Manhattan Declaration

I'm not opposed to signing it. I might do that right now. Thanks for calling me to action on this.

 

Earlier my browser wouldn't open the signatures......

But it finally responded.... and one thing I'm encourage by..... the lack of signatures of Robert Schuller, Benny Hinn, John Hagee, J.D. Jakes, Rick Warren.
I would hope that each of these would endorse these values.... but I have serious concerns with their teachings. ... and don't listen to them unless I'm in the home of another who does.

What I've heard Michael Yousef quite a number of times (a Christian convert from islam) is encouraging and he's signed this. I don't agree with Dobson on everything, but I respect his witness and find his signature encouraging and consistant. Gary Bauer is on the list and is one person I recognize which doesn't persuade my confidence either way. The rest I don't know.

Today I heard an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, responding to a listener's call, state that a leading attorney with the ADF had signed the petition and was encouraging others to sign..... but he didn't have enough information to state a personal opinion for himself and it may be improper for the ADF to present a pov.

----------------------------
Thinking it out:

i think its very hard to assert our stands on issues and try to pressure society in areas of moral responsibility in which we have neglected in many ways; all the while society changed, the conduct within the body of Christ was changing and a permissive envirnoment presented as a backlash to legalism, and, as a body, we have failed to acknowledge and repent of our own fornications, and infidelity, our pleasure in sin (pornography), our addictions to drugs, our pleasure in entertainment.... movies, comedy, music, the arts, novels, soap operas, etc. ..... which present immoral content, vulgarty, and violence, and fill our minds with impure content while encouraging us to soften and sympathize with the (mostly) fictionalized characters entrapped in their 'human' condition.

In this respect I think like the ole farmer who warns 'don't get the cart before the horse.' I'm inclined to believe repentance must come before change.... And the modern american, even scriptually sound church... has much that we could and should acknowledge and repent of and depend on God to revive us again before we can impact society..... and that through a response or serious challenge of the gospel.

 

Would you have signed it if it were about Jews and Christians crying out against Hitler?

 

We are engaged in a war with a dark evil~I'll take conservative Catholics & Lutherans & Eastern Orthodox as comrade-in-arms over moderate Baptists with "proper theology" any day.

 

==Would I team up with unbelievers? No. They can oppose evil in their way and I will oppose it in my way. But I can't join in with them. The church's primary mission is the Gospel. If I have to compromise the Gospel to be a part of a group I will not join that group. Period. No matter how noble/just I think their cause is. As I said, I agree with the positions in the Manhattan Declaration. However I cannot sign it because I do not believe that I can call faithful Catholics, and others of goodwill, "Christians". To sign that document is to agree that people who do not believe the Biblical Gospel are Christians. I cannot do that. Catholics and "people of goodwill" need to have the Gospel preached to them. They do not need us setting aside the Gospel to help them in social/political causes.

 

At least you're consistent. :thumbs:

 

This is where we simply disagree.

I am frequently working with my brothers and sisters in Christ who are both Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, etc.

There are definitely certain theological beliefs that we disagree over, but there is so much more we can accomplish together than sitting in our entrenched positions, lobbying grenades at each other.

That is not an ad hominem. Learn what an ad hominem is please.

To be an ad hominem it would like: John MacArthus is so stupid for not signing this. It is probably because he doesn't have a brain and wears glasses.

That is an ad hominem and it has no place in a debate (even though it is used at some point in every thread around here.) Saying that we are returning to being foolish with our people is an observation that, while pointed, does not begin to fall into the category of ad hominem.

 

The purpose of the declaration is not the words of the Gospel. It is about the implications of the Gospel ["Living the Bible is not always easy but it is always the right thing to do"] and SPEAKING UP for those who can not like the poor, the weak, the unborn child.

It is pathetic that Christians can be so ignorant of Christ that they make a fight out of anything that does not tweak their prejudices.

As the saying goes, we can hang together or we can hang seperately.

 

I just completely disagree with this statement.

Here you're being dramatic and overly sensitive. While the Gospel is at the core

Again this document doesn't attempt to do that, rather it moves away from those things that we simply disagree over and moves us to action. We aren't going to be teaching Sunday School in our churches, but will be taking a stand for God in the midst of a culture that is at the brink.

Well I hope that drawing his line and standing behind it will allow the rest of Christendom to move forward and see change happen.

In Acts 6 was the point of the service the Gospel? No it was serving the widows.

While the hope of the Gospel is the salvation of Jesus Christ, and through this we have new life, it isn't realistic to say everything is about the Gospel. Driving to the bank isn't about the Gospel, paying my bills isn't about the Gospel, taking out the trash isn't about the Gospel, having my children do well in school isn't about the Gospel. Saying that everything is about the Gospel isn't realistic imho.

While I don't deny the efficacy of the Gospel I will say that at some points we have to realize that it isn't realistic to say that everything rises and falls on it.

 

One thing that this does bring up is understanding the difference between primary and secondary separation.

Primary separation suggests that we are not to partner with non-Christians to accomplish the Gospel.

Secondary separation suggests that we are not to partner with both non-Christians and unorthodox (notice the "o" not "O") Christians.

Honestly I don't buy secondary separation, never have. I do happen to agree with primary separation and that is why I don't work with Muslims, Hindi, etc.

I honestly do see Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox etc as my brothers and sisters in Christ. We disagree over doctrinal issues, but I think there is a broader point about unity in Christ.

