Discussing the Manhattan Declaration
I have been hesitant to post on the Manhattan Declaration since James White (here and here) and John MacArthur (here) have already said, in perhaps better words than I could have, that which I would have if I did. My first impression, which is that it should have been presented as a political document rather than a theological one, has been the recurring rationale behind my reading of it over the past few days.
The document would probably not have received such critical attention if it were presented as a political one, but presenting it as a theological document has earned it theological criticism. An email I just received this evening from Jim Daly (President and CEO of Focus on the Family) pushed me past the tipping point, prompting me to forsake my reservations and draft this post. In the email, Daly appealed to the conscience, and wrote:
Given the magnitude of this document, though, I’d like to share with you now why I was so eager to sign it–and why I hope you will, too.
It is important, first off, to note that the Manhattan Declaration is not a partisan or political statement…Instead, it addresses and elevates four specific areas of universal consensus. Some have referred to these as “threshold issues,” meaning they represent the foundation of our faith and the pivot point from which everything else flows. This is the bedrock. If we can’t agree on these areas of doctrine, everything else will be of reduced value. These four areas are:
1. The sanctity of human life.
2. The sanctity of marriage.
3. The protection of religious liberty.
4. The rejection of unjust laws.
Daly refers to these as “baseline principles” and goes on to say,
As a unified body, we are acknowledging that our faith is strong and redemptive, but it’s not necessarily a comfortable and easy pursuit. Standing up for our beliefs can often come at great cost.
I find it coming from a drastically confused understanding of the Christian faith when it is said that 1-4 above represent the foundation of our faith. The same confusion of the faith that selects ecumenism as the answer to secularism also breeds odd claims such as “They are the pivot point from which everything else flows; the Bedrock” One cannot help but wonder where “Christian leaders” get strange ideas like this that are so foreign to God’s Word, but it is obvious that a faith grounded in these things cannot withstand being shaken by the floods. Scripture, the Word of God, is the only foundation of our faith, not four randomly disconnected political issues (which is exactly what these are apart from a faith grounded upon Scripture).
May those that oppose the Manhattan Declaration remain unified in the only union that transcends all earthly circumstances.
45 Comments, Comment or Ping
Carolyn Hyppolite
These are not three disconnected political issues. They are foundational because they are necessary to a functioning Christian community. First, the right to life is a most basic human right. Jesus came that we might have life. Surely, the killing of thousands of children daily is not in keeping with what Jesus wanted. Without life, you can not defend any other rights. It is a God-given right.
Second, man’s primary duty is to worship God. Therefore, the state justly owes him the right to religious freedom. When Moses told Pharoah to free God’s people, he told him that they needed to be free to go worship God. God calls us to worship and comply with his laws. We must obey men rather than God.
Third, the family is the most essential cell of society. Without family, there will soon be social disorder. The family as estalished in genesis is essential to creating a healthy society and Christians rightly defend it.
All of the topics are explicitly found in Scripture.
Lastly, ecumenism cooperation flows from the realization that while we have to work on the theological questions that divide us, there is much that unites us, particularly, our baptism and our faith in Christ. We are brothers and sisters with the same call from God and it’s about that that we recognize it and get to work.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn
Nov 26th, 2009
Daniel Chew
Well, I guess that may be the “Gospel message” he is taught – ie Moral Therapeutic Deism.
Nov 26th, 2009
Travis
For some reason I dont recall all these issues throughout scripture and church history being discussed as foundations of the faith, maybe its just a lack of knowledge on my part.
Nov 26th, 2009
Travis
“We pledge to each other, and our fellow believers”
Why are Mormons not included and JWs?
I just read it and it is definitely needed, but it is most definitely a theological document.
I hope someone will hold a national debate with the RC and EO about these statements “One true God, the Triune God of Holiness and love”…”Grounded in the Holy Scriptures, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God)”…”across historic lines of ecclesial differences”
We must insert our names in the “WE” of this document!!
My next question would be, Does signing this document violate the scripture by standing with those who call themselves christian, and are not.
Nov 26th, 2009
cherylu
Hi,
I wonder if you could post the whole e-mail from Jim Daly? It would be helpful, I think, to be able to read the whole thing. Thanks.
Nov 26th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
In an effort to be clear that I have not violated any ministerial ethics or personal trust, I want to state that I did not receive a personal email from Jim Daly. It was a Focus on the Family mass email that probably went to their whole list.
It is unethical to post private emails or portions thereof without the other party’s consent. But in this case it was a public email making appeals to its recipients. The entire email can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/7LQ6aA
Nov 27th, 2009
cherylu
Thank you Stephen. I have been trying to figure out where Jim Daly is really coming from. I have read another quote of his that seems a bit contradictory to this one. Can’t quite figure the guy out. Here is the other quote. It was in an article in “Christianity Today”.
