Do you believe that Rome proclaims a false gospel?

“It seems the controversy is not in the statement itself, but in the idea that it includes Catholics, Evangelicals, Anglicans, and Orthodox under the same banner and definition of “the gospel.”

This may be a testimony to my discernment skills, but when I read the Manhattan Declaration, my mind really didn’t go to the place where I thought that this was an attempt to redefine the gospel. I believe that when it comes to the gospel that many groups who fly the Christian banner have it wrong, but when it comes to the Manhattan Declaration and its statements on marriage, life, and religious liberty, I believe that the groups included have it right. When I signed the statement I did not feel that I was being strong armed into doctrinal compromise. After signing the statement I do not feel that I was duped into doing the same.

My prayer in all of this is that The Manhattan Declaration would accomplish what I believe it was intended to do, to make a strong statement from the Christian community to the culture. Furthermore, I pray it makes a strong statement to lawmakers and to our President that there are a significant number of voters in our Democracy who believe our leaders are headed down the wrong path on these issues. I could only hope that this controversy does not do what usually happens in Christendom, and this is we end up with 4, or 7, or 40 different documents that essentially say the same thing, but demonstrate that we have no sense of agreement or unity.

I signed the Manhattan Declaration. I believe that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. I believe that salvation is received by grace, through faith alone, in the risen Son of God. I also believe that when I signed the Manhattan Declaration I did not make a mistake.”

Thanks for the follow-up with me. Glad you appreciate my previous.

Church discipline is a local church matter. So, I don’t rally want to comment on that here. The Bible does, however, speak to the matter of separation for the sake of a pure church, i.e. body of believers.

IMO, the passages that come into play in regard to the actions of those believers who signed the MD would be 2 Thess. 3:6-15; Romans 16:17; Phil. 3:17-19. Now there is more to it than that, its needs to be a case by case application. Mohler’s signing the MD is not his first foray into this kind of compromise, which I document at my blog. For him we have one choice, “withdraw, mark and avoid.” Others may have been playing follow the leader. They saw some high-profile man sign it and thought “Well, if so-and-so signed it I surely can,” and may now think better of having signed on.

Hope this helps.

LM

PS to Kevin: FWIW I am a Michigan State Alumnus (1981). I was saved while at MSU. However, I’m still mad about the humiliation of last year’s NCAA Finals loss and again this year to UNC.

I believe you were spot on in your November 27th comment.

I agree that in the light of scripture professing evangelicals who signed TMD ought to be admonished and marked out per 2 Thess. 3:13-15 and 2 Cor. 6:14-18 because they have erred greatly. This is not a Romans 14 issue.

Based upon what I’m reading in the blogosphere and the discussion within my local church it’s clear that there are many who are in agreement with this position. This being the case in my view the next obvious step resulting from TMD is the question of applying proper church discipline to the rogue signers, whether they stand in the pulpit or sit in the pew.

In your opinion how should the process of church discipline begin? Since TMD is a very public document and the signers names and church/denominational affiliations are therefore very public should local bodies comb TMD for their pastors, elders, deacons, and members and bring forth formal charges?

I don’t believe this is a Matthew 18 issue because the sin isn’t private against a brother, but rather seems to require public admonishment, marking out, and rebuke.

I’ve not read about anybody else discussing the proper application of church discipline over TMD yet, but this is God’s prescribed way to maintain the purity of Christ’s church, and it’s not an option, but a commandment.

Your thoughts?

In Christ,
CD

I appreciate much of what you noted above. While signers, “may have ignorantly validated every RC Cardinal and Bishop into thinking he is a brother by signing it when they desperately need the Gospel,” we should remember that the RCC stills see non-Catholic signatories as objects for conversion to the RCC.

FWIW, much “more harm than good” came from the MD when men like Al Moher and Ligon Duncan signed on to it.

