Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google “Famous Rapture Watchers”), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if John has a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if he wants to have “security” for his retirement years and hopes that the big California quake won’t louse up his plans, he has a decided conflict of interest. Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters – who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don’t dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don’t you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you’re mulling all this over, Google “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 180-year-old fantasy.

Here are some excerpts, but do read the entire article:

“I realized as well that the Declaration, while implying that the signers may agree on the nature and meaning of the gospel, does not define the gospel in any way that I find objectionable, i.e. by signing I was not affirming any heterodox, unbiblical view of the gospel. My signature – and this is important – signals my agreement with the Declaration as it explicitly and specifically stands, and nothing more.

To critics of the Declaration who say that it implies agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say that such implication is possible but certainly not necessary. To critics of the Declaration who say that it commits the signers to agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say strongly, “No, it does not.” I disagree with official Catholic and Orthodox understandings of the gospel, and embrace wholeheartedly our Protestant Reformation theology, grounded in the Scriptures and summarized most beautifully and convincingly in the Westminster Standards. The Declaration not only does not in any way violate those Standards, but in fact flows from them.”

I heartily commend Dr. Nielson’s thoughtful article.

We are witnessing an on-going proclivity among some Baptist pastors to give the conservative evangelicals the benefit of the doubt, if not an outright pass, for almost every indiscretion among them. 

 Indiscretions, such as:

*John Piper hosting a RAP artist in his church and his affinity for the Toronto Blessing.

*John MacArthur’s Resolved (Youth) Conference that features the Rock music genre.

*C. J. Mahaney and Piper’s promotion of the Charismatic sign gifts.

*Mark Driscoll for “corrupt communication” and his numerous disturbing actions, including speaking at Robert Schuler’s Crystal Cathedral.

*Al Mohler sitting as chair for the Billy Graham crusade, honoring a rank liberal (Duke McCall) and signing the Manhattan Declaration.



The latest indiscretion, of course, being the signing of the Manhattan Declaration (MD).

Al Mohler signing the MD gave, as Dave Doran noted at his blog,

“Christian recognition to people without a credible profession of the gospel.”

To pass this action by Mohler in particular off as merely “bad judgment,” which Doran contends, is to ignore and sidestep the obvious “biblical obligations” toward what has been done by these signatories to the MD.

When are men like Dave Doran who claim to be biblical separatists going to give the Lord and His Word first benefit of the doubt instead of the conservative evangelicals who make these compromises and show no sign of retreating from doing those things?

These things with the conservative evangelicals are not grey areas. We must arrive at our response to the actions of men like Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan from the starting point of what does the Bible mandate for me, not what is in the best interest of keeping my friends and/or fellowships.

LM

“There have also been several prominent voices, such as Alistair Begg, John MacArthur, Mike Horton, James White (here, here and here), Tim Challies, Dave Doran, and John Stackhouse who have conscientiously raised objections to the nature of the document. It is also interesting to note that R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Mark Dever, and Mark Driscoll did not sign.”

i.e: “Our heroes” are divided. Uh oh… we might actually have to start thinking for ourselves ; )
-Eric

I believe that in light of question 14, the language of “stand along side” can only be viewed as an invitation to agree unofficially. It certainly cannot be understood as an invitation to sign the declaration. Consider #14 on the FAQ:

Q: Why did you see a need now to organize on these issues when people of faith have been expressing concern about them for decades?

A:”In some respects these issues have reached a critical tipping point. Many of us believe that it is time for “the church” to take a united stand, to speak with one voice. With respect to all three of the issues addressed in the Declaration, important decisions are being made now or will be made soon. For the sake of fundamental justice and the common good, it is important that the right decisions be made.

Hope this helps!

Very helpful and informative.

You wrote:

“Now, consider this together with the fact that Colson would not allow Jews and Muslim’s to sign…”

However the FAQ on the MD website has:

“So the signatories are happy to stand alongside our LDS brothers and sisters who have worked so heroically in the cause of defending marriage, our Jewish brothers and sisters, members of other faiths, and people of no particular faith (even pro-life atheists such as the great Nat Hentoff), who affirm our principles and wish to join us in proclaiming and defending them.” (http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/faqs)

Can you point me to where Colson discusses the document being off-limits to sign for Jews and Muslims? Or is the FAQ avoiding that by saying “stand alongside”?

As a side note, I wouldn’t want to put my name to anything that would align me as a spiritual brother (though not in the actual document, but through an official statement by the associated organization) of those synagogues of Satan.

Timothy

Incidentally, the idea of “shadow-boxing against distractions while the Real Enemy delivers an uppercut knockout” goes back a 100 years or more when (some/many) Protestants were neurotically obsessed with fighting 16th century Catholicism while the more deadly enemy of Higher Criticism was making inroads into the Christian universities.

By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin

Monday, December 07, 2009

Same-sex marriage proponents are threatening to cause disruptions in the diocese of every bishop who signed the Manhattan Declaration, a statement calling on Christians to stand up for their belief in the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty.

A post appearing on GayBuzz.blogspot on Nov. 28 calls upon gay activists to punish Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of the Catholic Diocese of Oakland, Ca., for signing the declaration.