““Focus on the Family President Jim Daly saw the document as a religious as much as political document. “What this declaration is saying,” Daly said, “is if you want a fulfilling, rewarding, joyful, peaceful life, then embrace Jesus Christ as your Savior.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/novemberweb-only/147-21.0.html?start=2
Nov 27th, 2009
Travis
You might find this interesting, by Brian McLaren
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/11/25/the-three-most-important-issues-what-the-manhattan-declaration-gets-wrong/
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/11/25/the-three-most-important-issues-what-the-manhattan-declaration-gets-wrong/
Nov 27th, 2009
Travis
I enjoyed James Whites insight on the declaration as well.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3643
Nov 27th, 2009
Laura Matesi
That document is worthless, imo. We are not in need of a ‘document’ to tell each other and the world that believers are to be united on those ‘4 threshold issues’.
We have the Word of God to be united on, and specifically the one true gospel.
I wonder if the prime motivation for this ‘document’ has been the uncomfortableness of living in a world being given over by God, to sin.
Believers are to proclaim Christ crucified. The results are up to God.
I don’t like abortion anymore than any other true believer. But I don’t see the end of abortion coming because of a signing a document or from activism, which I have been part of btw.
We need to unite on preaching repentance and holiness, without which one will not see God, no matter how aligned one is with those handpicked ‘4 threshold issues’.
After the preaching, let God convict and redeem and cause people to conform to the image of His Son. Then we will see a resolution to those 4 issues and many other issues/sin as well.
Nov 29th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Spoken like a true Christian, Laura! Amen.
Nov 29th, 2009
Travis
Laura,
I have to agree to a certain extent, all but the part of a declaration is not needed, being a part of the government I understand the need of petitions and the majority, it changes politicians minds, so we should continue to preach the gospel we also need more actions s we want to continue in this freedom, (which is by no means controlled by government) but they are overseers of this freedom by the authority of God and that is how they change, although this document did not provide and biblical answer.
great post
Nov 29th, 2009
Laura Matesi
Travis,
I am all for political involvement/responsibility as it is part of our governmental process and civic duty, I sure have done my share.
And I am glad you are an involved citizen too.
All believers need to remember that we are in a decaying world.
And even our government and it’s governmental process is in decay.
We all do need to play our part in politics to prevent further decay there. And to preserve our freedoms.
But I am questioning the need to maintain our rights and freedoms in order to obey God and proclaim Him. I hope for continued freedom for my kids sake.
I just don’t want to see a compromise of truth by being unevenly yoked in order to preserve the society we have loved.
At some point our Republic, that gives us such wonderful gifts as freedom of speech and other freedoms, can actually become an idol and then a snare to us.
God forbid that we betray the gospel, in order to preserve our American way of life.
That is my fear with this document, that it is joining wheat and tares under a common purpose and advertised to the general world as being signed by all wheat, when the tares are not wheat at all.
So I see that this document contains a great lie, by giving the impression that all the signers are wheat.
I would be very comfortable to sign a document that doesn’t claim being religious at all, declaring abortion, same sex marriage, religious liberty, ‘unjust laws’ (whatever that means), as important concerns.
I am not willing to preserve my freedoms if lies are going to be the foundation to our society’s preservation.
I say, let it go and do what’s right instead.
God is sovereign and He will preserve us
even if and when
we have to lay down our very lives for the truth.
Nov 29th, 2009
Travis
Laura,
AMEN
Nov 29th, 2009
IrishEddieOHara
Reading James White’s comments regarding the “subversion of the Gospel” is high comedy at its best. It is, however, a very sad comedy inasmuch as Mr. White, nor any of his deluded followers seem willing to understand that the “gospel” they are following is a smoke-and-mirrors invention of the 16th century that is completely divorced from what the Early Church and the Ante-Nicene Fathers taught as early as the second century. It is not the Church of Rome nor the Holy Orthodoxy who have eviscerated the Gospel with their refusal to acknowledge the sacramental nature of our lives.
Mr. White complains that “good works don’t provide salvation” Agreed. Any good and well trained Catholic will agree with this truth. However, while salvation is a free gift, these sons of the Protestant Rebellion have conveniently ignored John 5: 28-29 and Romans 2: 5-10 which clearly state that our good deeds are the basis upon which Christ will judge all mankind unto either covenantal death or covenantal life eternally.
This is just more bloviation from a man who seems to take a perverse delight in being obstreperous.
Nov 30th, 2009
Glen
IrishEddieOHara,
You said “…the Protestant Rebellion have conveniently ignored John 5: 28-29 and Romans 2: 5-10 which clearly state that our good deeds are the basis upon which Christ will judge all mankind unto either covenantal death or covenantal life eternally.”
So you do believe that salvation is based on works and you believe that is what the Bible says.
Dec 2nd, 2009
Laura Matesi
IrishEddieOHara,
I see that you are caught in the deception I was in. Your mindset is a perfect example why true believers cannot be part of the Manhattan Declaration.
