Manhattan Declaration

[ReformedBaptist]

Dr Mohler gives reasons for his signing of declaration.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/

I am very surprised by that. But then again, I am not. I think Al will regret his decision someday.

And no, I would not sign this thing. Primarily because I avoid anything ecumenical. But secondarily because its another fad that will disappear in 6 months or so.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Nothing new under the sun...

I'm thinking we had this same discussion about 30 years ago when Jerry Falwell founded the 'Moral Majority' which provoked the same type of discussions- and this will probably produce the same type of temporary positive results.

 

[Jerome]

Deja vu?

New York Times, Jan. 30, 1981:

A four-day Bible conference organized by the television evangelist James Robison had hardly begun in Fort Worth when a prominent fundamentalist Baptist leader withdrew to avoid appearing with Phyllis Schlafly. But it was Mrs. Schlafly's religion, not her position as a leading opponent of the proposed equal rights amendmant, that Dr. Curtis Hutson found at fault.

Dr. Hutson, editor of the fundamentalist weekly Sword of the Lord, withdrew from the conference on Wednesday, saying he "cannot speak at a Bible conference with a Roman Catholic lady." He went on to say that "the Catholic church does not accept the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God."

Mrs. Schlaflly replied: "I do believe in the Bible, I do believe it is the inspired word of God. He doesn't understand what Catholics believe and he shows his own prejudices with his statements."

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Deja vu?

New York Times, Jan. 30, 1981:

I think the person at the Sword of the Lord is misunderstood or he himself hasn't really looked into papal dogma. Either way, he did the right thing is seaparting from that conference.

Yes the papacy believes the Bible is the Word of God. To them is a Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Yet the papacy equate biblical authority with their own, Sacred Tradition, and does err as the Jews did by putting men's doctrines over God's, and breaking the Law of GOd to keep their own traditions.

The bottom line is that the papacy is not religious organization that is preaching the biblical Gospel. Therefore, no true Christian should partake in their activities.

 

[Marcia]

The only arguments presented thus far against the Manhattan statement are ad hominem. My guess is that the same folks criticizing this statement would be its biggest supporters and calling those who disagreed with it all sorts of labels if it were being proposed only by an evangelical group.

Edit: By ad hominem, I'm referring to disagreeing with a statement because you disagree with something else about the person making the statement. It is pretty commonly practiced on BaptistBoard.

My argument against it was not ad hominem.

 

[Marcia]

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.

Working with others is one thing but signing a declaration for me is another. It is a commitment and it also sends a signal that I am on board theologically with the co-signers, assuming it is a statement that announces a spiritual view, which this does, because of the groups involve.

If the true Gospel is not the source of our works, then the works are in vain and will be burned up on judgment day. I am not sure that all the signers are on board with the Gospel I believe in, so I do not think that the works that come from this would necessarily honor God, no matter the intentions or the morals. Christianity is much more than mere moralism or fighting the perceived evils in society.

Christ also did not call us to rectify the social ills of the world, but to preach the gospel. I believe that this entails doing good works, but if preaching the gospel is not the priority, the works mean little. Uniting on doing works imo ignores the priority of preaching the gospel.

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.

I thought that saying the other view is "foolish" , which is essentially what seems to be implied here, did fall into an ad hominem category. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My argument against it was not ad hominem.

My apologies. Your argument was not ad hominem but I believe it is mistaken in how it interprets the sentence about "the highest ideals of their faith".

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

This sentence is not saying that the statement is trying to make a comprehensive list of all the highest ideals of the faith. It is saying that when Christians do live to the highest ideals of the faith, whatever those may be, the following things seem to occur: they defend the weak ....

And they do quickly specify who they are talking about in the statement...

..followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Their aim was not to define who that is which is obviously an area of debate. But I think this is a good one line summary of the gospel that evangelicals have no problem agreeing with.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Had some among my own people, the PB's, who think they will sign the Declaration, for pretty much the same reasons being given here by many.