“It is time we let Bishop Cordileone know there are consequences for his actions,” the blogger states. “Is anyone up for a rally in front of the Oakland Diocese or a disruption of services? Let me know and I’m happy to help organize.”

After listing an address where people could write to the bishop, the blogger goes on to say: “By the way, here are the other Catholic cardinals and bishops who signed the Manhattan Declaration.” Listed are the names of the 17 bishops who signed the Declaration to date.

The blogger goes on to cite Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate who refers to the 152 framers of the document as “zealots” who “drafted, approved and signed their Declaration of War on full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans last week. They threw in some other societal beefs, just to try and mask the overriding issue, their fervent opposition to same-sex marriage.”

From here.

No offense, but I respectfully decline to be addressed personally. I hope you’ll be charitable about that.

“I humbly disagree with my friend James Grants’ arguments. I would be glad to engage with him on them, but am not interested in picking a fight, so to speak.”

A disagreement need not necessarily be construed as being “interested in picking a fight.” Although, if not careful, a vigorous disagreement can certainly strain a relationship that’s not accustomed to vigorous disagreement.

“… I believe that the way he used the term “catholic” in his post can only be conceived of in relation to the invisible church, and not necessarily to all visible organization that go by the name “Christian” that have established doctrinal positions.”

I am sure that’s what he means.

(Can I kindly ask for your name so that I may address you personally?

I agree with much of the assessment by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon mentioned above. I do not agree with MacArthur on this, except as he is safegaurding the “spirituality doctrine of the church.” I like to make a distinction between Christians as individuals, or members of groups, and Christians as the visible church.

As far as the prophets are concerned, there is a redemptive-historical nature to their proclamations. They are not simply proclaiming judgment on wicked nations as some have indicated. The absence of any explicit reference to”Good news” in the Scriptural record of Jonah does not necessarily mean that there was no “Good news” proclaimed together with the judgment. In fact, I think that it could be argued theologically that there must have been. Good and necessary consequence would be a legitimate hermeneutical principle in this case. This is another subject altogether though.

We must remember that there was one visible church (Israel) in the OT of which all those prophets were a part. There is not one visible church now, unless you concede the mistaken belief of Roman Catholics.In fact, Protestants have historically said that Rome is not a true church.

I humbly disagree with my friend James Grants’ arguments. I would be glad to engage with him on them, but am not interested in picking a fight, so to speak. I respect James and am thankful for so much of what he says, but I believe that the way he used the term “catholic” in his post can only be conceived of in relation to the invisible church, and not necessarily to all visible organization that go by the name “Christian” that have established doctrinal positions. That is the point I wish to make.

Respectfully, these objections to the Manhattan Declaration (including its rhetoric) could easily have been made against any one—and perhaps all—of the biblical prophets. Our modest Declaration, as a statement of social concern, invites the endorsement of Christians who share that concern. The matter is truly as plain as that.”

James Grant: “I disagree with what I would consider a sectarian view of Christianity that would require me to never agree on these issues with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I had no problem signing it. I would encourage you to to read it and sign it as well.”

Excellent post! My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and appreciate your care for the gospel.

I thought it was exceptionally well written, too.

I agree with and appreciate much of your article here. You do reference J. I. Packer, Chuck Colson and Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

I’d like to share a brief except from a pamphlet by the late *Dr. Ernest Pickering.

“In recent years Romans Catholics and evangelicals have made common cause in the political arena, uniting forces in struggles over the abortion issue, homosexuality, etc. These joint efforts have brought together leaders from both sides who had never worked together previously. Personal friendships have been formed, and, as a result, serious doctrinal differences have begun to be down-played. Since there is agreement on some social issues, and since these issues are so important in the life of America today, many leaders on both sides are willing to minimize doctrinal conflicts on the plea that we need to cooperate in ‘saving America’.” (Holding Hands with the Pope: The Current Ecumenical Evangelical Craze

This excerpt, which was in response to Chuck Colson’s Evangelicals and Catholics Together (E&CT), is IMO just as applicable to The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) as it was in 1994 to E&CT. TMD is the first cousin of E&CT and was likely crafted to in part reinvigorate the raw ecumenism of E&CT under more subtle terms, i.e., a Trojan horse for full-blown ecumenism.

I’d be surprised if men like Al Mohler did not recognize the stark similarity of TMD to E&CT before he signed the Manhattan Declaration.

Kind regards,

LM

*Dr. Pickering is author of, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church and The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism.

A friend pointed out Colson’s language in this post.

“I believe the Manhattan Declaration can help revitalize the church in America. One great weakness of the Church today is its biblical and doctrinal ignorance. This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.”

That’s as clear a statement of authorial intent as I have found.

Your reason for not signing essentially line up with mine. Those phrases speaking of the Gospel and being united in the MD mean something. If they have such loose definitions that we can define them according to our preferences, then is there really any agreement upon with to stand?

Anyway…thanks.

I deeply appreciate your gracious responses.

Pax in Christ Alone,

Truth Unites… and Divides