I highly recommend that you spend time reading from this site.
Most of all though, read the Bible and compare what you read on this site to the Word.
But first of all pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal His truth to you, otherwise you will not understand anything.
May the Lord use His written Word and the explaining/declaring of it, to bring you to Himself and give you eternal life.
I leave you with this scripture. Please, please read it:
Romans 4:5-8
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man in whom God credits righteousness apart from works; Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered, Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.
May the Lord be glorified by His lavishing undeserved grace to you, as He has done for me.
Dec 2nd, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Here’s another relevant article: http://bit.ly/7Hfpva
I am going to post this on CRN (christianresearchnetwork.com) too.
The author, Dave Doran, discusses J.I. Packer’s view of Mother Theresa. From the article:
“Packer bases the entire afterword on the premise that Teresa is a genuine believer, in spite of her devotion to Roman Catholic teachings.”
“This is so mind-boggling that I am not sure where to start. How Packer can conclude any of this is beyond my ability to understand…”
“…his conclusions fly in face of sound theology…”
“As I said earlier on this subject, the Manhattan Declaration represents another step toward accepting the false notion that being a Christian is demonstrated by doing something about social issues. It seems clear to me that J. I. Packer has taken that step.”
Dec 3rd, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Alistair Begg on the Manhattan Declaration: http://www.truthforlife.org/resources/article/manhattan-declaration/
Dec 3rd, 2009
Stephen Macasil
James White last Sunday (11/29/09) discussing The Manhattan Declaration.
Dec 3rd, 2009
Travis
Being a Christian has some to do with social issues, we live in a “social” world, but does it define Christianity, I would say if we are not acting on the issues of our culture, are we being faithful to our Lord.
I am including in social issues (loving our neighbor, taking care of the poor, widows and orphans)
Dec 3rd, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Phil Johnson will be on “God and Culture” today at 2PM PST. The topic: Are Evangelicals who signed the Manhattan Declaration ‘gospel deniers’? Listen live here: http://www.am1500wlqv.com/ContentPages/393/
Dec 3rd, 2009
Stephen Macasil
On the White Horse Inn blog, Mike Horton wrote: In an interview, Mr. Colson repeatedly referred to this document [The Manhattan Declaration] as a defense of the gospel and the duty of defending these truths as our common proclamation of the gospel as Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals.
Having participated in conversations with Mr. Colson over this issue, I can assure readers that this is not an oversight. He shares with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI the conviction that defending the unborn is a form of proclaiming the gospel.
Full post can be read here: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/250.html
Dec 3rd, 2009
Laura Matesi
Stephen, I tried to listen to the ‘God and Culture’ program. I wasn’t able to get the signal or whatever you call it. Is there a recording of it archived somewhere to download it? thanks.
Dec 6th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Laura, try this: http://www.godandculture.com/gacpod.xml
It should be the first one dated Dec. 3
Phil did a GREAT job, making excellent points…
Dec 6th, 2009
Lee
The Manhattan Declaration does not address “the fundamental truths of the faith,” but states that writers are united to “reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good,” not to reaffirm the fundamental truths of faith. And the document is not for Christians alone but “our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them [these truths of justice and the common good]. It
And with all due respect, I could not find anywhere in Scripture a passage that states the Scripture is the foundation of our faith. I only found that the church is:
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. ESV (or the pillar and foundation of the truth. NIV) I Tim. 3:15
Dec 11th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Hi Lee,
I appreciate your input. Thanks.
1) the issue raised in the OP is concerning what Jim Daly said the foundation of the faith is. I hope I made that clear.
2) although the MD states that it asks believers and unbelievers “to join us,” it is the “us” that is disputed since it is theological in nature, defining “us” as Christians joined by the gospel.
One way to see the absurdity of such a claim is press for a definition of the gospel. Then it will be clear as to how little unity there really is.
I suggest reading RC Sproul’s take on the MD released a couple days ago on ligonier’s nifty new blog.
3) How do you know that the church is the pillar and butress of the truth, did the church tell you? If not, if you learned that through Scripture, then it only confirms that Scripture is the foundation for our faith. If you reject the claim on the basis that it has no Scriptural support, then it also confirms the same. We can discuss this further…this is just to give you an idea of where I’m coming from.
Dec 11th, 2009
Travis
This is a quote from Ccatholic.com on the “catholic gospel”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=405254&highlight=gospel
3. When you talk about core beliefs, the Protestant views are typically truncated views of what Catholics teach.
a) Protestants teach sola scriptura, Catholics include Sacred Tradition and the views of the Magesterium as valid truths
b) Protestants teach Sola Fide, while Catholics say that Faith must be completed with works of love to gain eternal life
c) Protestants believe in the priesthood of the people. Catholics believe that priests must be validly ordained by a Bishop who is part of apostolic succession.
d) Protestant’s believe that you must develop a faithful relationship with Jesus Christ, Catholics say not only do you need to develop such a relationship, but you must also follow in his footsteps, loving God and Neighbor to achieve eternal life.
e) Protestants say that you must repent of your sins, Catholics believe that you must do this sacramentally to regain saving grace.
