Well put. I agree.

I was concerned when I heard that Al Mohler signed this document and as more light has shed on what is in there I'm disappointed in some of the more conservative people who have signed that document. Why do we need Roman Catholic's or Eastern Orthodox signing something like this? Why don't evangelicals come up with their own declaration and sign it, since the gospel could then be specifically stated and made the main central point of agreement. Isn't that what the Chicago Biblical Inerrancy statement was?

Thank you, John. I came to the same conclusion earlier today and just found this. Again, thank you.

I appreciated the well thought through rationals of both Mohler and MacArthur. I also appreciate that it appears that whether or not one signs this declaration will not be a test of fellowship.

Isn't this an issue of missing the forest because of the trees? Like Dr. Mohler stated, this document has nothing to do about defining the gospel. When prominent evangelical leaders choose never ending disfellowship from Catholics and Orthodox as a hill on which to die, all this does is weaken any voice we may have in the culture to begin with. Nobody outside the church cares if we disagree with Catholics; this isn't the information that will save them anyways. We need to be more concerned with identifying who we are instead of always just harping on who we are not.

Thanks John It's good to hear another perspective on the issue, personally I was more convinced by this rational than Mohler's.

I mean no disrespect, but I really have to agree with Todd Burus' statement there, and Al Mohler's decision to sign it. Sure if the Protestants were to draw up another one, for the sole purpose of making the one true Gospel known, that would be great. But if they aren't going to do that? And they aren't going to sign this one, then what is the point of making these statements?

The document comprises nothing, it actually speaks in language that a Reformed Evangelical could agree with. Should we then throw out the baby with the bath water? Throw out the whole document simply because those we disagree with signed it also? I don't know, I guess I'm just a bit confused.

Just because we find ourselves rowing in the same direction as other groups on certain issues doesn't mean we need to all get in the same boat together. I agree with Pastor John here. Cultural and political impact is not the main goal; the Gospel is the main goal.

Really? So if Caesar were to summon you together with Catholics and Orthodox and asked you all to bend the knee to him instead of Christ, you would? Just because you don't wanna stand with the Catholics and Orthodox?

"So if Caesar were to summon you together with Catholics and Orthodox and asked you all to bend the knee to him instead of Christ, you would? Just because you don't wanna stand with the Catholics and Orthodox?"

What a ridiculous comment! Of course he wouldn't bow the knee to Caesar. But that doesn't mean he has to sell out his convictions about the Gospel and embrace the other guys as brethren in the process.

Thanks again for taking an unpopular yet biblical stand, Dr. MacArthur!

The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration - James White

James White and John MacArthur both sound the trumpet crystal clearly for those who have ears to hear. The Manhattan Declaration compromises the true Gospel.

I understand the position of Dr. Mohler, Dr. Grudem and others, but any unity with those who do not hold to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, in my opinion is irresponsible. From what I understand, Chuck Colson was specific in that he only wanted Trinitarians to sign the document, but what if they held to that fundamental position, but lacked commitment to another (grace alone through faith alone), does that make it alright? In every aspect of our lives as slaves to Christ we are called to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ; that is our commission. If we can't get that part right, then everything else we do in the name of Christ is for not. Colson should have called it something else, but not a theological document, this writing is far from that.

For years I was deceived by a false , no gospel, message by the Contemplatives/eucemenical loving crowd. Thank you Mr Macarthur for sounding the alarm for ordinary folks like me! I can not more strongly condemn such steps in a eucmenical direction since I was deceived by such a sham! Men who know the gospel should preach the gospel and not compromise it for any reason whatsoever.

I must agree with the document as a water down feel good statement. It does not address, however the single most important truth the gospel. How can one agree with a so called statement of faith if no true gospel is in view? I agree with Simon, thank you Mr. Macarthur for standing firm in truth.

Thank you John for continuing to stand for what's really important, the true gospel.

Amen Bro. Pastor MacArthur. Too many are watering down their stand on Biblical truth. God bless you for being one of the few who have kept a strong spine in the face of fear of catholicism and other compromisers.

John MacArthur: “I am the one true blub blub blub” (sounds of drowning on his own). There is a war. What are you? A sniper?

Why can't those pro-MD signers offer more grace to those of us opposed? Why is it the ant-MD folks who are causing disunity, missing the point, harming the cause, etc.? Not to mention the pro-MD folks do not seem to deal with the objections head on. Rather, they assert their charges.

To try to more clearly show my position I used the following example at my place.

Would you hand out a pamphlet about house building that has the Pope's and your picture on it? One that also says something like "Building Homes Together for the Gospel - We will build your home for the Gospel of Christ." "To schedule your building please call or the local diocese."

Disagree? Fine. Why is it not the same? In my pamphlet example, just like in the MD, the Gospel is spoken of as the foundation of motivation, yet left undefined. Would the same liberty be allowed on two of the key MD issues of same-sex marriage and abortion?

How many differing definitions of same-sex marriage and abortion would be allowed for those who are pro-MD? If the definitions of these terms are important it seems that the definition of the Gospel is more so.

Just understand why we are disagreeing.

Once again MacArthur is willing to take a stand and defend the gospel. That is why I love this man so much!

Is it ok to receive and eat with sinners?

So Todd and the other MD supporters who don't think the document has anything to do with defining the gospel:
If an evangelical, a Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox - and let's add a conservative Jew like Michael Medved who also could sign the document - are standing around talking about being unified for social causes and an 18 year old guy approaches and asks how he can be saved from his homosexual sin, what answer will he receive? Which one is the true one? Why?

Ted:
Fred makes a great point that I hope Ted responds to. It is not missing the forest for the trees, because Pastor John's point is that the Gospel IS THE issue behind family problems, abortion, and a low view of marriage. It is dangerous to say "I have family issues over here, and I have gospel issues over there, and I want to address them individually." It simply makes no sense to divorce the issues of the MD from the essential elements of the gospel.

By the way, isn't there an irony in Catholic priests and bishops (of all people) claiming to have a high view of marriage?

I'm very thankful for Pastor John and also Dr. James White taking a stand against the current on this one. Though infrequently, I'm occasionally baffled by the decisions of some popular conservative evangelicals, whom I love and would call my brothers. Each of those times in recent years I've begun to wonder if evangelicalism is just changing around me. And each of those times Pastor John has been there decrying the change and exhorting the Church to be content with the faith once for all delivered.

Why the rush to get along with people we know stand outside the pail of orthodoxy? They need the clear truth of scripture and signing on with this message blurs the water of truth. The gospel is the only agent of change for our culture!. If I make my only weapon, of true change, seen as, an option, rather than the, only option, I have fallen short of my biblical responsibility to preach the gopsel. Thank you John for reminding us of our mission in this wayward world.

Bottom line, this is validation by association. The Gospel is compromised for temporal matters and eternal matters are sacrificed for it. There are undiscerning brothers and sisters who want to believe Roman Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ based on Chuck Colson's common ground of the Trinity, Ressurection, etc. with no mention of Faith ALONE and Dr. Mohler validates them by being on the list. The "We as Christians" and "As Christians" says it all. They are not Christians and Al Mohler know it. I'm sickened by it. Poor chioice. I'm deeply saddened by it. The Apostle Paul,nor Jesus for the matter would have ever signed it and neither should Al Mohler.

This is one of those times I can appreciate John MacArthur for taking the right stand on the right issue to take a public stand over.

At his Glory & Grace blog Independent Fundamental pastor Dr. Dave Doran has been posting a series addressing The Gospel and Separation. This series is highly relevant to TMD especially in light of Al Mohler joining with the signatories. In Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1 (Nov. 23, 2009) Doran wrote,

My goal through these posts on gospel-driven separation has been to lay out what I believe are the biblical obligations regarding separation that are explicitly stated in or implied by clear biblical texts. I’ve tried to summarize these obligations with the following three statements:

1) For the sake of the purity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who deny essential doctrines of the faith (Jude 3; 2 John 9-11; Rom 16:17).

2) For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

3) For the sake of the credibility of the gospel, believers and churches must strive to reflect God’s holiness and to live differently than those who have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:15-16; Eph 4:17-19).

“My understanding of these obligations is that they are necessary for our church’s obedience to Jesus Christ—we don’t have any other option if we desire to be obedient to our Lord.”

Thank you Jesse, for considering my comment ridiculous, then missing the point. Who said anything about selling out convictions? Here's my conviction: abortion is wrong, same-sex marriage...wrong, and religious liberty...important. I'll sign a document that agrees with that, whether or not others I disagree with sign it.

You all talk about this being confusing for "young" Christians because someone like Mohler clouds the subject. What if I were to say, you do more harm to young Christians by not signing something that you so ardently say you believe? Mohler made a point of making it very clear that he did not agree with others signing it...so stop feigning concern when he signs something that he believes is important.

Question...is there anyone in MacArthur's clique who might actually disagree with him every once in a while...or am I just talking into a hole?

Here's my conviction: abortion is wrong, same-sex marriage...wrong, and religious liberty...important.

Jonathan, WHY are those first two things wrong? Because they are detrimental to our society or because they violate the holiness of our sovereign creator? Why do people practice those things? Because they are merely misinformed and have been taught wrong in college or because they operate from a heart of rebellion against their sovereign creator? How do we remedy these thing in our society? By signing a document or by actually preaching to them the one thing that can bring them into a right relationship with their creator? The Gospel.

Yet, the definition of the Gospel is that one, fundamental thing none of these groups agree upon. They Catholic, Orthodox, and Red-state Evangelical all agree abortion is wrong and same-sex marriage is wrong, but they are utterly disunified over the one thing that can address the hearts of men and their relationship with their creator.

And I am just a sycophantic MacArthurite because I happen to recognize the point.

For years we have been trying to change the outside (behavior) without dealing with the heart (world view). The gospel changes our hearts. Most efforts today try to make moral conduct, social justice or even "what would Jesus do" as the door to salvation and hope when Jesus himself said, "I am the door." It is not what Jesus taught and how he walked but it was what He accomplished on the cross and who He is. I'm sorry but many on that day will say, "Lord, didn't we prophecy in your name and perform, miralces in your name? [sign decelrations in your name]" And He will reply, "Depart from for I never knew you."

