Shepherds' Fellowship

The Manhattan Declaration is another document that "sounds" good on the surface but it doesn't hold to sound biblical examination. In our post-modern world tolerance is valued above all things and sound biblical doctrine is asked to take the back seat. The emerging church movement has helped to promote this. The teaching of Jude is just as revelant today as it was 10 years ago. Thanks for taking the stand.

Thanks be to our LORD for His ALL Sufficent Word and for His Spirit's power - and for faithful under-shepherds/Elders.

God bless these four and John MacArthur for their stand on Gods Word.

As a former Roman Catholic sovereignly drawn in adulthood from the clutches of Satan to the hands of the Lord Jesus, from whose grasp no one can ever snatch me, I thank God for the bold, uncompromising stand that these great men have taken! I have thought that perhaps these issues weigh heavier on me because I am a first-generation Evangelical who traversed the entire journey from Rome to Home, following in the Reformers' valiant footsteps. I have knelt at the idolatrous altars of the papists--I've seen it and been involved intimately, so perhaps I'm like an alcoholic who cringes esxcessively at the smell and presence of liquor, more so than those who have never been enslaved by it.

That may be true, but you don't need to have been in a dungeon to realize that it's not a good place to be--especially when the Word of God is so crystal-clear about this subject! I don't need to go to hell to realize that it's a very horrible, painful, grievous place! I may not have experienced it first-hand, but I'll be more than happy to take the Lord's word for it, thank you very much--and His word is as explicit as language can be about that terrible place! It's also explicit and clear about the level and type of interaction Evangelicals are allowed to have with the purveyors of a false and soul-damning gospel. How sad that so many otherwise fine men and women would put their names to this abominable harlotry with the Whore of Babylon!

Beloved George,

Soli Deo Gloria! Our LORD has snatched you - as he did all of us - our of the flames of Hell itself; but in a more special and dramatic way than most ever experience or even consider.

YOUR testimony needs to be heard by those who signed as evangelicals....

We have a responsibility for those in the damning herecy that is sudo-"christianity".

What really opend my eyes was an episode of The Way of the Master which dealt with Mormonism - a lady was never presented the Gospel; because "she looked happy and content in her religion"!!!
That is RIGHT - they evangelicals she daily encountered in her damnati9on gave her this self-centred excuse for leaving her in the way of destruction... NICE?

I would love to hear a response by true evangelicals to your testimony as it relates to the MD...
AND I WOULD CALL FOR A COUNTER DOCUMENT by those of a REFORMED Evangelical persuasion - just to clarify what TRUE CHRISTIANITY affirms as the Fundemantals of OUR UNITY and that we stand with the CLEAR PRINCIPLES of SOLA SCRIPTURA on all moral and social issues - but that our MAIN CONCERN IS FOR THE ETERNAL WELFARE OF Souls that are self damned by FAILING in the moral LAW WRITTEN on all Natural MAN's Hearts...
Come on fella's T4G - IF EVER T4G or Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals had an opportunity from our LORD's Providence to speak loud and clear it is in response to MD.

Your fellow bondlsave for the Hope set before us, in the merit and works of Christ Jesus Alone,
W

I am grateful for the clear, biblical thinking that is reflected in the positions these men have taken. I am personally disappointed in the judgement of those who signed the document, although I have read their rationales. As I read the comments by the signatories, they seem to fall into one of two camps (1) "We need the numbers so sign up now!" (Colson with his muddled up ECT-bound inclusivist pragmatism) and/or (2) "It's not a theological document, so it's not a problem that we sign" (most of the conservative signatories incl. Lig Duncan and Al Mohler).

At the end of the day, I remain completely unmoved in my stance that it is wrong (not just ill advised) to sign this document because it is disingenuous (either we pretend the readers don't really know how to recognize a true Christian or they don't care...in either event, the "we" language is unmistakable and ultimately disingenuous).

I would respectfully recommend Dr. David Doran's excellent recent posts on this subject as well. they are insightful and solidly biblical.

http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=209

http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=204

http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=193

http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=190

and others at http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu

Pastor James White with further clarification:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3669

comment was removed by user

I am perplexed by the confusion of doctrinal/denominational pride for Christian principle. If our adherance to religious principle on matters of soterology, christology, theology, etc. disables us from joining in common cause on earthly matters for the common good, we've fallen into an unholy pietistic trap.

The Manhattan Declaration draws a line in the sand on common agreement on sanctity of life, marriage and the freedom of religious conscience. In standing back from signing based upon a holier than thou posture of evangelistic purity, we have disengaged ourselves from setting a standard for fear of tarnishing our particular doctrine through association.

I wonder where we would be had the Catholics of Maryland, the Congregationalists of Massachusetts, the Quakers of Pennsylvania and the Anglicans of Virginia had refused to sign a similar document of civil disobedience on July 4, 1776! I suppose those who would now refuse to sign the Manhattan Declaration of Christian Conscience would prefer that we would have continued to live as doctrinally divided colonies of the Crown! Might I remind you that 27 of the 56 signators of that Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers of diverse denominations. This was back in a day, when denominations were more than theoretical divisions, but were so deeply integrated within the civil order that in Virginia, your taxes were paid through your Anglican church membership. Itinerant Baptist preachers were jailed as civil insurrectionists!

