Comments on: The Manhattan Declaration

By: Fluency » The Manhattan Declaration

Fluency » The Manhattan Declaration — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:04:17 +0000

[...] who have not signed John MacArthur R.C. Sproul Alistair Begg Michael [...]

By: It’s Already Old News! « Theology Central

It’s Already Old News! « Theology Central — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:48:39 +0000

[...] one thing, it’s still a topic of great conversation on some of the blogs. See Alister Begg’s reason for not signing it released on Monday. So it seems that it is not too late to have a [...]

By: Alberto

Alberto — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:21:53 +0000

I am extremely happy you did not sign this document Mr. Begg, but I do have one point of critical disagreement. You stated that perhaps evangelicals should have presented a document with similar concerns on their own; well I ask, why should we present a document in the first place? I think that it would be more advantageous for Christians to engage the political realm not as churchmen or citizens of a heavenly kingdom, but as citizens of an earthly and secular kingdom. We should argue and engage with the secular culture on the basis of natural revelation and take advantage of not simply what God has revealed in Scripture, but also what he has revealed in creation. I am persuaded that such an approach can help prevent the type of error in the Manhattan Declaration and help keep our religious commitments distinct and not muddled or diminished.

By: Lloyd-Jones and the Manhattan Declaration « Seek the Holy

Lloyd-Jones and the Manhattan Declaration « Seek the Holy — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:20:39 +0000

[...] while reading D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ book Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. Given all the discussion recently about the Manhattan Declaration, I thought this a timely word: We are all talking about [...]

By: James Ralston

James Ralston — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:12:35 +0000

Standing together with others,that we don't agree with on doctrinal issues, doesn't mean that when we sign a statement along with them ,we condone them or give credence to there belief. This declaration whose three fold statement life, marriage,religious freedom -we implore and stand for,is the real issue. I signed this document because of it's worthy content. If you draw the conclusion that I and Roman Catholics now concur because we agree on this statement then you have made and invalid assumption. We differ, and that hasn't changed. We unite in proclamation of these truths, that's good. Let's unite our voices to preserve these institutions, that what's important-not our differences.

By: Reggie

Reggie — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:09:11 +0000

Hello, I really enjoy your work. Please check out some of my blogs at http://reginaldbejr.blogspot.com/

By: Bryan G. Zacharias

Bryan G. Zacharias — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:28:55 +0000

Dear Alistair: Well--have you ever seen the film, quite old now, of Georges Bernanos' book Diary of a Country Priest? As I recall, the little priest, as he lays dying, whispers "everything is grace". There is sola gratia. I studied with Dr. Packer some years ago at Regent College, and he said something once, along the lines of "I can work with anyone on the basis of the Creed." Dr. Packer isn't God; but illustrious as the members of The Gospel Coalition may be, would any of us argue that there is another living pastor, theologian, or human being who has been more instrumental in passing on the Gospel, including in its "Reformed and evangelical" distinctives? Packer is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration, and I know you do not think him a heretic. Nor Tim Keller, nor Al Mohler. I believe Packer has said that God justifies; and it is right and proper to articulate the way He justifies as accurately as we can, in reference to how the doctrine is stated in Scripture. But as important as that is, it is not our articulation, or even our understanding, that saves us. It is God who saves us. Questions of ecclesiology and sacramentalism come in here, obviously. But from what I can gather in the current situation, and the dialog going on, the encounter of evangelicalism with Rome, say-- there seems to be a far greater recognition of Christ as the source of everything. So that even the "machineries" of church and liturgy are seen not as salvific in themselves, but only because they participate in the work Christ has already done completely. Isn't this seen, for instance, in the fact that Catholic teaching recognizes that where communion or baptism is unavailable, the grace of Christ reaches the needy soul? I'm not defending the whole package by any stretch. But I am convinced, and I'm sure you would agree, that there are Catholics, and Orthodox, who worship the Trinity, who understand that Christ is the One and Only Saviour, full stop. Despite some of the "baggage." If Christ is the Centre, and the baggage is baggage, well, isn't it possible that co-belligerency may take on a different hue? You may recall Richard Wurmbrand: Tortured For Christ? The Romanian pastor who was brutalized under the Communists? His chronicle of suffering in the persecuted church included his account, as a Baptist, of what happened among confessing Christians--Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, in prison together under the heel of genocidal atheism. It was as though the differences burned away, and Christ remained. Where that is true, the Gospel is all you've got, isn't it? And that seems to be what is developing in the culture, as hostility to God grows. Interesting dialog. You already know, by the way, that Rome at this moment is far closer to what Luther wanted to achieve initally, than many of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches are that came out of the Reformation historically. Many of those churches are outright heretical now. Remember what J. Gresham Machen said, even in the 1920's and 30's, when comparing evangelical belief to Liberalism and Catholicism..... God Bless you in every way! :-) Bryan Zacharias