Jonathan

(I'm not the Jesse that treated your comment as ridiculous--I am an entirely different Jesse)
The confusion doesn't come from signing a document with Catholics. The confusion comes from signing a document that repeatedly goes out of the way to call Catholics "Christians" in the same sense as evangelicals. Have you read the document? The opening line connects Catholics to maintaining the "Christian traditions" for 2,000 years, to guarding Christian institutions, etc. The third paragraph talks about how papal edicts have protected life. And so on. The website's summary of the document, which I can almost guarantee people like Mohler and Grudem did not see when they signed it, overtly says that Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals are all part of the same Christian tradition. It is not as if the history of these religions are a secondary issue to the document. The MD itself makes the shared history of Christian tradition a central part of its statement. To sign that, but then say you don't think that Christians and Catholics do believe the same thing about the "fullness of the Gospel" is confusing because it contradicts what the document itself implies.

I'll go on record saying I thought Jonathan's comment was ridiculous as well. And talk about missing the point. . .

The question is not whether you would bend the knee to Caesar, but whether you would feel like you need to embrace the zealots and Pharisees as "brothers" in the process in order to give your stand more credibility in the eyes of the world.

This is a political war. Pick-up the weapons and fight. That’s not asking too much is it? The battle is political opinion and elections. You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had (Sec Def Rumsfeld). What was the foundation of the Declaration of Independence? Over a hundred years of preparation, much prayer, much Godly preaching, much Godly education, correct? “The greatest generation” cut the moral roots out from their childrens’ generation, stood back, and whoaaaa Nellie!, what a collapse. If your time machine is broken, and no parts are available (my situation), then, starting where you are, using what you have and doing what you can, fight. TMD is a weapon, use it. A solid night’s sleep and early prayer at the throne of grace is a weapon, use it. Fight! You’re not going to lose. God hid what He was going to do from the beginning of the world. Not even Satan figured it out. God doesn’t lose. But He has committed Himself to our limitations. God Himself has nothing left to throw in after the cross, the resurrection, and Pentecost. That’s our heavenly father’s commitment. What is ours? Quibbling?

Quibbling? Why do I have to buddy up with a group of Romanist to do God's work in the world?

I am so thankful that weapons of our warfare are not carnal.

I disagree with Lou Martuneac that we ought separate from Mohler. This is, quite frankly, a political document, quite like the Declaration of Independence was. Christians signed their names to it, and involed their Creator in it, even though deists who had a very different view of God and His role. This document, as that document, is all about politics and not about theology. It's about the culture, not the gospel. Now do I think we should sign this document? No, primarily because it calls itself Christian where it is not. I will(and have) signed political manifestos along with agnostics and athesits I've signed pro-freedom documents with people of all creeds. But that was because they were that-political, with no respect to Christianity. That is what makes this outside the range of what I can support. But, as for Mohler, let him defend himself:


The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues -- the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

I think the purpose of the declaration is to make a public statement (I mean, what is would this thing do?). But the statement isn't about the nature of the Gospel, it's about the refusal of those who claim to declare the Gospel (whatever that entails to each) to be intimidated into immoral conduct. I don't agree that anything in the document implies theological concord on the nature of the Gospel...just that we all have committed to preach it in keeping with our own understanding. Personally, I don't see the payoff for me signing it...but in this quite rare case...I'm not convinced by John's argument.

What a dissapointment.. and unfortunately how predictable. When Jesus disciples came to him complaining about "others preaching that are not with us" (rough paraphrase) What did Jesus tell them???
The time is rapidly approaching when we will have to drop the petty things that have divided us. There is absolutely NO good reason JM or anyone else should not support this Declaration. There will never be a perfect document penned by uninspired men. What a shame! Shame on you all for being divisive when we had a very good document that any reasonable Christian could support. The gospel is a given. This was not an evangelistic tract.... it was a strong document with very clear objectives that Christians should have rallied around and shown our solidarity for once! Shame on you!

I determined I could not sign the MD after I thoughtfully read it the day it came out; I appreciate the reasoning of men like Al Mohler and I judge no one for signing it. But Dr. MacArthur (and James White) have the better reasoning. The Gospel comes first.

Fred... noone said we should not preach the gospel. Certainly that is the cure for all our ills, But we should/could do both! The document is not for us... its for those that are not of us. The document is to speak to society clearly stating our opposition or support of certain behaviors or issues in our society. It's part of being salt and light in a darkening world. The document itself wont change people, but it exerts a positive influence.... along with the gospel..

Hey Frank, please answer my initial question at the top: If you, a Roman Catholic priest, a Greek Orthodox are approached by a young man who asks how to be saved from his homosexuality, what would be your response and why?

Why do I need a document to rally around when I have the scripture. The biblical gospel does speak clearly to our society and yet it is the one thing all three of these groups will not agree as to its specifics and articulation. How can I endorse such a document when the players strongly object to my gospel?

Today (11/25/2009), Phil Weingart at http://www.plumbbobblog.com, has given his “long, but a pretty comprehensive argument”
as to “whether American Christians have an obligation in Christ to resist tyranny, as described in the Declaration of Independence” . He says: “All of us who live in America accept, as an obligation of enjoying the benefits of a free society, the responsibility to participate in its leadership. This is no different from “If a man will not work, neither let him eat.”

Thank you, John MacArthur, for being precise in your thinking and utterly consistent in your allegiance to gospel purity. I learn the most about a musician by what he does *not* play. I learn the most about MacArthur by what he does not sign! :-)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Dr. MacArthur. Your criticism of the document is valid and very helpful.

But do you have any suggestions on alternative steps that Christians can take to battle these issues? While not neglecting prayer and evangelism, is there anything else that you think Christians should do? Offering a criticism of a faulty document is helpful, but it'd be even more helpful if you can provide alternative solutions to deal with these problems.

Thank you.

comment was removed by user

It is appalling to feel the belligerent overtones in some comments about Dr. MacArthur's honest stand on Manhattan Declaration. As Dr. White mentioned in his response to Mr. Beckwith, a society can be reformed only by people who are transformed and renewed within and that kind of transformation can ONLY be wrought by the Holy Spirit which as a message is called Gospel and which remains undefined in MD. It is disheartening to see people like Dr. MacArthur severely criticized for refraining from being acquiescent to such initiatives burgeoning under the label of Christianity when that very term is defined so diversely by all the signatories.

Thank you Dr. MacArthur. Once again you have evidenced your love for the Word of God and thanks for being a source of encouragement in our lives.

Again, Pastor MacArthur is contending for the Doctrines of Grace as it was once delivered for all; as the very Doctrines of Salvation.

Isaiah 31:1-3
"Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help,
And rely on horses,
Who trust in chariots BECAUSE THEY ARE MANY,
And in horsemen BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY STRONG,
But who do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
Nor seek YAHWEH!
Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster,
And will not call back His words,
But will arise against the house of evildoers,
And against the help of those who work iniquity.
Now the Egyptians are men, and not God;
And their horses are flesh, and not spirit.
When YAHWEH stretches out His hand,
BOTH he who helps will fall,
And HE WHO IS HELPED will fall down;
They all will perish TOGETHER."

Joshua 23:10
"ONE MAN of you shall chase a thousand, for YAHWEH your God is He who fights FOR YOU, as He promised you."

When will we turn away from the cunningness and craftiness of human "wisdom" and seek only the Arm of our LORD Omipotent, to save us and to work in the power of His Might?
When shall we cease from the folly of seeking out a "Pharoah" and "horsemen" in the religious "Canaan" that is this worldliness which all seems enticed by; whilst we are Sojourners and Pilgrims that ought to be purifying salt and illuminating light?

Is this just another Pragmatism? Seeking an "audiance" that is willing?
Why shall we not seek Him Who Alone and by Himself in the Persons of the Trinity is able to turn the hearts of stone to hearts of flesh?
Are we so fast turning to a social "gospel" and seeking in our own strength to do the work that belongs to the Spirit Alone?
Whey do we not trust the Gospel means of proclamation of the mercy Gifted by and in Christ Alone, as sufficently that which shall Alone effectually change and transform the hearts of men for spiritual andd moral good?

Another sad blip on the "heart monitor" of Apostatizing and or Downgrading ad Compromizing so called "evengelicalism" - let us pray the Physician of th ehearts and souls of men to effectually and sovereignly turn us to trust in His good and perfect will to do us good.

Your fellow bondslave begotten of the sure unmerited merciful grace of our Triune Almighty LORD God Alone,
(A heart of stone - made a heart of flesh - by Devine Grace Alone; throgh the means of the Gospel of grace Alone)
W

And about signing and "not being united", but being united:

One well known evangelical signatory wrote:
"I surrendered NO conviction or confessional INTEGRITY to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was ENCOURAGED that WE could STAND TOGETHER to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all."

Here is a physical truth that is also a spiritual truth-

1 Corinthians 6:15-17
" Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he WHO IS JOINED TO a harlot IS ONE body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become ONE FLESH.” But he who is joined to the Lord is ONE SPIRIT with Him."

What else is the Romanist and Eastern Orthodox system than the Harlot (Revelations 17)?

Then to those who call upon the Most Holy Name of our LORD - Who is a Consuming Fire; when acting against His declared Word:

1 Corinthians 5:8-13
"Therefore let us keep the feast, NOT WITH OLD LEAVEN, NOR WITH the leaven of MALICE and WICKEDNESS, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my epistle NOT TO KEEP COMPANY WITH ...... [sexually] immoral people. Yet I certainly did NOT MEAN with the sexually immoral people OF THIS WORLD, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to GO OUT OF THE WORLD. But now I have written to you NOT TO KEEP COMPANY WITH ANYONE NAMED A BROTHER, who is ...... [sexually] immoral, or covetous, or AN IDOLATER, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—NOT EVEN TYO EAT WITH SUCH a person.
For what have I to do with judging those also who are OUTSIDE? Do you not judge THOSE WHO ARE INSIDE? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “PUT AWAY FROM YOURSELVES the evil person.”"

So seen as the Romanist and Eastern Orthodox systems are IDOL worshipers; as they bow down to images and worship into these; what business have any Historical Bible Christian to join them EVEN AROUND A TABLE TO DISCUSS any issues OUTSIDE OF REPENTANCE and FAITH TOWARDS OUR LORD ALONE?

