To Sign Or Not To Sign

If the pope signed we should not. But the Catholic signers have been disagreeing with the pope as far as I have seen. And the Anglicans on this list are practically in revolt over the authority of Scripture and the nature of the gospel, and are likely to take over the Anglican communion over the Episcopalian ordination of openly homosexual bishops. Perhaps in your example for Matt there is a little more distinct difference than in what we actually have in the original signers of MD.
What say we put this to the test. I think you agreed that we need a similar declaration with a clear definition of the gospel, which conservative Baptists can sign. Lets do that and see if those of other communions will sign that. If they won't, we still have one we can all sign, which commits us to stand together when this government does come for one or more of us, instead of leaving the persecuted to hang alone like our churches did to Flip Benham when he was jailed in Virginia for 60 days for preaching the gospel on a public sidewalk.
On a lighter note, I'm glad you did not sign the other Manhattan Declaration, the one in which a lot of scientists signed on to the global warming theory. There is no gospel at all in that one. Funny that both documents have the same name.

I've read a lot of comments, here and elsewhere, about why to sign or why not to sign. Most "not" comments relate to the gospel and it being compromised in the MD. My question: why is it assumed that evangelicals are seen as compromising, and not the Catholics or Orthodox? If we hold something in common in our definition of the gospel, it can be found in statements we all claim to hold, such as the Apostles' Creed. I believe that gospel, and the Catholics and Orthodox claim to also. I do not hold to what they have added (sacraments, rites, works) but it seems we all claim to believe Paul's gospel as stated in 1 Cor. 15:1-8.
It seems to me it is the Catholics and Orthodox who are yielding to our position, not the other way around. Keep in mind that Martin Luther never left the Roman church. He sought rather to reform it, hence the reformation. Some who have signed from those traditions are in the midst of efforts to reform those churches. Perhaps we could help them. A friend of mine is an Anglican pastor, whose greatest struggle is to get his congregation to understand the simplicity of the gospel as faith in the crucified and risen Lord, who alone and without the help of sacrament or rite or work can remove our sins from us.
Compromise is bad when we are the ones compromising, but it is good if those who disagreed in the past compromise to agree with us, and espouse the one true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Charles, Protestants probably see the compromise from their end for at least two reasons, IMO. 1. Lack of defining the Gospel yet putting all three ecclesial bodies together as if they agree. 2. The drafters are one Roman Catholic and two Protestant ecumenists, one of whom is married to a Roman Catholic.

Point 1 can go in many directions and point 2 is probably why some have seen this document along the lines of ECT.

How I see the issue can be illustrated in the example I gave Matt above: Would you hand out a pamphlet about house building that has the Pope's and your picture on it? One that also says something like "Building Homes Together for the Gospel - We will build your home for the Gospel of Christ." "To schedule your building please call Matt or the local diocese."

In my example who would be the compromising party, the Pope or Matt?

If the pope signed we should not. But the Catholic signers have been disagreeing with the pope as far as I have seen. And the Anglicans on this list are practically in revolt over the authority of Scripture and the nature of the gospel, and are likely to take over the Anglican communion over the Episcopalian ordination of openly homosexual bishops. Perhaps in your example for Matt there is a little more distinct difference than in what we actually have in the original signers of MD.
What say we put this to the test. I think you agreed that we need a similar declaration with a clear definition of the gospel, which conservative Baptists can sign. Lets do that and see if those of other communions will sign that. If they won't, we still have one we can all sign, which commits us to stand together when this government does come for one or more of us, instead of leaving the persecuted to hang alone like our churches did to Flip Benham when he was jailed in Virginia for 60 days for preaching the gospel on a public sidewalk.
On a lighter note, I'm glad you did not sign the other Manhattan Declaration, the one in which a lot of scientists signed on to the global warming theory. There is no gospel at all in that one. Funny that both documents have the same name.