And so it goes, Protestants/ Evangelicals consistently preach a truncated Gospel, requiring less than the Catholic Church teaches.
Eastern Orthodox Quote
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/stewardship/articles/CAndreas-SalvAndStew.pdf/view
Thus, we see the importance of the Eucharist,
that without our desire to receive it, we really
do not have life in Christ. And I will say that
not only do we fail to properly grow in our
spiritual journey, but our lack in the
partaking of the Eucharist to me is also the
chief reason that our Orthodox Church fails
to grow in numbers as well. A certain
Dec 11th, 2009
Travis
More research can be done but the “us” is not really “us” at all we all disagree that each other are destined for salvation with Christ.
Dec 11th, 2009
Laura Matesi
Stephen, thanks for the link.
Dec 11th, 2009
Rev Patrick Taylor
Dear All,
Here is a quote about this document from a man I respect greatly and might give some insight.
Ravi’s statement on the Manhattan Declaration
“In the current climate and direction of the nation’s leadership as it pertains to the sanctity of life, sexuality, and marriage, there is a deep and disturbing sense of where we are headed. The voices that are playing the role of advisors in the current political structure are often radical, anti-biblical, and destructive of the intrinsic worth of human life.
Those of us who stand for the implications of the gospel on these matters have to stand together to send a very strong signal to our political leadership that we value the sacredness of God’s teaching on these matters. This was not a monolithic body theologically. This was a diverse group of people who share the same deep-seated moral concerns for societal norms and prevailing mutual respect on such matters. We were convinced that the only way the media and leadership would take notice of this document was if it came from a wide spectrum of people sharing these concerns and not just from one narrow group that could be caricatured. There will be scores of others in Christian leadership who will be signing as well. This was an initial body of a study group to draw the attention of political, academic, and media leadership to make them take note that there are large numbers in this land who share common concerns on our nation’s traditional past as we have historically viewed the home, marriage, and sanctity of life. If we do not take a stand on these matters, we will all wake up some morning to find out whatever happened to decency and the sacred. Our nation stands at the edge of a precipice of moral destruction when right is banned and wrong is celebrated. We as leaders with courtesy but clarity and unanimity, want to plead: Stop.
I encourage you to click on the link below and sign it.”
Rev. Patrick
Dec 17th, 2009
Moshe A
I am sure many feel the way I do, however, I tend to be a little more vocal about issues like this because of my background. So, forgive me if I sound a little extreme and long winded in this response to the document, and the jokers who supported it with their signature.
This document is another clever attempt by Chuck Colson to extend the right hand of fellowship to the enemies of the gospel. I remind all of us of the words of Paul in Romans and Corinthians;
Romans 15:4; For everything that was written long ago was written for our instruction, so that we might have hope through the endurance and encouragement that the Scriptures give us.
1Corinthians 10:11; These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down as a warning for us in whom the climax of the ages has been realized.
I will agree that the examples cited do not have the words “Manhattan Declaration” in them. Do they have to? Do they have to say ECT before we look at them seriously?
The issue of yoking ourselves with idolaters and idolatry should be taboo; unholy alliances should already be off limits to the elect of God without any reservations.
Apparently, these signers have either missed the instructions of the Lord due to ignorance or willfully ignored them in the spirit of ecumenicalism. This casual attitude the signers have is a willful disregard for the heart of the Lord. They forget His name is jealous. A name in the hebrew culture described the character of the one who possessed it. This should raise the hair on the back of their necks! But, it does not because of the compromise in today’s congregations. It is the John Lennon gospel; “all you need is love”.
I am sickened that they lack discernment with the agenda Colson has. I am also sickened to hear men and women defend the actions of the signers. “How dare you speak a negative word against Grudem or Packer or Zacharias. They are great men of God” says the evangelical. “If they signed it then we should support their decisions”. WHAT? Since when do these men represent the Lord once they extended the right hand of fellowship with heretics? As I have heard Dr. Bob so often say, we don’t judge a man by their past, we judge them by what they believe and how they act, RIGHT NOW. I agree with that. And, right now, these men are showing their tolerance for an organization that has demoted the Messiah and His gospel by signing an accord with pseudo Christians.
This is happening with John Piper and his defense of Tom Wright and Douglas Wilson. (I know this is old news for most here) I have already began to write on the Federal Vision movement. A few months ago John Piper invited Douglas Wilson into one of his conferences. Douglas Wilson says Roman Catholics are our brothers and our sisters in the Covenant if, they have been sprinkled by a Roman priest. I have taken a beating for speaking against this unholy alliance. Why do I bring this up? It is because Wilson wants us to accept Romanists as part of the family, and we as protestants must do our part to hold them to their infant sprinkling. Rome continues to win over the hearts and minds of gullible people who claim to be Christian. Wright is a preterist. Wright does not believe in the devil or angels. Wright denies the merits of the work of the Messiah are imputed to the believer. Yet, Piper says I don’t think he teaches a false gospel. I don’t think? So, as long as it sounds like the gospel so and so is OK? “I don’t think” is the new standard for truth? Don’t sweat the doctrine of imputation or preterism!