Your fellow bondslave bought and redeemed by the Gift of the precious and Holy Sacrifice of the Lamb on High, who is our ONLY Potentate - Messiah Jesus,
W

To Frank Moore; if John or any of us gave in on this issue, then what compromise would we make next. Pastor MacArthur has taken many a stand against going with the flow of the world. As scripture teaches separation from the world and compromisers are of the world, the rare individuals like Brother MacArthur are being scripturally correct in saying NO. Of all the books John has written and his study Bible, he has been so rock solid in his teaching that we can and should trust his discernment on this issue also. Again, God bless you John MacArthur for discerning, standing and not compromising.

Let's not confuse the issue
Seems to me like we may be trying to make the MD into a doctrinal confession, which is not what is intended. The purpose of it is to have people who call themselves Christians to express with one voice opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and violations of religious liberty. I think that MacArthur's protest has a a lot to do with his extraneous "passivist" view on the American Revolution, which he holds to be a rebellion that violates Rom. 13. If he had been living in the 18th century, he would no doubt have refused to side with other Colonists and used some of the same reasons he uses now, i.e. that they did not all share the same definition of the Gospel as he does. David Barton has made an excellent rebuttle of this view. (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548). I agree with MacArthur that believers should not join with unbelievers in the work of the Gospel, but the MD is a statement of belief about civic questions that pertain to American society. I wonder if MacArthur would ever join with people who have different interpretations of the Gospel in any other civic function.

Dear James,
The MD is not a forum, but a UNIFYING declaration which embraces one another as "christian" to the Outsiders who look in...

Jonathan:

Earlier you disagreed with my citing *Dave Doran's series on “Gospel-Driven Separation,” (my Nov. 25 comment above) which applies to Mohler for his joining with the RCC in TMD. That is inconsistent with the Scriptures.

Would you then agree that Mohler must be admonished publicly for his public action with the RCC?

The Scriptures compel us to admonish (2 Thess. 3:15) Al Mohler and every brother in Christ who joins with Roman Catholic signatories in The Manhattan Declaration.

Signing on to TMD in fact has these men holding hands with the RCC. This action is a betrayal of the Scriptures that forbid such an unholy alliance (2 Cor. 6:14-17) under ANY circumstance. Their actions do NOT, “honor Him as God.”

The Bible says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers...” That is a mandate from the Lord God and it is not open to selective interpretation.

Just where does our (Mohler’s) first loyalty lie; to God and His Word or to a well-intended social agenda?


LM

*Ironically Dave Doran, from his blog yesterday, essentially stated that he will not apply his own Bible based “obligations” to “admonish, mark and/or avoid” Mohler when Mohler's actions clearly fall under one of the conditions Doran set for such things.

Many Christians continue to try to find political answers to spiritual problems in our culture. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now. Don't believers have a higher calling?

I have worked through this issue in the past and reached the following conclusion from scripture. I have to choose how I'm going to walk, in the flesh or by the Spirit under the authority of Holy scripture. Romans 13 is very instructive as to who establishes governing authorities. God is either sovereign over all or He isn't sovereign at all. I believe and embrace the former.

In Philippians 2, the Apostle Paul, in jail for preaching the gospel, reminds the Philippian church that they are to be lights in the world, and to do so without grumbling or questioning, so that they might be found blameless and innocent children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation.

While I strongly disagree with some of the policies of our government, I should constantly remind myself of why Paul was in jail. It wasn't for civil disobedience; it was for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. He could do so joyfully because he knew that the furtherance of the gospel under the authority of a sovereign God was paramount, regardless of the personal cost to himself.

Do we have any less responsibility?

LM,

This is a difficult issue that is to be graciously and mercifully dealt with by the Elders with whom Pastor Mohler have close association, such as the T4G Elders.

But the mandate of Scripture is clear (I agree);
1 Timothy 5:19-21
"Do not receive an accusation AGAINST AN ELDER except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL, that the rest also may fear.
I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things WITHOUT PREJUDICE, doing NOTHING WITH PARTIALITY."

2 Timothy 2:24-26
"And a servant of the Lord MUST NOT QUARREL but BE GENTLE TO ALL, able to teach, PATIENT, IN HUMILITY CORRECTING those who are in opposition, if God PERHAPS WILL GRANT them REPENTANCE, so that they may know the truth, and THAT THEY MAY COME TO THEIR SENSES and ESCAPE the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

The question is:
Does Pastor Mohler understand that he is causing a serious contention, strife, disunity and contention amongst his brethren and the household of faith - by allying with Apostates in any social work - at the level of his personal responsibility to lead the flock as an under-shepherd and example to the flock?
Does he understand that his aligning with this mere declaration and form he is actually becoming a stumbling block to those that love the LORD and to those who are desperately caught in the spirit of Anti-Christ in the human religious systems - which he has made friends of Christ through this act?
Does he know whose slave he is and what his Master detests about Idol worship and human religiosity?

Does Pastor Mohler even understand the weight of what he has done?
Does he understand that effectively he has surrendered his confidence in:

SOLUS Christus (Christ/Messiah Alone)
SOLA Scriptura (Scripture Alone)
SOLA Gratia (Grace Alone)
SOLA Fide (Faith Alone)
SOLI Deo Gloria - YAHWEH (For the Glory of God/ Elohim Alone)

by running to horsemen and Pharaoh to seek a moral agenda devoid of the power of the Spirit?

I am seriously concerned as I see the Called Out of our LORD become more and more like unto Apostate Israel of old.
Do we even see the judgement of the LORD upon Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures for what it truly is? It all starts with a lack of trust, confidence and faith in His Omnipotence.

So we the sheep and flock look unto the Elders and I am truly thankful for Pastors MacArthur, Busenitz, Johnson and James White to name but a few.

How many will remain at the close of this day placing Full and Complete confidence and hope in the Word become flesh, in the LORD God of Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Moses, Rehab, David, Jonah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, John the Baptizer and Paul (Saul of Tarsus).

Bring to remembrance these names and the power of the Spirit of YAHWEH evidenced by their faith exercised in Him Alone in all their works in-Scriptured for our confidence. These where not Bible "stories" but are Historic realities and accounts that our Father knows will embolden those that love and fear Him.

Your humble fellow bondslave undeservedly purchased by the Great High Priest's Sacrifice and Offering in The Tabernacle of Heaven by mercy Alone,

Dr Mohler - please listen to your own Spirit enabled exposition...

http://boerseuntjie.multiply.com/video/item/41

Bottom line. We are ambassadors. We are to proclaim the Gospel. In that, the Holy Spirit will change lives. We all know the power is in the Gospel. People already know we're against abortion, same sex marriage, etc. Preach the Word.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72609167392
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82091555221

I am convinced that there is a serious matter of biblical separation which is at stake. The question is how far will we as evangelicals move to the left and still hang on to our conservative roots. Yes, there is the factor of the "fighting fundamentalism" which many strive to stay away from because of its connotations. However, is it not true that fundamentalism in the beginning was taking a firm stand in both primary as well as some secondary issues. Those early 20th century leaders saw the downhill slide that the church would move if they chose to accept issues arising out of liberal German theology. They knew that once the slide begins, as MacArthur and Spurgeon even said, it is almost impossible to reverse the trend. Yet, there was little balance and in the end it has sadly produced groups of men who can't get along with each other for any reason - reasons that are tertiary issues at best.

The question is at what point does an individual separate from another brother in Christ and mark them as betraying the basic message of the gospel. The slide has seen men who claim the name of Christ gradually slide into and then openly embrace areas such as open theism, contemplative mysticism, vulgarity and porn in the pulpit, the New Perspective on Paul, Federal Vision, the ECT, and now the MD. At each step, numbers of solid evangelicals have moved that much further to the left. YET, at every step as the numbers of very conservative evangelicals shrink, many will still find a way to accept the slides because of who the leaders are. They want to gloss over the glaring differences and accept the points that "bring us together."

Yes, we can make it clear that the gospel message is fundamental. Yes, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves which makes social issues very important both here and around the world. But of what good is an evangelical church that continues its slide toward the acceptance of those doctrines which were once a line in the sand? Why is our evangelicalism now progressing without abatement towards neo-evangelicalism and beyond?

A shrinking few dare to take a stand on the parapets and proclaim "Here I stand, I can do no other." Why, oh why??!! One final question, how far to the left will our "heroes" and our "evangelical leaders" and our "leading pastors" have to move before we state without reservation that we cannot accept their slide, that we will not cozy up to Rome and the liberals for ANY reason, that our entire ministries are going to be built upon the truth of Scripture Alone, and that even if we remain but a handful we will be true to God Alone for His glory??

Humbly seeking answers in Christian love and grace,

It is disheartening to me to see the Manhattan Declaration become, for some, a flashpoint of doctrinal disagreement. MacArthur's statement may indeed hit the target, but I'm concerned it's the wrong target.

The point of the MD is not ecumenism nor is it intended to claim or compel doctrinal agreement where there is none. It is a statement acknowledging the historic position of virtually every religious tradition that claims the banner of "Christianity." The point here is that each of the major "Christian" traditions can honestly claim to uphold the positions addressed in the Declaration. Furthermore, each major tradition appeals to the same Biblical foundations as the source for its historical position, hence references throughout to Scripture. But note that the MD nowhere claims that these traditions all agree doctrinally as to what constitutes, say, the Gospel. Rather, it acknowledges a united front against the drift of our culture that has eroded and undermined the sanctity of life and of marriage, and has chipped away at the religious liberty upon which this nation was founded.

While I agree that doctrinally the major "Christian" traditions are miles apart, it seems obvious that the MD's use of terms such as "Christian," "believer," and "Gospel" are intentionally used generically so as to communicate to the news media and the political establishment that these major "Christian" traditions are united in opposition to the cultural (including political/legal) drift. The broader culture doesn't care that we have doctrinal differences, and isn't interested (at least in this context) in having them all spelled out or argued.

For perspective, consider other issues--some historical--that arguably present the same sort of choices for believers.

1. There is the matter of whether or not to support political candidates or even parties who espouse positions with which we fundamentally agree. Would we withdraw our support because, say, Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox leadership also endorse that candidate/party? Of course not! And before anyone argues that it's politics (not doctrine) so the same principles don't apply, the fact is that our support for political candidates/issues ought to be informed by the same Biblical principles that inform our positions relative to the MD.

