for your salvation.”

Prayers are fine. But I don’t believe you.

“And if they get the urge to pray for me, I’ll cheerfully accept it.”

Maybe they’ll pray that you’ll actually see the word ‘heaven’ when it’s in a verse, huh?