The Mormon’s also teach a confusing gospel. Why not use the same standards? “Well, there not Christians”. Well, neither are the Roman Catholics.
I repeat this statement like a mantra in the hopes that it cause people to think. What statement?
If you say you understand and believe the gospel of God, yet, you defend another who does not believe and support the gospel of God, do you really believe and understand the gospel of God?
If I were to say to you, I believe the Mormon’s teach the gospel, hopefully, you would pull me aside and say “brother, we need to have a chat about what you believe or what you think the Mormon’s believe”. It would be apparent that I was confused and needed some correction.
Colson tried once already to betray the bride of the Messiah in his devilish ECT by taking common doctrines and saying “look, we believe in the Trinity and you believe in the Trinity, so let’s look past the other differences and link arms to oppose the filth of the world”.
I believe the reason the ECT gained some speed was because it contained doctrinal issues we shared in common with Rome. But, Colson was only able to start the bridge to Gehenna. Now, by removing doctrinal matters and staying close to moral matters he has continued to build the bridge.
This document is a moral masterpiece in Colson’s mind. Colson says; “I couldn’t get many evangelicals to sign on to ECT so I will stay with issues that are most important with today’s evanjellyfish”. “I already have, what I view as Christian men, men like Warren and his rat pack, but I need more ‘protestants’ to get on board”. Colson is using the wisdom Satan gave him and I have to give credit where credit is due. If he can get multitudes of leaders in today’s church then he will make headway.
So, what about the men who signed this document? Is the gospel about morals or is it about “the just shall live by faith”? Do we as believers really believe we can slow down or even stop the end of time in order to see the world bow to Christian lifestyles and behaviors? Is that our job? To make pagans act civilly to one another and/or make them follow the Ten Commandments while, at the same time, live as “moral idolaters? Today’s ‘protestant’ congregations (i use the term loosely) are filled with moralists who cannot even define the doctrine of justification. With regard to Rome, we have almost the same thing but a more aggressive congregation. They are moral as they deny the doctrine of justification. The moralist protestant does not know the gospel and the moralist Romanist denies the gospel and redefines justification. What do they have in common? moralssssssssssssssssssssss.
The re constructionists believe we have that opportunity (and many others also believe) we can make America a Christian Nation. May I just say this is asinine to believe or endorse.
The Messiah stated that before he returned all would be well morally? He would simply collect his moral people on moral airlines and take off on the moral runway, right?
NO, he said it would be like the days of Noah right? Right! I won’t get into it here, but this is the problem with evangelism today. We have Christians making moral disciples using programs and techniques. We have people running around asking if you have ever stolen, have you ever hated your neighbor? Then they turn around and tell the four year old, they are a lying murderer. O that’s wonderful!
Seems to me that we forget there are many people on the planet who live righteous lives according to their religious organizations. Paul said he was blameless when it came to the Law; confidence in the flesh,
Philppians 3:4-7;
although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
How often we forget the rich young ruler who said he maintained the horizontal Law. What he did not do is turn from his idolatry. As Morey has said, it was gold instead of God. The point is, if we take the young man at his word, he maintained a moral lifestyle.
The MD seeks to make moralists out of both pagan and religious people. It uses issues like abortion and family and marriage and says, lets not worry about or doctrinal differences, let us focus on the planet and how we should battle against the ungodly who insist on abortion and same sex marriage. Let us make people “moral” pagans together. Let us forget that we do not have the same gospel and put that issue aside as we conquer together.
Makes me think of how the Israelites also went to the enemies of God and said
“look, I know you have idols and you reject the Creator of the heavens and the earth, but we understand that you have many who are pro-life and so, we would like to merge together in the battle against pro-choicers. We would like to have a document called the Babylonian Declaration, and together, we will stand together”.
Yeah right, and I have land on the moon I would like to sell you!
For what reason do these so-called protestants sign a document like the MD? Well, you need to look past the idea that many of them are who they say they are. We need to understand 2 Corinthians 11 and the fact that many of these ‘protestants’ are servants of unrighteousness. They are not in their leadership position to expose themselves. They will blend in and act like us, It takes documents like the MD to reveal their true colors. Many will say, “well then, how do they stand behind a pulpit each week and teach from the Bible”? Very simple; they may have an academic understanding of the Bible. Since, it does come to us as literature, there is the possibility that an unbeliever can read quite a bit of material and understand it academically. But, the proof of their conversion is demonstrated when they reject documents like the MD.