2. Would those who find the MD objectionable have had a problem with William Wilberforce's long and Biblically informed opposition to slavery merely because other supporters included non-evangelical "Christians" and certainly unbelievers? After all, his public positions did not, so far as I know, regularly distinguish the doctrinal differences between his Biblical basis for his position vs. that of others who might have shared his opposition to slavery but not his doctrinal distinctives. Or take opposition to slavery here in the U.S. Would we have withheld our public support for slavery's eradication because our position was publicly shared by non-evangelicals?

3. When believers take a public position on any moral issue, must they always insist on delineating the doctrinal differences they have with others who share their position but not their theology, just so there is no confusion? IF that were the case, every public statement on an issue would become a sermon.

4. Would we have had to forgo support for the Constitution of the United States of America at its inception because it failed to adequately explain how the Biblical principles upon which it was built were to be understood from a Protestant and not Catholic point of view, or because some of the signers were unbelievers and some even deists?

There is absolutely a place for making those distinctions and for accurately proclaiming what we understand to be the Biblical doctrines

Sorry...I didn't realize there was a word limit to our comments. Please permit me to complete my thoughts:

There is absolutely a place for making those distinctions and for accurately proclaiming what we understand to be the Biblical doctrines. And we have a duty to be clear in our presentation of the Gospel. But the MD is not the place. It is not an alter call; it is a call to arms. It is one salvo in the culture wars; it is not the only battle, and there are and will be plenty of opportunities to bring to light the doctrinal distinctives that make the Biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith clear. We ought to support the MD for what it is, not for what it isn't.

I, for one, am thankful that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can affirm and support the tenants of the MD, because they are thereby promoting righteousness and opposing evil, and are doing so on the same Biblical foundation as we, notwithstanding the fact that their understanding of the Gospel misses the mark. (Yes, I recognize that true "righteousness" will only be achieved through changed hearts via genuine Biblical salvation, but even Paul refers to civic authorities as God's servants to do us good, and he certainly wasn't saying that could only happen via personal salvation.)

I am concerned that we miss the mark when we fail to support something like the MD, the tenants of which we acknowledge to be true, because it makes generic reference to other "Christian" traditions and speaks to matters in which we agree without addressing our points of disagreement. That misses the point, and misses an opportunity to speak clearly to our culture. In fact, it opens the door to speak more directly to our culture about all important matters of personal salvation. That's not compromise; it's recognizing that the nature and purpose of the MD is different than that of preaching the Gospel. If we believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, we should find no problem with that distinction. Otherwise we must end up believing that every utterance we make must somehow include the complete teaching of salvation and an alter call.

Please keep perspective.

Ernie,

In regards to #2, having read quite a bit about Wilberforce, I do not believe the issue that was at stake was the acceptance of those diametrically opposite in doctrine. To sign or to be in support was to be opposed to slavery. Period. I am not aware of anything that would or could be remotely construed as being ecumenical and broad acceptance of other religions as "brothers in Christ" such as MD does.

In regards to #3, to counter, why is it necessary to sign a document on very important moral issues by acknowledging a unity that is not based on doctrine?

In regards to #4, I understand this was probably rhetorical, yet I am afraid this again is a similar issue as found in #2. Support for a legal document or a moral issue does NOT require the acceptance of all signers as being "brothers in Christ." The Constitution did not demand this as the MD does.

I will conclude with a thought on #1. Maybe we have moved so far apart from biblical principles even in the arena of politics and voting, that we are missing the truth of Scripture. Maybe we have forgotten that this world is not our home. Here is a counter-question, would we as true believers and evangelicals today participate in a deliberate overthrow of our government due to taxation, loss of individual rights and freedoms, etc.? If so, what Biblical principles could we use to support such an opposition, particularly in light of verses like "Submit yourselves to the government" and "Pray for those in authority"? Would the early New Testament church apostles, leaders, and believers have participated in such events?

Brother du Plooy:

Thanks for the follow-up. Earlier to me you wrote,

“This is a difficult issue that is to be graciously and mercifully dealt with by the Elders with whom Pastor Mohler have close association, such as the T4G Elders.

But the mandate of Scripture is clear (I agree)…”

Yes the mandates are clear. Men who love Mohler, have some sway with him and want first to live in fidelity to God and His Word will make the application of the mandates graciously and with mercy. The goal, of course, is to recover an erring brother. Otherwise, we are left with no other option than to “mark and avoid” (Rom. 16:17) Mohler.

All of this is to preserve the purity of the church and honor the holiness of God.


Lou

Ernie,
You ask:
"Here is a counter-question, would we as true believers and evangelicals today participate in a deliberate overthrow of our government due to taxation, loss of individual rights and freedoms, etc.? If so, what Biblical principles could we use to support such an opposition, particularly in light of verses like "Submit yourselves to the government" and "Pray for those in authority"? Would the early New Testament church apostles, leaders, and believers have participated in such events?"

I am afraid that you may be making the same mistake as some others if you intimate that the American Revolution was an attempt to overthrow the British government because of the reasons you stated. Please note this link which clarifies this point.
(http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548) No, I wouldn't be part of an armed revolution for the reasons you stated. But Rom. 13 says that rulers are ordained by God to be a terror to those who do good, that they are ministers of God to execute wrath on those who do evil. But when the opposite is the case, they lose their authority. The Bible is full of examples, some notably recorded in Heb. 11, of godly people who resisted evil rulers even with the use of force. God gives the right of self-defense, and I would hope that you agree that this may be necessary to exercise in order to protect yourself, your family, and your homeland against enemies both foreign and domestic, as our Constitution requires of us. While things have not deteriorated to this point, those who call themselves Christian should exercise every measure to redress our grievances, and the MD is just one of them. I hope you understand that in our form of government, we are not subject to Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen. They answer to the people; the people do not ultimately answer to them. Our responsibility is to show them civility and respect, but the President is not the government of the U.S. He is an elected administrator, appointed to lead us for a maximum of eight years. WE THE PEOPLE exercise the authority and real power in our country. Rom. 13, interpreted in the context of our form of government (not in the context of a monarchy) requires us to submit to the rule of law which is supreme ruler. If the law fails us, we change it. If the law abuses us, we have right of redress. If the law punishes us unjustly, we have the right of self-defense.

Fred, Jesse, and Others,
Sorry to have taken so long to get back; I wasn't meaning to avoid the question (Thanksgiving and all, though). Anyways, Fred asked, "If an evangelical, a Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox - and let's add a conservative Jew like Michael Medved who also could sign the document - are standing around talking about being unified for social causes and an 18 year old guy approaches and asks how he can be saved from his homosexual sin, what answer will he receive? Which one is the true one? Why?" My answer is, he will likely receive all of them. All this is is a concentrated version of what everyone in our society deals with. All worldviews are vying for peoples adherence all of the time. So what if it is in this specialized environment or if it is spread out over days, weeks, or months? What is important is that for those of us who have been saved by the Holy Spirit making us alive and responsive to the message of salvation by grace through faith, that we will ring the bell for the true gospel all day long.

That said, I don't know that the social issues are "gospel issues" in the sense that they are "salvation by grace alone through faith alone"-issues. Why should a Catholic and a Protestant disagree on social issues? Do we not both believe that all men are created in God's image, that our responsibility is to worship him and him alone, giving praise to his name by sacrificial living and obedience to his commands? Some people are acting as if the Catholic answer to divorce is "Pray to Mary" or "Eat the flesh of Jesus present in communion." That's silly. I don't care why someone can't join with a Catholic in sharing the gospel, that's not the question here. What I care about is why does that person think they can't join with a Catholic to support the unborn or healthy marriage?

In the end, unless Catholicism quits being this big boogeyman that must be shouted down by the words of Calvin and Luther, it really doesn't matter what gets said. If people really think Catholics are that awfully wrong, why in the world aren't they out there actively witnessing to them instead of just condemning them safe and sound inside of the blogosphere?

I respect Dr. Macarthur enormously and agree that it is critical to not paper over the divide between the true gospel and heresy. However, it seems to me that the intent of the declaration is to state that the signatories (not their churches, by the way, but the individuals) will not be complicit to the overturning by government of moral norms established by God.

Yes, there are traditions which are nominally Christian which are now biblically apostate; and yes, you can make the biblical argument that we don't even worship the same God, but does that really imply that we are not to clearly articulate points of moral agreement we have with members of those apostate churches? The implication of this seems to be that we can only express agreement on moral points with those with whom we are in doctrinal fellowship. This seems extreme to me. Doesn't it make more sense to allow documents expressing moral agreement, but to ensure that any such documents speak only to points of actual agreement and do not paper over theological differences or imply unity where there is none.

While I share Dr. Macarthur's concern about inadvertently sending the message that uthe Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical Protestant faiths are all valid traditions of Christianity, it's hard to see what's so harmful about expressing solidarity around points where we actually do agree.

If the argumnet is that this is NOT Christian document; why do they mention theur religion IN THE DOCUMENT?

If this document is a SECULAR Document in behalf of your NATION then it falls in the realm of SECULARISM and perhaps more in the realm of Politics, does it not?

Did any of these individuals that signed consider forming a NON-religious Document?

If this is purely about Morality and Politics, then I suggest these individuals practice Seperation of Church and State in this Document - but as it says; they claim UNITY in their "christian" brotherhood; this is the problem.

The issues in the document are valid and needs addressing from the PULPIT - and out of Scripture as the Single Authority of MORALITY for the children of our LORD and King. The Scriptures speak to these issues plainly and clearly - why sign another RELIGIOUS document outside of the household of Faith?


The bottom line question herein is:
DId our LORD command us to sign such Secular Documents in His Word?
Was it ESSENTIAL to our Faith that this particular document be signed?
If Dr. Mohler DID NOT Sign, would there have been anything different happening - would he have NEGLECTED a CRITICAL ASPECT of his STEWARDSHIP?
WAS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE? Could he have asked those of common Faith and Practice to come together to discuss n alternative Householfd of Faith Decleration as an answer to the MD?

Dr. Mohler - we should be grateful to hear YOUR answers to these Bottomeline questions that we are left with.