 

==The problem is that when you hold hands with those who deny the Biblical Gospel you are (a) not fulfilling the Great Commission (b) telling the world that the Gospel is secondary and (c) not living the Bible (Gal 1:6-10). I can agree to disagree on many things, but the Gospel is not one of them.

==I am not making "a fight out of anything", I am refusing to sign the document because it compromises the Gospel. The Gospel is the most important issue in all of eternity. If that is a prejudice, then it is one I am happy to have.

==I refuse to "hang" with those who deny the Biblical Gospel. Regardless of how much I agree with them on other issues.

 

==No, I'm being honest about the way I see this. The Gospel is not at the core of the Manhattan Declaration. The Declaration is a political/social document that compromises the Gospel by calling people who deny the Gospel Christians. That I cannot do. As I said, the Reformation is not over.

==I cannot move "away from those things that we simply disagree over" when the main point of disagreement is the Gospel itself. This is not a secondary issue, this is the main issue. This is no simple disagreement. This is a disagreement about the most important issue in eternity. I can no more compromise with the Catholic Church today then Martin Luther could in his day. In a way, your statement has proved my point.

==Taking a stand for God in what way? I don't see the Apostles or Jesus "confronting the culture" by setting the Gospel aside ("things that we simply disagree over"). When we compromise the Gospel we have ceased to stand for God.

==That has already happened (imo). The "rest of Christendom" has already moved away from the Gospel into the arena of compromise with the world. Whether it is James Dobson hosting Dr. Laura on his show (back in the 90s), Southern Evangelical Seminary hosting Roman Catholic scholars at a Christian Apologetics conference, or Joel Osteen promoting his self-help "gospel". Christendom is marching away from the most important message of all eternity as fast as it can. As for me, and many other sticks in the mud, I refuse to go along with it. I have to stick with Scripture and the Gospel. I cannot, and I will not, compromise in any way. Period. Men like Colson, Dobson, and others will have to answer to God for their choices. I do not doubt their salvation, nor do I doubt their honesty, I do however doubt their judgment on this issue. I'm not their judge. I can only speak for my own conscious on the matter.

==I don't see the connection. Acts 6 deals with the Apostolistic Church. We do not see the church of Acts 6 holding hands with heretics. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Maybe I need to be very direct? I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian Church. I view it in the same way I view the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. It is a heretical organization that denies the Biblical Gospel and therefore sends people to hell. I cannot, and I will not, compromise with such an organization for any reason.

==I am talking about the church and our Christian witness. It harms the cause of the Kingdom when we join hands with people who deny the Gospel. It simply sends the wrong message to the world and creates dangerous confusion.

 

God told Israel to give in to Babylon, to allow Babylon to capture them, and that is because when it comes to His people, He knows what is best for them, and there is no power on earth, Socialism, Communism, or Demorcracy, strong enough to go against what God does for His people.
In other words, through Jeremiah, His message was TRUST ME, not Egypt, not anyone else.
God HAS NOT CHANGED, and His thoughts are ever with His people, wheher they are under Communist China, Socialist Australia, or Demorcratic America.
I join those who refuse to display mistrust and no confidence in God by signing a declaration with Mary worshippers and others of the like.

 

==Helping the needy is not the same as willingly joining together with unbelievers for a cause.

 

That's some of why my Mennonite friends are not in the military nor involved in government...

 

Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration --James White
White takes umbrage at the embrace of Martin Luther King.

 

Like it or not, we have relationships and alliances with unbelievers and folks whos beliefs don't fit our idea of doctrine soundness... However, whether it is friendship, next door neighbor, the mechanic who fixes our car, the boss over us or an employee under our supervision... our relationship isn't built upon a unity of doctrine or identification in faith in all cases.... but has strengths or weaknesses dependant on shared values.

I think I could have signed and identified with the values promoted by this document, if it had not eucameninized ( is there such a word?) the foundation of this document with such emphasis that it makes appear that all divisions of the church are equally based on the truth and sound doctrine... when clearly there are differences.... a few mild enough to have little or no eternal impact.... but some so serious that it compromises the grace or the authority of God and are obviously in error.

As I've alluded to before, the strongest foundation for these values is the support of the Bible esteemed as the Word of God by those of Christian faith. Although these values may be supported by debate from other religious beliefs or from philosophical and socialogical data...... the mercurial level of receiving this information as valid or authoritative or definitive is the loose cannon in control of society and its reception or veto of such evidence and debate.

If these values stood alone.... I could with good conscience endorse them as I would not be endorsing those doctrines which I feel and think are filled with error. But the appearance of equality with doctrines which I strongly disagree and may mislead others.... has me questioning and deciding not to join in agreement. This decision is still ammendable by the holy spirit, should he so lead.... but I sense comfort in the present that it is the right decision for me.

I've read the statements of both Mac Author and Mohler, and considered them well thought out and well presented each with strong and valid points. I don't consider this a contest of who is right and who is wrong. It is in the area of individual conscience and personal persuasion, as I see it. I would welcome an opportunity to endorse these values if I felt a certainty I wasn't endorseing the false doctrine of another'

As for the relevance of MLK ......it is immaterial to me... There's much unreconcilable differences and debates surrounding him and the rumours which surround his life and death and I've read what purports to be facts as diliberate propaganda planted to discredit him that I find no entertainment of arguements or example including him in this matter....... after all, what ever the position or persuasion of others.... he is dead.