I've read a lot of comments, here and elsewhere, about why to sign or why not to sign. Most "not" comments relate to the gospel and it being compromised in the MD. My question: why is it assumed that evangelicals are seen as compromising, and not the Catholics or Orthodox? If we hold something in common in our definition of the gospel, it can be found in statements we all claim to hold, such as the Apostles' Creed. I believe that gospel, and the Catholics and Orthodox claim to also. I do not hold to what they have added (sacraments, rites, works) but it seems we all claim to believe Paul's gospel as stated in 1 Cor. 15:1-8.
It seems to me it is the Catholics and Orthodox who are yielding to our position, not the other way around. Keep in mind that Martin Luther never left the Roman church. He sought rather to reform it, hence the reformation. Some who have signed from those traditions are in the midst of efforts to reform those churches. Perhaps we could help them. A friend of mine is an Anglican pastor, whose greatest struggle is to get his congregation to understand the simplicity of the gospel as faith in the crucified and risen Lord, who alone and without the help of sacrament or rite or work can remove our sins from us.
Compromise is bad when we are the ones compromising, but it is good if those who disagreed in the past compromise to agree with us, and espouse the one true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Charles, Protestants probably see the compromise from their end for at least two reasons, IMO. 1. Lack of defining the Gospel yet putting all three ecclesial bodies together as if they agree. 2. The drafters are one Roman Catholic and two Protestant ecumenists, one of whom is married to a Roman Catholic.

Point 1 can go in many directions and point 2 is probably why some have seen this document along the lines of ECT.

How I see the issue can be illustrated in the example I gave Matt above: Would you hand out a pamphlet about house building that has the Pope's and your picture on it? One that also says something like "Building Homes Together for the Gospel - We will build your home for the Gospel of Christ." "To schedule your building please call Matt or the local diocese."

In my example who would be the compromising party, the Pope or Matt?

dsutton, historically Protestants and Roman Catholics have deemed each other as teaching different gospels, as heretics. Trent has plenty of anathemas. The official statements of faith have not changed.

I signed it, and I am Converting to the Catholic Faith, What makes you think that Catholic teaching is false, or heretical?

A declaration which calls for the clarification of the definitions of marriage and baby while simultaneously blurring the definition of Christian is indeed problematic.

Greg, I would be more inclined to sign if that were the case. As I said above, I would be more inclined to sign if it were just a general declaration without "religious" undertones.

Mark,

Would this solution win your support?

Have each group (Orthodox, Evangelical, and Catholic) Take the MD and rewrite it, striping all reference to anyone but their group and allowing each group the liberty to express certain matters differently yet maintaining the original intent. Do you think you could sign an Evangelical only document that addressed the issues addressed in the MD?

Grace Always,
Greg

Dan Phillips asks Nineteen questions for signers of "The Manhattan Declaration." No. 19 starts
If you have answered all of the preceding questions, can you explain why you would not ask that your name be removed from "The Manhattan Declaration,"...

Check it out.

#mdec Alan Kurschner writes THE GALATIAN DECLARATION-A Call of Christian Conscience as a test of Faith-Alone and Judaizer Christians with Roman Empire inhabitants, Christians and pagans alike working together.

I understand think you've addressed my post point by point. I suppose we will disagree here too. :) I pointed out specific lines in the original post including the statement on Martin Luther King, Jr.

If the Gospel is actually left undefined and there is no implied definition then I suppose either of us are free to interpret it according to our conscience and act accordingly.

The reason why I believe the Gospel has an implied definition of agreement between Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox is because this document is meant to unify. Sure, it is meant to unify on specific moral issues, but based on the quotes I gave those issues are grounded in the Gospel. Therefore, the Gospel must be agreed upon by all i.e. a common definition.

Plus, the authors were two Protestants ecumenists (one who said the document is a theological statement) and one Roman Catholic. Colson has made statements about the MD that shows he does have Gospel agreement in mind. When referencing a Roman Catholic and an Orthodox official he states, "It was a foretaste of what we’re all going to see in heaven..." Clearly Gospel agreement.

What is especially fascinating to me is your comment that ...yet almost no one who has argued against signing the declaration has explicitly stated that RC /EO is heresy. MacArthur, White (whom I just asked about his position and agrees with me), Begg, Camp all list the Gospel as the problem. If they say the Gospel is compromised, different, denied, etc. to me that means heresy.

Thanks for stopping by again. Blessings.

I have addressed your post point by point. Since the Manhattan does not attempt to define the gospel, your contention that the document implies gospel agreement in any area other than the three issues addressed is something that you have read into the text. I have never denied that Mohler believes that RC/EO are heretical, simply that he did not actually say that they are in his post, as you claimed he did.

I only brought up Dr Mohler because I agree with his basic view that the Manhattan Declaration is a narrow statement of agreement of the issues it addresses rather than a broad statement. I do agree with you that we are not going anywhere here. There is no hope of agreement of once someone begins reading their views into the document, which, in my opinion, you have done here. We must simply disagree on this on and hope next time we agree my brother. Have blessed day.