I have already written, again and again, that we need…no, we must reject anything further from Packer until he apologizes for betraying the Church by signing the ECT. What does he do in the meantime? He signs the MD. How many accords with Rome does it take for the Church to see his true colors? I don’t care if he has written 5 books or 50 books. This accord demonstrates where his heart is. Many of these leaders keep these things to themselves for years and years. Beckwith took how many years before he returned to papa pope.
Do not be deceived said the Messiah. Do not be deceived by the craftiness of men. Out of the heart the mouth speaks. When will evangelicals learn just how true this is? When you look at the list of signers, if you want to find out who is a genuine believer, then approach them and show them their error. That is, if you can get them to talk to you. Seems like many of the leaders are like the politicians today. You call and send emails and you never hear back from them. Why? They are, what I like to call, “The Untouchables”.
If they are one of God’s, then the Spirit of God will ensure they repent. How do we know? The Spirit of God does not teach us one thing from the Scriptures and turn around only to have us do something contrary. God does speak to His people when they are headed the wrong way.
Philippians 3:15; Therefore, those of us who are mature should think this way. And if you think differently about anything, God will show you how to think.
In conclusion, it is folly to think many of these signers will listen to the little fish like myself. When I mentioned Piper earlier; I tried to email him and never heard back. When he spoke at the Cove, I told him to follow Romans 16:17. Did he respond? Nopers! I have tried to complain to ministries pushing Douglas Wilson material. Did I make any headway? Nope!
I mentioned Zacharias earlier. I am sure some godly people tried to reason with him not to go into the Devil’s den and speak. Did he listen? We already know. He goes into a demonic building and has Michael Card do worship, and then Richard Mouw apologizes to the Mormons. You tell me, is that demonstrated in Nineveh? Jonah is told to go to Nineveh and preach repentance. I can see it now; he takes one of Israel’s cantor’s with him as well as another Jewish leader. The cantor leads Nineveh in worship to a God they have not made peace with, (therefore, they are being entertained) Jonah preaches a passage of Scripture that they have no problem with. And then the Jewish leader gets up and apologizes, telling those in Nineveh how the Jews have misrepresented them. Why is this any different than what Zacharias did? O how we justify wicked behaviors in the name of heroes and love and tolerance and compromise.
Please, please, remember. Whatever you do in the name of the Lord is to say you are representing Him. The signers of the document are saying they have the blessing of God. Their signatures say they are ambassadors for the Lord and sign on His behalf. How many of you really believe the Lord would sign this accord with those who hate His Son and His gospel? Consider the Mass and the evil that takes place. Do you think the Lord looks down from heaven and enjoys an organization that denies the finished work on the cross?
O that we would remember the words of the Lord in Jeremiah when it concerned men who spoke in the name of the Lord.
Jeremiah 14:13-14; But, “Ah, Lord GOD!” I said, “Look, the prophets are telling them, ‘You will not see the sword nor will you have famine, but I will give you lasting peace in this place.’” Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.
Like I said, they who signed the MD have shown their true colors when they put the gospel aside and push morals. When they make agreements with the enemies of God or sign documents that are also signed by the enemies of God, they have shown where their devotion really is and who they are devoted to. May God give us hearts that will not tolerate this kind of behavior in His name and separate ourselves from these signers.
Moshe
Dec 21st, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Dear Moshe,
I hear you argument but one must understnd Dr. Bob is a man a finite man and as such subject to error just as I am and you are and my friend in this life you will find yourself at times mabe remotely between a devil and hard spot and you must choose to fight a battle some times alongside those you may not fellowship with on a regular basis. You have much to learn about life my friend it sometimes only throws a curve ball but you must swing away to hit the ball. The declaration is sound on its premise though there are those who sign it that may not be you greated alies they are nontheless at times and if they cast out demons in His name today count it as a blessing that they maybe moving more into the correct position, there is always hope, but if you dont fight for something you fall for and from everything.
Rev. Patrick Taylor
Dec 25th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Moshe my dear friend,
I wanted you to know that God also used various pagan peoples to carry out his palns in unison with His people whao were faithful think of Joseph, Daniel and Egypt at the time of Joseph who was an Eyptian official in a pagan land that wa blessed by God for his acts and Cyrus the Persian as well I might add Nebaddcudnessar who made eventially Daniel a high ranking Babylonian official according to God’s plan. These incidents though not long lasting were partnerships for God’s purposes as was the intializing of Christianity in Rome eventually under a pagan emperor who supposedly converted at the end of his life. These were partnerships with mostly unbelievers who assisted God’s plan and people to perpetuate the message and purposes of God for the benefit of all mankind. Moshe you need to read “History” more often my friend you would do wise to see life as it really is in the moving of the Kingdom of God throughout time. “if they are not against me they are for me” Permoting Morals that either come directly from Scripture (texts) or are clearly impicated there in is not pushing any part of the Gospel aside for where would we be without missionaries that went at risk of life and limb to spread the Gospel and speak against ungodlyness such as infanticide, slavery and other social ills that Chrsitians helped to change my friend. It is because of the Gospel and what Christ taught about moral ethics through His teachings that we stand for certain values that have been clearly identified as Christian.