Soli Deo Gloria!
For the transformation of hearts of stone and blind hearts and eyes and ears - SOLA Scriptura - in the Gospel of grace Alone,
W
Why give any credibility to the cliam of Heretics that thay are "christian"; by working together at ANY LEVEL...
See the Scriptures that I qouted above - these seem to be HUGELY Ignored in this debate - God Has Spoken - He Is Not Silent (Ironically a book title by Pastor Mohler).

My answer is, he will likely receive all of them. All this is is a concentrated version of what everyone in our society deals with. All worldviews are vying for peoples adherence all of the time. So what if it is in this specialized environment or if it is spread out over days, weeks, or months? What is important is that for those of us who have been saved by the Holy Spirit making us alive and responsive to the message of salvation by grace through faith, that we will ring the bell for the true gospel all day long.

Todd, three answers from three different perspectives cannot all be right. Again, here in lies the key issue of disunity. There is only one saving gospel, and both RCs and the Orthodox churches teach a false version that cannot save anyone. Why as a committed, Bible believing Christian would I want to affix my signature to a document which erroneously assumes these traditions reflect biblical Christianity when such is not true. Just because I want to have the gratification of being counted along with Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler and all the other restless young Reformers who thinks it is the cool thing to do over the Thanksgiving weekend?

Plus - and this is the one question I have yet to hear answered with any reason - why is it important to sign a trendy document speaking out against social ills? Just to be popular? I oppose those things because it is biblical. Supporters of the MD carry on as if it articulates some profound truth never before ever considered by Christians. Here in two or three months, the MD will be old news until the next ecumenical document comes along begging me to sign it.

I am with brother Fred Butler,

Was this a Gospel NECESSITY or even Commanded by our LORD in Scripture?

This was our LORD Jesus' tactic with the religious people in confronting moral evils:

Matthew 23:23
"“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the WEIGHTIER matters of the law: JUSTICE and MERCY and FAITH. These you ought to have done, WITHOUT LEAVING the others undone."

I appreciate Dr. Mac's comments here. On the one hand, I do not believe it to be wrong to express inter- or non-denominational solidarity on biblical, moral, social issues of the day. However, some of the language John points out in the document is troubling. How can a follower of Jesus Christ identify as "Christian" with one he believes to be lost? The language is troubling, and there is also the problem of the primacy of the Gospel. I have grown more and more convinced as I grow in grace that we must be overtly Gospel-centered in all we do in professional ministry and personal life. I have become less and less enamored with over-emphasis on lifestyle evangelism or "pre-evangelism."

Here's the bottom line: we may get everyone in America to agree on same-sex marriage and the sanctity of human life, and people will still perish without the justification of Jesus Christ. The Gospel must be primary, even in interaction with the political realm. I enjoy politics and have been engaged in many campaigns through the last decade. In fact, shortly after moving to Indiana, I had the privilege of addressing the Indiana Family Institute Congressional Leadership Series; and rather than just talking about activism and Obama, I gave them the Gospel. I think it shocked them. I do believe the Gospel must be first and foremost. MacArthur has dealt with this subject in an honest and loving way that accomplishes exactly this critical task.

By the way (full disclosure), I did sign the MD online when it initially came out. I did not read it as carefully as I should have. I thought it was just another document promoting the biblical truth about life and marriage. That's why I appreciate this article. It reminded me of the importance of examining carefully each document, regardless of its billing to the Christian community. I repent.

Beloved brother Brian,

May your open humility be an example and may our LORD and King be well pleased to add grace upon grace to your heart's examination and honest appraisal in turning unto Him Alone.

Soli Deo Gloria.

There have been so many great comments on this subject. I have just a brief statement to make, because so many of my thoughts have already been expressed through others here.

In the aftermath of this entire hubbub, of who signed on the dotted line of the Manhattan Declaration, I am left with a profound sadness, and a real sense of whose Biblical perspective can be trusted anymore? I know that many of the Reformed signers are all good men and devout Christians, but I am left with a real sense of their shortsightedness of what the Gospel really teaches. It seems to be that the sole basis for one signing a document such as the MD, one only needs to proclaim faith in Christ; all doctrinal distinctives concerning what constitutes a true and saving faith have been eliminated.

From this point forward, I will make EVERY concerted effort to be far more discriminating in reading what some of these men teach and write about, because I truly cannot see any discernment on their part.

Does this not make us even more appreciative of the teachings of John MacArthur? I think it does.

William du Plooy, great comments!

Okay then. Into the political fight. Create “The Brooklyn Declaration”. Copy what you can from TMD, add a statement satisfactory to requirements for gospel purity and semantic purity, omit overt knifing of the tares. Remember Phil 2:6-7, King David, Luke 15:2, Matt. 16:18, Jn 17, 1 Jn1-2. Seriously. My pen is ready to sign.

Fred wrote: "Why as a committed, Bible believing Christian would I want to affix my signature to a document which erroneously assumes these traditions reflect biblical Christianity when such is not true."

Fred, but that's just it: YOU are assuming the MD makes that assumption, but I can't see that it does--because the MD's focus is not about doctrine or ecumenism. Instead, it identifies the specified POSITIONS as Biblically based, and that each of the major traditions have historically held these positions and continue to do so. There is no attempt to prove, claim, or assume that each tradition reflects what the others believe to be Biblical Christianity, or that they all treat doctrines of salvation identically. The audience is primarily a secular media and political class that is, in fact, Biblically illiterate and historically ignorant. While I understand that one might read more (which is to say, too much) into the MD's use of terms such as Christian, brother, etc., the context makes it clear that the MD is simply using terms that to its secular audience would be commonly understood to refer to all three of the major "Christian" traditions, not to mention that each of the three sees itself as part of Biblical Christianity. The MD isn't making the doctrinal distinctions that you and many others correctly point out because it has a different purpose.

If the purpose of a document such as the MD were in fact to claim doctrinal agreement, I would certainly join you in condemning it. But it is unjust, as well as counterproductive, to criticize the MD for doing something (promoting ecumenism) when in fact it makes no attempt to do so. If the point is a conversation among the various traditions about how much they agree (or disagree) doctrinally, then please let's make all the distinctions we need to make. However, when we are addressing a secular audience and each tradition honestly can claim a Biblical basis for its positions (in fact, the same Biblical basis in each case), why should it be necessary that we load up our declaration with a discussion of doctrinal differences in order to admit that in the matters addressed we agree?

Take for example, when an Evangelical references writings of the founding fathers to demonstrate that they founded this nation on a Biblical worldview. Which of us insists that, unless all such commentary also includes a discussion of all of the doctrinal differences we have with each of the writers in question, much less with, say, each of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, it constitutes a compromise of our dearly held beliefs because it "muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions?" Let's be real...none of us does or ought to operate in the world that way. Nor do we insist on adding an explanation of the Gospel every time we speak.

Rather than opposing or withholding support, why not simply add a personal caveat to the effect that "our wholeheartedly support of this Declaration is specific to the positions it addresses, and does not, nor is intended to, constitute doctrinal agreement with the other faith traditions whose adherents also support this document." Which, I would argue, is already understood by most others.

Mark, you ask, "why is it necessary to sign a document on very important moral issues by acknowledging a unity that is not based on doctrine?"

Since when is doctrinal unity the only "unity" which we ought to acknowledge? Would we rather that no one else shares our positions? That we should refuse to acknowledge any agreement (a form of "unity" as you seem to be using that term) with anyone who is not saved or does not share all of our doctrinal distinctives? Of course not!

I will assume you understand why it is important to sign a document on very important moral issues per se; the acknowledgment of unity (which I agree is other than doctrinal unity) in support of the document is important in order to communicate that the positions espoused by the document are shared by many different "Christian" faith traditions, each of which can honestly claim an historical and Biblical basis for its support. If, as I argue, the MD is not intended as a presentation of the Gospel nor as a statement of doctrinal unity, then why would we want to divert attention to other doctrinal matters which, however important, are not being addressed by the MD, and quite frankly are irrelevant to our intended audience? Why would we not sign it?

Just to clarify, when I said "other doctrinal matters which, however important...are irrelevant to our intended audience..." I do not mean in any way that the Gospel, by grace, through faith, is irrelevant. It is THE most important matter for every person, and in that sense always relevant.

But in the context of the MD's purpose (which is not a Gospel tract nor a claim of doctrinal unity), the primary intended audience--which I see as the secular medial and the political class--couldn't care less about the doctrinal differences addressed in this discussion. And attempting to flesh out such differences really does not serve the purpose of communicating to that audience our agreement on the matters the MD does address, and is in that sense irrelevant to them.

Ernie said: Fred, but that's just it: YOU are assuming the MD makes that assumption, but I can't see that it does--because the MD's focus is not about doctrine or ecumenism.

This quote was found on James White's blog. "I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that "Christian" then is "Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content." It does no good to muddle this discussion with "Well, what about the medieval church" questions, since we are talking about a day and age when the issues are well known. We are not talking about a dark period of biblical ignorance. There is more light available today than ever before. And for many, the gospel is simply no longer part of the "non-negotiables." End of quote.

So, James White's ears have confirmed, from the mouth of the organizer and one of the authors's, that this document is indeed meant to be theological. None of us can afford to be linked, by signature, to validating a document where there is not agreement on it's central theme of theology. When the author, himself has a skewed view of the gospel how can any of us sign this document?

These things are wrong, unbiblical and counter to a culture that looks to God as the source of its slavation. But we as real christians cannot be a part of any document that states to have theological like-mindedness when it clearly does not! When I saw Colson's name I knew, if asked, I could not sign. I am very sad that some of these men have stooped to sign this latest chapter in Chuck Coloson's continuing mission to get everyone who waves the flag of Jesus to sing cumbaya and all get along in a very devious and political way. That political bait, obviously, was way to seductive for Mohler, Dockery, Aikin, Draper, and Richard Land.

As I see it, this is but the latest attempt by Colson to bring Evangelicals and Catholics together...find some common moral ground that they can all agree on, and then inch them forward. In politics it is called incrementalism.