TUAD, why don't you go sign it already and stop with the cheerleading? After reading various blogs I am convinced that by you spreading around either one or two quotes from rapid anti-MD folks that you helped their cause. I saw another place where atleast one person had not read the strong anti-MD language until you posted it. And in many places you are the source for spreading this around.

Please, move along. It's not helpful.

Dallas, the agreement on the Gospel is implied which is what my quotes show in the original post. I'm asking you or anyone to show that Gospel agreement is not implied from my post above. Why do you keep avoiding addressing I presented?

It does seem a lost cause though since we cannot seem to agree on the meaning of words or methods of defining them. If you can read Dr. Mohler's words "unbiblical and abhorrent -- and...nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ." and think they do not mean heretical I'm not sure where we are going to connect.

"Because the Manhattan Declaration addresses these narrow issues rather than the broader issues of the gospel, one can sign the Manhattan Declaration without bringing confusion to the gospel or endorsing a false gospel."

AMEN!! Where can I go and sign up for the Dallas Declaration!

Mark. I believe out disagreement has more to to with our interpretation of the document than with what it is saying. Your first contention is that it blurs or the gospel or is otherwise too ambiguous.The Manhattan Declaration intentionally leaves the gospel undefined because it is not trying to define what the gospel is but is seeking narrow agreement based upon common shared beliefs. If it were trying to define the gospel, then this would create more serious difficulties. The other is the contention that Roman Catholics and Eastern cannot possibly be Christians. Both of these charges imply that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are heresies. Your entire argument rises or falls on the truth or falsehood of that the orthdoxy of RC/EO, yet almost no one who has argued against signing the declaration has explicitly stated that RC /EO is heresy. It seems to me that if you believe that RC/EO is heresy, then a clear statement of their heresy would be germaine to this discussion. Do you believe that RC/EO is a damnable heresy.

Al Mohler does not actually use the term heretical to describe the errors of RC/EO. I am assuming you are interpreting his statement "The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ." as proof that Mohler believes that RC/EO is heresy, and he may very well have intended that.

I believe that certain beliefs common to RC/EO such as sacramentalism and episcopal infallibility are serious, dangerous errors. I could neither enter into union with such churches, nor sign document that promoted that kind of union such as Evangelicals and Catholics Working Together. The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to create such a union. I stop short of calling RC/EO heresy because there are many in both traditions who practice an Evangelical faith in spite of their formal acceptance of RC/EO doctrines, and many others who actually affirm an Evangelical faith contrary to the teachings of their traditions. In light of this, I believe that we are neither position to make dogmatic declarations RC/EO are all non-Christian, nor to reject a document soley because it calls RC/EO Christians.

I am not saying that people who are involved in RC/EO are Christians, but that there is enough ambiguity concerning the question of whether members of RC/EO are Christian for me not to reject the entire document based soley on that one issue. While I do not agree with RO/EO concerning some very broad issues concerning the gospel, I do agree with them concerning the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. Because the Manhattan Declaration addresses these narrow issues rather than the broader issues of the gospel, one can sign the Manhattan Declaration without bringing confusion to the gospel or endorsing a false gospel.

Thanks NV. I appreciate the input. It's very interesting that Adrian Rogers' son, David, will also not sign.

Dallas, thanks for stopping by. I think Dr. Mohler's position refutes your claim. You said
Such a case rises or falls with the contention that Roman Catholicism and Eastern orthodoxy are heretical. If they are heretical, then God's people have no more business signing the Manhattan Declaration than they would a statement that said Mormons or so-called Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians.

The irony is that Dr. Mohler did sign the document says the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are heretical in his explanation for why he signed. This does not seem to comport with your reasoning. By your reasoning Dr. Mohler should not have signed, yet he did.

Based on the quotes I've provided above in my reasoning it seems the MD is actually built on the Gospel either explicitly or implicitly. Yet, the Gospel is the main reason for our divisions.

In most circumstances Christians to not allow important terms to go undefined. For example, when Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses use the term "Christian" actual Christians object. When Mormons use the phrase "I believe in Jesus" or the term "Trinity" we usually call for definitions.

Could you tell me based upon my reasoning above using the MD itself where I am off?

(What I said on sbcimpact.net) The Manhattan Declaration loses me right here: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians…”

I was truly shocked and saddened to see the list of names affixed to this document. They might say they have not acquiesced doctrinally but it sure doesn’t come across that way. Their signature makes any subsequent comments and caveats ring hollow. It seems the Reformation is a nice thing to remember every October but is rendered silent in the ecumenical realities of our day.