Rev. Patrick Taylor
Dec 26th, 2009
Moshe A
I have not forgotten what I see above. Here we see why the Church is filled with such heresy!
I will respond as soon as we get through this season where Rome is exalted and the Mass is attached to the name of Christ.
Dec 26th, 2009
Moshe A
In the time being, respectfully, a brief word to the man with the title “Rev”.
Proverbs 26:12; Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
What part of Romans 16 is not clear to you? Do you need a good commentary or have you already concluded that the Scriptures must bow the knee to your ecumenicalism and human reasoning?
John Robbins once said the following and I believe this applies to Mr. Taylor as well as all those who compromise and disregard the commands of Scripture; to be seperate from idolaters and to touch no unclean thing seems to be some foreign language for many who claim they are the real deal. You will know them by their fruit!
It is this mindset from Mr. Patrick that allows heretics to win battles. John Robbins once said, the reason heretics win are…”….and most important, those who believe the truth tend to be slow to recognize error and even slower to take the actions necessary to defend the truth. They lack both discernment and courage. This is the crucial matter. Christians cannot help the fact that the sons of this world are more shrewd than they are, or that false brethren do things subtly, surreptitiously, and coercively. But Christians can help how they understand and respond to such doctrinal and ecclesiastical subversion. Their lack of discernment stems from a lack of knowledge of Scripture, and their lack of courage comes from a lack of belief in the promises of Scripture.”
Proverbs 21:16 A man who wanders from the way of understanding Will rest in the assembly of the dead.” So let it be written, so let it be done!
respectfully, Moshe
Dec 26th, 2009
John
I signed the MD and here are my reasons.
I view this as a political statement and not a theological statement designed to catagorize all signers as agreeing in all the fine points of what this document is trying to aim for.
Point 1. In this situation those who have a different take on the gospel or do not agree in how I preach the gospel are not my enemies in this matter because they are in agreement that our “theological constructs” are our own and under the title “gospel” we assert the right to preach and practice that gospel according to our own consciences.
Point 2. It must be allowed that differences of conscience on the construct of the gospel cannot and should not interfere with a mutual defense of the gospel. The right to speak, to practice and to hold dear to our selves and our families what we have received is the fundamental right I am seeking to maintain.
Point 3. I hold that in the case of marriage and right to life issues, my conscience holding to the statements contained in the MD are built upon an epistemological footing derived from scripture as I understand it, nevertheless, if others seek to advance the same cause for altogether different epistemological reasons, that does not interfere with the solidarity I have with them to establish and maintain right to life or hold marriage in the same high esteem.
Point 4. It is no contradiction to scripture, nor to holiness to save lives whether I snatch them from the fire with saint or sinner. The object in my mind is the preservation of foundational rights and privileges I have as a citizen of the USA.
Point 5. I have a scriptural warrant to appreciate the exercise of the ungodly to save lives and glorify God even though they are outside the covenant of grace. Luk 10:33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. It is understood that Samaritans were not under the covenant of God, nor were they apart of the visible body of believing Jews, they were half/breeds. Yet, the action of the Samaritan was commended by Jesus Christ as something to be imitated. I therefore as a Christian should not do less than the Samaritan.
Jesus Himself received water from the Samaritan woman…whom the Jews have no dealings with.
Point 6. It is because this is a political statement and directed towards achieving a political end, I ally myself with others I normally would never find myself in agreement with. But greater ends must be considered in my mind. That greater goal is the preservation and continuation of the public gospel ministry in america as it is and the resistance to public killing of children by women who chose against God’s laws. The marriage between man and woman is worthy of being upheld as it is the visible demonstration of bond between Christ and his Church.
Point 7. Lastly, this MD is not intended to solve theological differences, nor do I expect it to advance ecumenism. Rather, I see this as a platform where like-minded individuals under the banner of biblical and/or ecclesiastical unity seek to resist the political enemies of the Church and the Spiritual enemies of the Church.
Because what is at stake here is not sola fide or works based salvation, but the free proclamation of either of them. What is at stake here is not biblical epistemological concerns with marriage but injection of competing types of human couplings where the entire definition is changed in the public mind. Finally, murder in all forms should be resisted by Christian and atheist alike, to fight this plague all hands helping should never be refused.
I hope here you can see my mind and my motivations.
Dec 26th, 2009
John
Yes, I realize I am bucking the trend on this thread and telling the rest of you that Alistarr Begg and others are wrong about signing it.
I will probably comment on it on his website from Stephens link.