Somehow when reading the document, I did not perceive its purpose to be evangelical, so I was not concerned that it used the term "Christian" to apply to Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical. I personally believe there are individual people in each of the three "categories" who are trusting Christ alone in faith alone by grace alone, in spite of what their church leadership is teaching as doctrine, but of course there are many others who are trusting in their works or in their church membership or in something else rather than trusting in their Savior and their Savior alone. God alone knows their hearts. I can only speak for myself, as is proper. When I was a Catholic from infancy until age 22, I did not know the Lord, and I was very religious, and very lost. In 1984 I received the Lord, and I had to get out of the Catholic Church, because I couldn't bear to hear the falsehoods that have been tacked on to the Scripture, it so grieved me to hear folks thinking certain saints in heaven had more clout with God than any saints on earth, or people needing to be purged after death, or God having a mother, or the sacrifice not being finished on the Cross, etc. I could list them all but I am sure you all know them well. I had a friend who stayed there, saying if we all leave, who will witness to them? I said fine, God has called you to stay there and God has called me to get out, and so we parted in peace. As for the declaration, I see it as a statement of agreement, but as Pastor John has so rightly noted, not an agreement on the Gospel. I'm really not concerned about Colson's personal beliefs, but perhaps I should be. If we cannot agree with the declaration because we do not agree about the Gospel, then I was in error to sign it. I'm not there yet, so please bear with me. Rick Warren famously said "I have more in common with a conservative Anglican than I do with a liberal Baptist", and he wasn't speaking of the liberalness of giving to the poor, the widow, and the orphan, but theological liberalism, which I despise as a great deception. At this point I'd rather partner with a Catholic and an Orthodox in defense of marriage, the unborn, and religious liberty, than not partner with them in that. Thank you for your forbearance with me as I am still learning and growing, and as we all still see thru a glass darkly until we see Him face to face.

The saddest thing about "evangelicals" today is that VERY FEW are willing to let the SOLA Scriptura by The power of the Spirit be the Rockbed foundation of any discernment in their daily lives; thus they stad on human wisdoms and reasoning Alone - and they can almost do no other.

Because they fear men more than the Holy One of Israel.

We who are the FEW chosen out of the many called; who are the FEW who find The Way, when many are on the way to destrcution; we have no business seeking to lean on our own understanding or to run to heretics and apostates for Numbers or Strength - as is well expounded in the History of Israel in Holy Scripture.

Those who are unwilling to submit themselves in the fear of our LORD, but seek political, worldly or even heretical "brothers" to do what they believe our Mighty one of Israel is NOT DOING in accord with their desires - who run before His will into the battle - will find themselves Alone and without His strength and without His power.

SOLA YAHWEH!

2 Corinthians 2; 1 Chronicles 21

Ezekiel 33:26
"You rely on your sword...Should you then possess the land?”’"

John MacArthur is of course a well respected brother, whose views need to be considered carefully. When I read the Manhatten declaration I was thrilled and was happy to add my support. Of course the preaching of the gospel is paramount and we mustn't do anything that would put that in jeopardy. I do not believe signing that declaration would compromise our position but, rather, it makes a stand on some of the key issues of the day. I am honoured to stand with my Catholic and Orthodox brethren but equally will not be party to those beliefs they hold which are wrong.

Mr Barber,

1 Corinthians 5:11
"But now I have written to you NOT TO KEEP COMANY with ANYONE NAMED A BROTHER, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or AN IDOLATER, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—NOT EVEN TO EAT with such a person."

So much for the brotherhood founded with Idol worshipers - according to the LORD God.

Still waiting for some to answer me as to why it is necessary to sign a document -- any document -- either biblical or evangelical in order to say gay marriage and abortion are bad? How exactly does that really change anything?

Fred

Thank you William du Plooy for your comments with Scripture! The phrase 'common ground' is a term used in communism, true disciples of Christ need to follow Scripture and realize we are not to compromise. The ecumenical movement is designed to bring ALL beliefs under a world religion, which Roman Catholicism is heading. As a disciple of Christ, we are to fear God and not man, and expose the unfruitful works of darkness. Catholicism isn't Christianity, speaking the love in truth! It's the enemy of Christ, and the 'pope' is pure blasphemy with the 'Holy Father' and 'His Holiness' title. Salvation isn't taught (works is), not to mention the rest. It's the old pagan religion of Roman times embedded with goddess/idol worhip and direct blasphemy. Signing something along with priests? Would anyone on here go to a priest to confess? Of course not, so why would anyone sign an agreement with them?The priests, cardinals, bishops, and pope are acting as 'another Jesus' which Scripture warns us about! I could find 'common ground' with most everyone on something, but we were called to remain separate from Catholicism and 'liberal' theologians who do not serve the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is a spiritual battle, we aren't socialists (socialism, one big anti-thesis to God's doctrines). "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

At the same time we are to love our enemies, pray for them, and show them the gospel! Praise our Lord Jesus Christ, and please read Matthew for His exposure of the religious heretic leaders of Roman times. They sound really familiar! Please also remember the history of persecution, the heretical doctrines are STILL in writing towards those that don't bow down to Rome (even though many deceived Catholics aren't aware). "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Ephesians 5:11

comment was removed by user

comment was removed by user

John Barber:

You wrote,

"I am honoured to stand with my Catholic and Orthodox BRETHREN but equally will not be party to those beliefs they hold which are wrong."

Morris:

Yesterday you wrote,

"As I see it, this is but the latest attempt by Colson to bring Evangelicals and Catholics together...find some common moral ground that they can all agree on, and then inch them forward. In politics it is called incrementalism."

"The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) is not quite Evangelicals and Catholics Together or the documents that ushered in New Evangelicalism some 50 years ago. TMD is however, the first cousin of those things and the next step will be those things."

First of all, I would like to say that I really LOVE your response, Jennifer. I am quite sad that more women have not spoken out on this issue.

Here is sound Biblical proof for not associating with the purveyors of evil doctrines.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift OF GOD: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8-9).”

If we add the meritorious works of man to supplement the work of Christ, it becomes anathema to God, and then becomes ANOTHER GOSPEL or a DIFFERENT GOSPEL. Paul declares in Galatians; “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1: 6-12).”

The curse given by God to the foolish Galatians applies to anyone now-days, who adds good works to the ALL SUFFICIENT work of Christ on the cross. “Knowing that a man is NOT justified by the WORKS of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal 2:6).”

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a DEBTOR TO THE WHOLE LAW. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are FALLEN FROM GRACE. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith (Gal 5:1-5).”

Notice particularly the words in Galatians 5:4, “Christ is become of NO EFFECT unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are FALLEN FROM GRACE.” FALLEN FROM GRACE, there it is! When the Catholic Church adds to the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross, by their own good works, they have fallen from grace, and are cursed by God. If I remember right the Council of Trent condemned the Reformed doctrine of Justified by faith alone. They declared it anathema. God has condemned the Catholic Church and pronounced His wrath upon it for this very reason. And this is why I will not be a party to anything the RCC is associated with.

After thinking this whole thing through, I suddenly remembered what I learned in my psychology class in college. It is actualy very simple. When we actively participate in something (such as signing our names on a petition, joining a rally, or what ever the case may be), we are far less likely to be critical of it. Which means what???, we then try to look for common ground, but God is clear, there is no common ground. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness (2 Cr 6:14)?”

This is why we are to be so careful to NOT join hands with the enemies of Christ.

As William du Plooy points out: "But now I have written to you NOT TO KEEP COMANY with ANYONE NAMED A BROTHER, who is sexually immoral, or co

Willian DuPlooy:
"1 Corinthians 5:11
"But now I have written to you NOT TO KEEP COMANY with ANYONE NAMED A BROTHER, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or AN IDOLATER, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—NOT EVEN TO EAT with such a person.""

My response: While there may be practises we question or judge as unscriptural even I don't see why that has to be equated with idolatory.

Lou Marteneac:
"You wrote,

"I am honoured to stand with my Catholic and Orthodox BRETHREN but equally will not be party to those beliefs they hold which are wrong."
With that you have done one of two things:

1) Endorsed the RCC and the Roman Catholic (RC) as a legitimate interpretation of the Gospel of Grace and that salvation can be obtained through the RCC's sacramental system; or...

2) Identified yourself as an unbeliever just as the RC is."

My response: [1] I do not understand how 1 & 2 follows. I do not endorse the RC/Orthodox position but I do recognise among them, as indeed my own denomination, there are believers who I can call Brethren. {2} I am sorry you have to resort to cheap comments.

John:

I'm sorry that you misunderstood my meaning above. No offense was intended. Let's try to clarify your statement and I'll narrow it down to the key point, in which you wrote,

"I am honoured to stand with my Catholic and Orthodox BRETHREN..."

I am not equating the practices we question.
I am making a Biblical Authoritative statement regarding the PURE Idolatry of Mary worship, of saints worship, of "holy Icon" worship of Image Worship; which was even done in Israel with what our LORD gave as a sign of faith in the desert:

The Devine Law teaches us as The Israel of God:

Exodus 20:5 (cf. Deuteronomy 5:9)
"Thou shalt NOT BOW DOWN THYSELF to them, NOR SERVE them: for I YAHWEH thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them THAT HATE ME..."

Exodus 23:24
"Thou shalt NOT BOW DOWN to their gods, NOR SERVE them, NOR DO AFTER their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images."

Leviticus 26:1
◦New King James Version
"‘You shall NOT MAKE IDOLS for yourselves; neither a carved image nor A SACRED pillar shall you rear up for yourselves; nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land,TO BOW DOWN TO IT; for I am YAHWEH your God."

Joshua 23:7
◦New King James Version
"...and lest you go among these nations, these who remain among you. You shall not make mention of the name OF THEIR gODS, nor cause anyone TO SWEAR BY THEM; you shall NOT SERVE them NOR BOW DOWN to them..."

Judges 2:17
◦New King James Version
"Yet they would not listen to their judges, but they PLAYED THE HARLOT with OTHER gODS, and BOWED DOWN to them. They TURNED quickly FROM THE WAY in which their fathers walked, IN OBEYING THE COMMANDMENTS of YAHWEH; they did not do so."

Judges 2:19
◦King James Version
"And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and CORRUPTED themselves more than their fathers, in FOLLOWING OTHER gODS TO SERVE them, and TO BOW DOWN unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way."
>>>>>>
Now I shall make mention of what our LORD instituted as a sign through which He tested the faith of His people amongst National Israel of Old:

Numbers 21:8-9
◦New King James Version
"Then YAHWEH SAID TO MOSES, “MAKE A FIERY SERPENT, and SET IT ON A POLE; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, WHEN HE LOOKS AT IT, shall live.” So Moses made A BRONZE SERPENT, and PUT IT ON A POLE; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked AT THE BRONZE SERPENT, he lived."