LM

CD is speaking for an overwhelming percentage of the reformed brethren who oppose the co-belligerency arguement. It simply doesn’t hold water. The Romanists are no less apostate than the Mormon’s or JW’s and if co-belligerency for the common morality is the purpose, again why weren’t they invited?
The reason…the primary drafter of the document Chuck Colson considers RC’s and EO’s brethern (read his book “The Body”) based on the creed’s and you may have ignorantly validated his belief by signing it. You may have ignorantly validated every RC Cardinal and Bishop into thinking he is a brother by signing it when they desperately need the Gospel.
What impact has this MD had on our leader’s in Washington? It appears little. See here – http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/14/the-manhattan-declaration-will-young-evangelicals-be-swayed/
What impact has it had on the brethren? It has been a stumbling block to many and has saddened many converts who have come out of the RCC.
Also, anyone who opposes the signing has been lowered to a judgemental, legalistic believer who doesn’t care about the moral issues.
Bottom line, MD has done more harm than good.

That’s an interesting response, but in the light of scripture it’s manifest that the Samaritan woman and the Athenians were idolators. As you know, human beings are hopeless idolators offering worship to demons apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

Mormons would also gladly affirm that they worship the “same Christ” as you and I worship, even as they look forward to the day they become “gods” themselves.

And not unlike the Christ of the LDS, the Christ of Romanism is unable to save completely – his sacrifice wasn’t efficacious to completely justify those who trust him, therefore the Romanist must be purified in purgatory in order to be prepared for heaven whereas the Mormon must be obedient to his works righteousness false religion with his “Jesus” picking up the tab after the faithful Mormon “has done all he can do”.

Again, not unlike Mormonism, Romanism is a different religion, with a different Christ, and another gospel.

With your indulgence (pun intended) may I ask you how blood-bought believers in the Lord Jesus Christ can attain to anything but a false, temporal, man-made “unity” with the enemies of the gospel of grace? In the light of scripture is this type of false unity with false professors desirable for the children of God under any circumstances? Indeed, what communion hath darkness with light?

In reflecting on this matter I found myself wondering, like many others, why for example no Latter-Day Saints or Watchtower representatives were invited to sign TMD.

Aren’t all the cults and false religionists equally threatened by the social evils described in TMD? And don’t the LDS and Watchtower Society claim to be “true Christians” and “true churches” as do the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches?

In light of this I wonder how you might have justified not signing The Manhattan Declaration had it been written as a joint declaration of co-belligerency between the Mormon and JW “churches” along with evangelicals. In your mind are Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy deemed as somehow less apostate and heretical than the cults of Christianity because they affirm some of the cardinal Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, and the inspiration of the scriptures? In your opinion is a faithful practicing Roman Catholic more truly “Christian” than a faithful practicing Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness? Why or why not?

In Christ,
CD

I think we agree in substance but are using the same words in different ways. Your friend is using worship to mean true worship. This is a fair use of the word because we are not really honoring God’s worth-ship if we worship him falsely. But you can also use the word more generally to describe acts of devotion done by a person to God. Jesus says to the Samaritan woman “you worship what you do not know” (John 4:22). Paul says the same thing to the men of Athens (Acts 17:23). We wouldn’t say, “But wait a minute Paul, they aren’t worshiping in the Spirit through Jesus Christ and they aren’t regenerate, so they aren’t really worshiping at all.” Your friend’s logic seems to be, they aren’t worshiping in spirit and truth, therefore they aren’t worshiping. I follow that on one level, but I think the Bible allows for using “worship” in a less restrictive I’m-affirming-your-conversion-with-this-word sort of way.

“Worship the same God” may not be the most helpful phrase because people can hear it in so many different ways. What I had in mind was the “yearbook test.” Muslims, or Jews I would say, don’t worship the same God because even if their understanding of God overlaps in some ways with ours, if we point to Christ and say, “This is the God I’m talking about.” The Muslim or Jew would say, “That’s not who I’m talking about.” So we are not worshiping the same God because we are not talking about the same God. But with RC/EO they would gladly say, when we point to Christ, “Yes, that’s the God I’m talking about. I worship the God revealed in him.” This doesn’t mean I agree with their gospel or think Trinitarian theology is all that is required to be a Christian. But it means we are both talking about the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.