Who is the MD aimed at? Is it a Catholics or Baptists? Is it Pentacostals or Presbyterians? Its utterly useless sitting on a pastors desk that holds your or my point of view. Its meant to go much farther.
Its aimed at Congressmen and Representatives that care what the constituency think and especially how they vote. Its a statement to the radical lefties who are pushing their agendas which effect the basic three issues that were addressed. They couldnt care one little grain of sand whether or not our ‘gospel’ is sola fide or works based. They couldnt care less that we are Catholic or Martian for that matter.
What they do care about is shutting down anything “God”. What they care about is unhindered monetary and beneficial entitlements that can be had by equalizing marital status. Demolishing the traditional marriage is not on the front burner, its equalizing the public outlook on alternative coupling.
The danger from these groups is that once they are able to kill our rights as Christians to publicaly promote the gospel, it wont matter if its sola fide or if its work based. The Mormons and the Presbyterians will both be censored and now stand to undergo persecution if they persist in gospel proclamation. So what did they both gain by fighting behind the scenes instead of making a combined effort to maintain their right to offer the gospel according to their own consciences? They both loose.
We all loose. We Christians loose and we have the most to loose. So, you want to haggle doctrine, well haggle it, but if you think the atheists, agnostics and sectarians care about the outcome, and which one they will want to kill as part of their agenda….youre nuts. They want to kill it all, all gospel, all hindrances to public acceptance of homosexual coupling. They will happily silence sola fide as fast as they will the Mormons door to door.
This is not about compromising our theological stake in the Ivory Towers of Academia, its about being able to hold a bible in the street, its about killing children, its about totally wiping out the marriage bond as a foundational stone upon which our culture has been built.
I say the MD is a good political statement in which Christians should get behind and endorse.
John
Dec 26th, 2009
John
To me, this document has really only one good, may God bring much more out of it than what I see. I see it hopefully deferring the continual movement to bring the body of Christ in America under direct persecution.
As Ive read in so many accounts of hundreds of different Christians…all this tough talk about “we wont stand with these compromising signers”…is nothing but hot air and pride. Put yourself in prison for just a moment, your wife and children completely shut out from obtaining work or food supplies….just how long will you hold your policies? If a communist offers you a cup of cold water will you refuse? I dare say never. If a RCC Bishop blessed that water, would you refuse? If a Buddist Monk…brought that water from a sacred spring devoted to some ancestor will you refuse to drink? No, you would know that God has given it to you, even by the hands of pagans so that you may continue to preach the gospel another day.
Oh how you will wish from someone to rise to power to help you, to hear your cause, to refresh you in some way…or to at least aid your starving Children. But alas, Arminian Christians may hold the only food that can be given, or abomination of abominations a Catholic has the only open door in which to supply the tiniest bit of canned food for your family.
Once youve seen what it is to live under the godless and the despot, the tough talk and the empty words will vanish. Its too late to gather the community together to say “we want to hear preaching”….when the ungodly have killed both reformed and Cultist because to them, both of them had a gospel that was to be silenced.
This the way I see it. I believe if we continue the way we are going, we will all see it, if not, our children will for sure.
John
Dec 26th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
John,
In the OP I said:
—–
My first impression, which is that it should have been presented as a political document rather than a theological one, has been the recurring rationale behind my reading of it over the past few days.
The document would probably not have received such critical attention if it were presented as a political one, but presenting it as a theological document has earned it theological criticism.
—–
The criticism, which has been primarily theological, is because the document everywhere is being promoted as a theological statement and not a political one (as you seem to take it). It is no shock to learn that the leading ecumenists (Robert George and Chuck Colson) are behind this document’s promotion and the overall agenda behind it, as well as the message of victory as a big check mark is thrown up in the ecumenical movement’s corner.
Did you listen to Phil Johnson’s interview? I posted a link to it above. I think Phil makes his points very clearly.
Dec 26th, 2009
John
Hi Stephen: I didnt listen to Phil, but since you asked I will. I did read Alistarr’s statement.
I just didnt see this as a document that does any good as a theological statement, but as a political one showing some unity of belief toward those issues, It has merit.
John
Dec 27th, 2009
Rev. Patrick Taylor
Dear John,
You have hit the nail on the head and said it better than I could good Job in pointing out its value as a document for good and foundationally intwined with Christian world view values as well as foundational historicall political rights and freedoms of conscience.
Moshe
My dear friend in Christ it is what comes from within that defiles you not from without and once one has grased the difference one can discern what is true in not and has no meaning in the reality of Biblical truth. Idols are usless sculptures and valueless persuits and I know the difference. I don not agree with Roman Catholosism and its theolgy at all, but I have friends who are Catholic. I am called to get along in the world as beat we can without trouble as Paul expressed as long as we are not forced to denounce the truth of the Gospel and called to be the Light And Salt my friend in this fallen world.
Rev. Pat
Jan 10th, 2010
Reply to “Discussing the Manhattan Declaration”