2 Kings 18:4
◦New King James Version
"He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and BROKE IN PIECES THE BRONZE SERPENT THAT MOSES HAD MADE; for until those days the children of Israel BURNED INCENSE TO IT, and CALLED IT Nehushtan."

John 3:14
◦King James Version
"And AS Moses LIFTED UP THE SERPENT IN THE WILDERNESS, EVEN SO must the Son of man be lifted up..."

Can ANYONE (Even Agnostics) in good conscience before our LORD (Who is a Holy Consuming Fire); deny that Romanism, Eastern "orthodoxy" and any other human religion is NOT a part of IDOLITRIOUS Apostates?
How much more those that ground their faith in the Writings of the Tanakh and New Testament?

Has our LORD not given us an example NOT TO FOLLOW in National Israel?

Be CONFRONTED with the Living God in His own Living Word and let it do (By the work of His Spirit) the carving work of discernment in our hearts according with Hebrews 4.

BTW- The biggest difference between Historical Biblical Christianity and Romanism and all other human religions is that we assert that our King ALONE is Sovereign over ALL, and that He, by the Person of the Spirit through the merit of Messiah ALONE brings the regenerating power of Salvation in the GIFT of Repentance and Faith.

Apostate religions often have flowed out of Biblical truth and has become corrupted by either ADDING merit or ability UNTO Sovereign G

>>>>
Apostate religions often have flowed out of Biblical truth and has become corrupted by either ADDING merit or ability UNTO Sovereign Grace (That is why Romanists affirm salvation by grace - without the SOLA); or
By withdrawing grace by MERIT of NEGATIVE works or neglect of WORKS (This is why they are willing to affirm salvation by grace - but not by grace ALONE).

In Scriptural conviction according to the Spirit of our LORD; as with the Oracles of our LORD - in unity with Messiah, the Prophets and Apostles;
W

Pyromaniac Dan Phillips with some central and vital 19 questions for signatories :
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/nineteen-questions-for-signers-of.html

Lou and William:

Thanks for coming back ... as for whether you can be Catholic and Christian - the answer is definitely yes, as time again I have been made to realise, just as you can be Baptist and Christian for example. I think the day when the contents of the Lamb's Book of Life are revealed there will be many surprises (not with God though!) ... the main thing are you and I in it and are we faithfully pointing people to the Lamb, the only Saviour of mankind? As others have pointed out in this thread, the Manhatten Declaration is not about the Gospel but it is about things that are very much on God's heart. It took me a long time to realise that upholding truth, being salt, siding with the poor, working toward social justice are very much on God's heart - MAYBE of lesser importance than humankind's eternal destiny and the preaching of the Gospel but important nevertheless as numerous scriptures will reveal. I see nothing wrong in working with "unlikely" partners to further those aims. I always worry when people quote verses like 1Cor5v11 and people like me get ostrasised if we deviate from another's narrower interpretation. I happen to believe women should wear head coverings in prayer and should in the main keep silent in church (other verses in 1Corinthians will back that up) but do I disassociate with believers who see it otherwise? - a dangerous path potentially and historically, including within my own denomination, there have been many casualties when such a line is taken. I am not convinced that to be Catholic and Orthodox is to be an idolator (in fact when there is true faith I doubt it) although admitedly there are some practises I do not understand and others I reject. My Catholic and Orthodox friends would refute such an accusation ... but it is better they speak for themselves.

PS regarding the three points of TMD religious freedom and the affirmation we act according to our conscience is something I would have thought we can all agree upon - it is what has characterised Christian martyrs from all sections of the church down the ages and none of us has a monopoly on that. It also occurs to me that we have a lot to be grateful for to RCs who have stood resolutely against the evils of abortion and the culture of death, as well as to make a costly stand for the family and the onslaught of the gay agenda. I am more than happy to stand with them on these things.

Wow, I didn't have time to read each and every comment, but it looks like I'm the only Catholic voice here. I'm saddened that many of you have the gall to say Catholics are not Christians.

I am a Catholic Christian who loves Jesus with all my heart. I love Christian radio as well, as long as I don't hear things like I heard today on AFR from John MacArthur.

Sola Scriptura? Scripture neither says nor implies that it alone is all that is necessary for faith and practice! I understand that many of you were raised Protestant and that's all you know, OR perhaps you were raised Catholic but never taught the faith well, but I encourage you to consider the wisdom in the Catholic Church.

Before you begin your research understand this: the Catholic faith is made up of many imperfect Catholic Christians (as with any group of people), so be careful not to blindly trust everything you might hear about what the Church does and does not believe, whether you're talking to Catholics or Protestants. Be sure you are getting your information about the teachings of the Church from trusted sources such as the site listed below.

This site is a good place to start (IF you are open to the Truth), and in particular I'm linking to a page about Sola Scriptura.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=133

Here's another good one, "How Two Evangelicals Discovered the Catholic Church":
http://www.cuf.org/LayWitness/online_view.asp?lwID=1208

A quote from the above article on "faith alone":

"James 2:24 tells us that it is by works and not faith alone that one is justified. I began thinking that if "faith without works is dead," then how could faith alone justify one? A "works-free" faith cannot justify a person."

I'm very curious to see if my comment will get posted or stay posted.

May God bless you all, no matter where you go to church.
Kelly

Hi Kelly:
Thanks for sharing your helpful thoughts - I for one hope your comments stay posted.
Ahh Catholicism - so much out there I suspect or don't understand - yes the links look interesting and I will add to my reading ... which reminds me of a remark of a pious, knowledgeable Christian friend who respond to my questioning of his non creationist beliefs - what really matters, he said, was to be like Abraham, who had no books or access to human wisdom but was alone satisfied that he was God's friend - may it be so with us!

comment was removed by user

If you think signing the MD is harmless/helpful/only political, please realize that every signature on that document helps assure Kelly (above) that he is right, and that you can be both Roman Catholic and Christian at the same time. This is, of course, the intent of the document, and that is clear in the very first sentence of the MD. A real Christian should have perhaps no bigger fear than giving someone who does not believe the Gospel false assurance that they are indeed on the way to heaven. To do so for the reason of opposing political evil expresses such a backwards priority that it is difficult to know where to begin.
I just wish Kelly would have commented earlier in the thread so others could realize that this is not hypothetical, but that real souls are actually being confused by this document.

Hi Kelly,

Catholics are welcome here of course, and there was at least one other in this thread.

Most of the people who frequent this blog are well aware of the doctrinal
differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and historically protestants
have never considered Catholic doctrine (and those who believe it) to be within
the fold of Christianity. The well-informed generally gather their knowledge
of the RCC from the RCC's official documents (trent and the catechism of the RCC
are the two frequently quoted in Protestant apologetics).

The intellectually honest (and educated) on both sides will admit that only
one side is saved. The anathemas of Trent (on the Catholic side) were clear on this,
as were Luther, Calvin, et al on the protestant side.

It comes down to what is the authoritative source of truth: scripture, or men.
If you simply take the Bible at face value minus the traditions of men, Catholicism
is not Christian. There is plenty written about this if you want to look.

Another view you are seeing criticized here is ecumenicalism, which throws doctrine
out the window (despite dire Biblical warnings about the eternal consequences of doing so)
and embraces everyone who claims to love Christ as a true Christian. There are many
adherents of this view on both the protestant and Catholic sides.

The Bible has terrible warnings about self-deceived false believers who will be shocked
on Judgement day to find out they were never His. While it may seem unkind
to warn people they are not saved when they (falsely) believe they are, it is in fact an
act of love.

If you go through the NT and create a list of all the scriptures that have warnings of the
type "believe this or perish", you can come up with a fairly complete list of doctrines
necessary for salvation. Protestants would say that you cannot add any requirements
to the list that scripture doesn't call out, since the Bible itself warns repeatedly against
adding to scripture.

Scripture calls out the trinity, and faith alone (to be justified by works is to fall from
grace), among several others, which is why we protestants say what we do. In case you didn't
know, Catholicism explicitly denies faith alone, which St. Paul so terrifyingly declared to
be a hellbound position.

FYI, the scripture from James you mention can be interpreted to be talking about
the evidence one is a Christian, and is not about requirements for salvation at all.
He is demonstrating that those who claim to believe in Christ but have no works
are false believers who are both deceived and deceiving others.

James' point is that living faith always produces works, not that the works
themselves earn us merit with God.

In fact, if it is about requirements, then it stands in direct opposition to Paul's
faith alone verse in Galatians, and scripture cannot contradict scripture so I
respectfully submit to you that James cannot be talking about requirements for
salvation.

It is a cause and effect relationship that is at stake here.
- RCC says faith+works causes salvation.
- Bible says true (saving) faith causes both salvation and works.

Only one can be true, since each is opposed to the other.

- Kurt

For my Romanist friends,who believe that we are "brethren" (The LORD, Scripture and plain reason forbid)-
I know that YOUR system of religion is founded upon the principle that the Papacy are infallable and that the "church" herself is infallable - but seen as the cliam is made that the Papacy is decendend from the Apostle Simon Peter (Which BTW is a historical impossibility due to the fact that Rome persecuted and killed the Hebrew followers of Messiah Jesus even into 313 AD when Constantine issued the Edct of Milan in "tolerance" of the Christian sect of the Hebrews).

That being a historical fact that Rome simply cannot bruch under the carpet. And before I go on a whole different subject...

I would that YOU consider the Apostle Simon Peter (The rock upon which Christ said He would build His Church proper); in his last Authoritative writings to the Churches:
2 Peter 1
Especially verses:
12 "For this reason I will not be negligent TO REMIND YOU ALWAYS of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth."
15 "Moreover I will be careful to ENSURE THAT YOU ALWAYS HAVE A REMINDER of these things AFTER MY DECEASE.
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the PROPHETIC WORD CONFIRMED, which you DO WELL TO HEED as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE is of ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, 21 for prophecy NEVER CAME BY THE WILL OF MAN , but holy men of God spoke as they were moved BY THE HOLY SPIRIT."