Even in the service of proclaiming the gospel, if we choose to withdraw from the common cause than who will hear us? It is good to participate in the political process. It is more than our civic duty, it is our Biblical mandate. If in Ceaser's day we were to render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, in our day we are bound to advocate for moral positions and join with those who agree with us on a particular issue, even if we might differ in our worship culture or church doctrine. Unless people know that we care they do not care what we know! In standing for marriage and life, we are positioning ourselves to proclaim the gospel for those who ask us in our present world, what is the basis for our hope? and why bother standing against the popular tolerance trends of our time?

Is there a risk of mistaken identity and even humanistic influence? Of course there is the risk. If we walk in the world we're going to get dusty feet. Perhaps that is why Christ instituted foot washing in the upper room. We wash each other feet and confess to one another in order to strengthen our fellowship.


How can a Christian of such evangelistic perspicuity ever join a political party or support a particular candidate for public office. I can only hope that these individuals are on a specific evangelistic calling in which the Holy Spirit has instructed them to stand apart from others who would stand for practical issues of common value.

It is due to our doctrinal divisions that the American Protestant Movement and even the Evangelical Movement has proven ineffective not only in proclaiming the gospel, but in standing together on non-ecclesiologic, civil matters. It is to our shame that the Mormons carried the standard in defeating same sex marriage through Proposition 8 in California and the Catholic Church is more consistently identified with the right to life issue than Evangelicals.

I am thankful that it is not our doctrine which saves us, but we are saved by God's grace in the completed work of Christ. I would like to say that we may be too heavenly minded in refusing to sign a document with heretics or apostates; however, doctrinal divisions are not the province of heaven but of academic theologians creating their personal distinctions at the expense of the common good and perhaps even at a cost to the Kingdom of God.

The Declaration of Independence was not predicated upon an agreement to a common gospel message. So to equate that document to the MD is an apples to oranges comparison. The framers of the Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment avoided defining a common denominator of the various sects present in America that were roughly associated with Christianity, much less assuming a common understanding of what constitutes salvation (i.e. the gospel). The MD assumes there is a common understanding of these matters and that is where it faulters.

Furthermore, the Establishment Clause did not prevent states from maintaining their own sectarian establishments. Massachussets, Connecticut and New Hampshire all maintained Congregational establishments in their constitutions until the early 19th century. These states would have never ratified the Consitituion if they thought their established churches would be deemed unconstitutional. The Establishment Clause applied to the federal government not state governments. There was a fair degree of division among the framers regarding federal versus state's rights. In subsequent American history, federal power has eclipsed state power as we move further and further away from our republican ideals. Even the Federalists would be appalled at the assumption of power that the federal government today was never granted.

After reading the Manhattan Declaration, I believe it may have the same effect as The Manhattan Project of the 1940's by producing an atomic blast on Christian faith. Anytime born-again Christians link arms with unregenerate professing Christians, even for moral purposes, they are impeding the Great Commission. The fallout from Chuck Colson's previous attempts to reverse the Reformation has been devastating to the evangelical church. He has persuaded many evangelical leaders to embrace Roman Catholicism as a valid expression of authentic Christianity.

The implication throughout the document is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Evangelicals share a common faith. There is nothing that could be further from the truth. Evangelicals and Catholics submit to different authorities, read different Bibles, worship a different Jesus, believe a different Gospel, have a different view of sin and are on a different path to eternity. Furthermore we disagree on the necessity, sufficiency and efficacy of our Lord Jesus Christ in the salvation of sinners. There can never be unity between true Christianity and apostate or counterfeit Christianity. Believers and unbelievers are as distinctively different as light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14-18). Have we forgotten the Reformers who were tortured and burned at the stake for refusing to re-unite with the RCC? It was the Apostle Paul’s great fear that believers would put up with counterfeit Christians who preach another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor. 11:4). He warned us that these false apostles and deceitful workers, who disguise themselves as brothers in Christ, could corrupt our minds and lead us astray (2 Cor. 11:13). In these times of great deception and compromise we must heed his warnings. People who preach another gospel are not Christians; they have betrayed Christ. The true church ought to lovingly oppose such persons and declare that they are bringing shame and dishonor to the name of Jesus.

Although it is good to unite as co-belligerents with one voice to fight moral and political issues, any accord that attempts to overlook, dismiss, nullify or compromise the Gospel is antithetical to the command for all Christians to earnestly contend for the faith. We can never deny the profound importance of protecting the life of every baby and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and we must earnestly contend against those who seek to destroy both (Jude 3). However, we must remember that this is a spiritual battle which can only be won through fervent prayer and the proclamation of the true Gospel, a Gospel that is denied by every Catholic priest when he offers the Eucharistic Christ upon his altar for the forgiveness of sins. If Evangelicals must put their names on accords, why not remain sanctified and set apart by drafting our own accords? We can start by declaring our unity was established when the Holy Spirit baptized us into one Body upon believing the one and only Gospel of grace (1 Cor. 12:13).

Throughout the history of the church Satan has unleashed his fiery darts against the Christian faith. His darts reach their targets and do most harml when God's children are willing to compromise the truth of the Gospel. Charles Spurgeon said, "To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus." Since we have been sanctified by the truth, we must remain separate for God's glory and purpose.