Gave me time to say another reason I am not too keen on signing is because of the very reason that they are using the Name of the Lord and presenting themselves as champions of morality and values, forgetting that they cannot see into the future and one or some of them may fall into the temptations of the flesh, or a relative of theirs may go through the very thing they are saying they cannot condone BECAUSE of their spiritual values and their morals, and guess who gets the mud when that happens ?
Christ, the gospel, Christians and Christianity.

I think that is the very reason why so many people seem so alienated from the gospel, Christians, the church, and such, because of people who have displayed their Christianity and then fell and made laughingstocks of themselves among the "infidels" and the Name of the Lord along with themselves.

If they had left out the Name of the Lord and references to their Christianity and moral values and instead presented themselves as just simply decency loving, old fashioned folks (or such like) maybe it wouldn't be that hard to sign up alongside them.

My 2 cents.

 

[Revmitchell]

Failing to take a stand because of "possible" future failings is absurd.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Failing to take a stand because of "possible" future failings is absurd.

Maybe you're right.
But I'm basing that stupidity on past events that happened to people who had been very vocal about their "faith" and "morals" and then fell from their high horses with a loud thud.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Maybe you're right.
But I'm basing that stupidity on past events that happened to people who had been very vocal about their "faith" and "morals" and then fell from their high horses with a loud thud.

Then there's people like Dr. Falwell (and others) who lived a completely aboveboard life- at least by all outward standards.

 

[Revmitchell]

Maybe you're right.
But I'm basing that stupidity on past events that happened to people who had been very vocal about their "faith" and "morals" and then fell from their high horses with a loud thud.

Which has nothing to do with taking a stand on anything.

 

[SolaSaint]

Hi all,

I signed the declaration when it first came out and I have no regrets even after hearing all the opposition to it. I feel that I'm not endorsing the heretical beliefs of the RCC or any other false religion by signing a document that they have signed. I don't agree with the declaration's call to stand with these heretics, but I do believe in the causes they are fighting for, so I signed. My conscious drives me to support the unborn lives that are so senselessly snuffed out by our evil governmental policies. God knows where I stand concerning the truth of scripture and I can live with the knowledge that some think I'm wrong by signing this declaration.

 

[windcatcher]

Welcome to the BB, SolaSaint.

 

[billwald]

Frank Schaeffer on the Manhattan Dec

www.alternet.org/story/144263/chris...the_hate_spouted_by_right-wingers?page=entire

 

[preachinjesus]

Frank Schaffer sure ain't his dad's son in terms of profound thought. (As a note, I didn't care for the article and thought his point about the Manhatten Declaration was not stated well.)

 

[Johnv]

I concur with the wording of the declaration, and have no problem with it in and of itself.

What concerns me is the tendency of persons to form opinions of others based simply on whether they have signed a particular declaration, whether it's this or any other. I see no particular need to sign it myself. Neither will I think less of a person who declines to sign it, or more of a person who signs it.

 

[windcatcher]

www.alternet.org/story/144263/chris...the_hate_spouted_by_right-wingers?page=entire

Off topic:
Nothing here really addressing the Manhattan Declaration.
Off topic:
Nothing in the Manhattan Declaration which supports this persons view.

Frank Schaffer sure ain't his dad's son in terms of profound thought. (As a note, I didn't care for the article and thought his point about the Manhatten Declaration was not stated well.)

Not only was it not stated well..... the vitriol he tosses and the poor excuses he presents as evidence of "O" hatred and his arrogance in generalizing that all Christian 'rightest' pray the Psalmist's curse and depicting Christians as cowards in his title, displays the narrowness of his mind and a hatred in his own heart. Definitely not his father's son!

This is shocking to me, given that for much of my life I was not just the son of a famous evangelical leader (Francis Schaeffer -- "credited" by Max Blumenthal and others as a founder of the religious right) but for a time I was also his sidekick and a leader in the evangelical world in my own right. I quit over the slide of the religious right into extremism. That said I'm still a believing Christian (non-evangelical and progressive) and to see the name of Christ used to promote hate outrages me. To see the Bible used as a political bumper sticker source (for whatever "side") is an affront.

I perceive there's rebellion in his heart: But 'dad' is still the guy he uses to profit and draw attention that he might not get otherwise.

It is HE who should be ashamed!

 

[Aaron]

I signed it.