2 Peter 3
1 "Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may BE MINDFUL OF THE WORDS which were SPOKEN BEFORE BY the holy prophets, and of the commandment OF US, the apostles of the Lord and Savior..."
5 "For this they willfully forget: that by THE WORD OF God ..."

15 "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, HAS WRITTEN TO YOU, 16 as also IN ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, as they do also the rest OF THE SCRIPTURES..."

Clearly the Apostle Simon Peter (the rock of Messiah's Called Out); left His people a heritage by intent and design; along with the heritage we have from the Prophets of teh Tahnakh and by the writings of the Apostles and as by special affirmation by Peter in Paul (Saul of Tarsus)'s writings... Can the Papacy and it's "gospel" be TRUE and TRUSTWORTHY if they deviated and added to the Scriptures the commandments and traditions of men? Are these not the same errors we encountered in Apostate Israel?

So then IF Rome affirms that the Apostle Peter is the rock and that Peter is the "source" of the Papal "authority" - who shall be follow, when they directly contradict each other? The Papacy or the LORD's Apostle Peter and his fellow Apostle Paul (By way of the heritage they left us in Holy Scripture Alone?

No answers required, plain reason and the Spirit's illuminating is sufficient.

Prayerfully for hearts of stone made flesh, by the work of Devine mercy and love - contrary to our deservings,
W

Dr. MacArthur, again, I appreciate your stand, and the clarity and consistency with which you address these important issues to the church. May we all be more discerning and thoughtful about those things that seem commendable, but woefully fall short of "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3). Thank you!

Can someone please show me the verse that teaches faith alone saves. What I mean is where is the passage that says " faith alone ". Those two words , side by side . Also some here say salvation by faith alone and grace alone and scripture alone, etc. Which one is it ? No , there is no merit but James 2 : 24 is about being justified.

You are this generations Lloyd-Jones on important matters like this. Thank you and Pastor Begg for your gracious but clear stand.

Pastor Caleb Kolstad

There has been a great deal of discussion on the Manhattan Declaration and whether or not true Evangelicals should sign it in recent weeks. I posted the question on the Shepherds Fellowship Forum which resulted in many very thoughtful responses. I have a sense this subject is going to be a source of controversy among leading evangelicals for a while. It seems to me Colson regularly becomes involved in controversial issues attempting to bring evangelicals and Catholics together.

I signed the declaration; however with reservations. Frankly, I now am convinced my initai concerns were well grounded and regret signing. Whatever the case, I am convinced that the real key to changing the direction our culture is taking is a renewed commitment on the part of true evangelicals to proclaim the gospel. We should all be asking God for ourselves and our brothers and sisters in Christ, as Paul asked the Ephesians and Colossians to pray for him:

“Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.” (Eph. 6:19-20, NIV)
“Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” (Col. 4:2-6, NIV)

“O God, please give us disciples among all people, and do it in ways that are
clearly disproportionate to us and completely dependent on you.”

Bill Mullen

Dear Brothers--

As a former Roman Catholic who traversed the entire Reformation journey followed by such notable ex-Papists as Martin Luther, I object to any evangelical participation in the Manhattan Declaration for the following reasons:

1...You can be "right" about many valid and important moral issues, and still be damned to hell forever. Consider the Pharisees, who, like the Catholics, were "right" about many issues such as the reality of the Resurrection (in opposition to the Sadducees, the theological liberals of that time--Acts 23:8). However, they took these correct convictions right into perdition because they, just like the Catholics, embrace a false gospel of salvation by meritorious works of human goodness. What good does it do, Brothers, if a man has the correct view on abortion and Gay marriage and yet, believing a false Gospel, must appropriately be asked the question Jesus posed to the Pharisees: "How will you escape the sentnece of hell?" (Mat. 23:33). "What will it profit a man" if he is right about many other things--even ALL other things--and yet is wrong about the Gospel and therefore "forfeits his soul" (Mat. 16:26)...?

2...Roman Catholics, therefore, should be the objects of evangelism, just like any other lost people. But, for evangelicals to unite with them in common spiritual enterprise--no matter how noble the goals and intentions may be--actually serves to relegate the Gospel to a position of secondary importance to the issues of kindred activism. The "unity" forged by this common cause cannot help but foster the illusion on the part of Catholics and other participating unbelievers that they may consider themselves in just as good a spiritual condition as the evangelicals. The blatant and overt language of common "brotherhood" exacerbates this problem immensely, being a de facto Evangleical endorsement of the false Roman Catholic faith.

3...Even if there were no discernible practical problems like the ones stated above, nevertheless the participation of Evangelicals (representatives of the true Biblical faith) in the Manhattan Declaration and other such ecumenical enterprises is a DIRECT violation of the clear Scriptural prohibition of the true people of God uniting in any way with the purveyors of false, heretical, soul-damning doctrine. Such unity is tantamount to actual participation in the spreading of a false Gospel which brings the curse of God upon those who proclaim it(Gal. 1:8-9). The Apostle John leaves no room for compromise on this point, for he says plainly that the one who gives the false teacher even so much as a "greeting participates in his evil deeds" (2 Jn. 11).

And so, the Scriptures present several very probing and compelling questions for Evangelicals who would join with Catholics and other heretics in the Manhattan Declaration:

..."What partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor. 6:14-16).

To any Evangelical who considers signing the Manhattan Declaration, the question of Jehu to King Jehoshaphat echoes from the distant past with somber urgency and convicting relevancy for our contemporary times: "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?" (2 Chr. 19:2)...

Excellent article! I thank the Lord for you, Dr. MacArthur.

I agree with every point you make except for your refusal to sign the Declaration. I fear your position is so much fiddling while Rome is ablaze, so much doctrinal parsing while the traveler lies bleeding on the wayside. We are called to a battlefront where the very name of Christ is under attack. Dr. Sproul (for whom I have great admiration) declines to sign the Manhattan Declaration because of "the logical implications of the ecumenical tone of the document." This betrays a tenuous train of logic, sadly leading him to walk away from a battlefront to which all of Scripture calls us. The "logical implications" of the Declaration are actually singular: its vitally important positions clearly emenate from Scripture, and are to be unanimously affirmed by those who follow Christ. This is, as I understand it, the only conclusion anyone without undue prejudice could justify. This is a doctrinally safe yet excruciatingly important conclusion. As for you, dear brother, I ask you to reconsider. Have you misjudged the intent of the document? Have you used this call to battle to advance your - rather than His - kingdom? Has your role as doctrinal gatekeeper clouded your decision against this uncomplicated, direct and courageous stand against cultural depravity?

Bob,

While I can certainly emphathize with your heartfelt grief over the state of the cultural "battlefront," as it is an ugly battlefront indeed in 2009, the most "excruciatingly important decision" believers can make today is that decision--the decision made by John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Alistair Begg, and others--to defend and stand for the Truth when IT is actually at the forefront of Satan's opposition to Christ--above and beyond all of the other evils he coordinates in our society today. This is not merely "doctrinal parsing," as you've called it, but rather it (a commitment to theTruth) is at the epicenter of any remaining good that is or will remain on the cultural battlefront you describe so accuratelty. In other words, Satan's ultimate goal is to destroy clarity of the Truth in both society at large (which has been accomplished to some degree) and especially in the church (which is sadly being accomplished at an alarming rate) so that all of the lesser evils listed in the Manhattan Declaration can advance and flourish even further in years to come. In other words, if the success of this declaration results in the failure of preserving a clear, unpolluted understanding the Truth, then not only will such apparent victory in battling these societal ills be fleeting in the long run, but the very Gospel that defines our faith as Christians will have been ravaged in the process...by joining hands with those who reject it. We need to perceive the pragmatic "benefits" as the temptations they actually are--difficult, agonizing, and painful...temptations. Think of it this way: Satan himself could not be more pleased than watching that which he cares about and fears most--the War on the Truth that will one day cast him into an eternal hell--being set aside for the sake of temporal battles the church feels compelled to fight (for very good reasons, I might add).

Therefore, the church must not sacrafice the preciousness of Truth, of which we have we have been entrusted to protect and guard with our hearts, on the altar of pragmatism, however good that pragmatism might appear to be. Despite the innumerable manifestations of utter and tragic wickedness that all cultures have witnessed since the fall in the garden, through both man's sinfulness and the devil's temptations, Satan's primary interest is to destroy the Truth. Frankly, it is easy to stand for the Truth when attacks against it are as clear-cut and/or black and white as they have been in recent decades (e.g. when dealing with the cults or atheists), but when it is both extremely difficult and most vital is when the lines are as blurred as much as they are today--amidst the strong temptation to see justice come to pass and so many societal wrongs made right. This is when our dependence upon the Lord is greatest, as we trust in all of the promises He gives us that His Truth will prevail over wickedness, not our declarations. However, where are we as a church when we abandon our commitment to that prevailing Truth by joining hands--or signatures--with those who reject it?

Could it be as simple as this? Leaders of the ilk of Dr MacArthur should never sign such a statement. An unchurched, new believer reads, “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians. He could then easily (and logically) draw the conclusion that it matters not whether he joins the RCC or a Baptist Church - Are they not all one?
Yet again, Dr MacArthur has chosen the proper path.

Isaiah 55:9
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I am deeply bothered by Dr. MacArthur's quick decision to refrain from signing the Manhattan Declaration. First of all, he admits that he can agree with the document in its entirety, but would not sign it based on its lack of full gospel proclamation. Interestingly, in his explanation for not signing the MD, he did not himself present the gospel. The point is, if we stand opposed to any documents that don't explicitly state the gospel, we would need to stand opposed to many great and godly documents.

It is also shameful that so many Bible-believing Christians would rather inch away from others, assuming the inherent evil of "incrementalism," rather than find the things we can agree on (namely, the heart of the gospel) and work from there. Jesus said he came to divide based on the word of the truth, but that is his job, not ours. The arrogance of assuming the role of making divisions among people who claim the cross is surely disgusting to our Father. Dr. MacArthur is not immune from being wrong (though you would scarcely know it by reading the comments on this website, or going to The Master's College as I did), and here he is wrong.

I have deep misgivings about the historic doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, for example. However, if a Catholic person is willing to stand on what is true and good, such as the MD, it is sin and foolishness for me to deny that opportunity for fellowship, particularly when that person claims the salvation of Christ.

Lets stop looking for opportunities to divide, and instead look for opportunities to unite around Jesus and his work.