The case against signing the Manhattan Declaration rests upon a guilt by association argument. Almost no one is opposing the actual substance of the three points.Evangelicals, RC, and EO share common convictions concerning the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. The point of contention is some Evangelicals cannot, in good conscience, sign a document that says that RCs and EO's are Christians.

Such a case rises or falls with the contention that Roman Catholicism and Eastern orthodoxy are heretical. If they are heretical, then God's people have no more business signing the Manhattan Declaration than they would a statement that said Mormons or so-called Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. If RC and EO are not heretical, then the guilt by association argument becomes a slippery slope for two reasons.

While I believe that both RC and EO teach some very serious errors, it is entirely possible that many in those traditions live by faith in Jesus Christ rather than faith in the sacraments or the priesthood. God counts the creeds that govern one's life rather than that of the creeds that are offically cited(Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; Heb 10:38) in deciding who is counted as a Christian. Giving the impossibility of knowing every heart of everyone in these traditions, I cannot justify the broad statement that some seem to be making.

The other reason that broad condemnations of people in RC/EO is not justified is that denominational labels do not tell us as much as they used to. I have shared a permanent link on my site with a Catholic blogger. His affiliation is Catholic, but his theology is Evangelical. If you are on his site, you would not know he is Catholic apart from his self disclosure. Is he a non-Christian simply because he goes to a Catholic church.

People should not let an argument based on an unsubstantiated claims prevent them from signing a document that they otherwise agree with. Unless those who have argued against signing the declaration can prove that RC/EO are heresies so damnable that mere affiliation consigns their members to hell, then they are arguing based on unsubstantiated claims.

Having read the Manhattan declaration, I believe that Al Mohler is correct. The declaration does not seek to minimize the differences that we have: it fully acknowledges those and leaves those intact. It is not intended as a broad, systematic statement of the gospel in it's entirety, but as a narrow statement of beliefs held in common by RC's, EO's, and Evangelicals. Signing it does not involve embracing the false gospel of someone on the other side, but only the embrace of beliefs that are already shared.

Jeff,

Did you ever think that we know the world doesnt care about theological fine arguments, which is why we discuss theology amongst ourselves, but then we present the gospel to the world?

There is a reason why we don't get on non-Christians blogs and discuss finer points of theology. Theology, does in fact matter and it should be discussed, which is why we discuss it amongst ourselves.

You coming here the way you did is like me going to an atheist blog, attacking their character, and then saying, "Do you think Christians care what you say about your atheism?" I know, that would be absurd... Which is my point.

Jeff, first, please watch your language here. Second, you are right that the world doesn't care about our theological arguments. This is why we must take the Gospel to them.

Are you a Christian?

Amazing how much time Christians have to devote to ridiculous issues. You guys are all pathetic. The world does not give a rat's ass about your theological fine arguments and your petty, parochial squabbles. Sign it or don't sign it, IT DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!!!

Whilst I am deffinately against false 'gospels' as you would see if you visited my site, I am proud to sign this declaration because:

Despite any doctrinal differences it stands for clear Christian moral standards.
It draws a line in the sand - a united line - against the targeted destruction of Christian based morality by other faiths and secular beliefs.
It makes it clear that in a world run on 'diversity' we WILL have a voice.

Please don't shoot down the attempts of leaders to do what most people have been shouting for over a long period - a clear stand! We are not discussing doctrinal church differences in this document - we are taking a stand against the apostasy of general moral values in our society. The doctrine issues are worked on elsewhere. Are people going to refuse to fight a war because they have different beliefs? I hardly think so....! So come on folks and see this for what it is - people of all Christian based persuasions taking a stand! Stop whining and match the stance if you do not agree with the mix. Do your own - but don't criticise those with real passion who act in unpopular times.

there are doctrines, there are truths and there's a milk understanding and a meat understanding. I can speak to you about the fact that Jesus Christ died in your place on the cross. And for some of you, you understand that only in the milk sense, you're new, you're a babe and you only understand that in the simplest sense. To others of you, when I talk about the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, you plunge down and maybe don't come up for weeks because there are such profound depths to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Paul says I can't talk to you about the depths, I have to talk to you like babies, I have to give you the milk and not the solid food because you're not able to receive it. Indeed here's the proof, you're not able because you're still fleshy. And what is the manifestation of that? There is jealousy and there is strife or fighting among you. Are you not fleshly? Are you not walking like mere men? Of all the things things that contribute most directly to discord in the church is people with a shallow understanding of Scripture. That's why I say again, the legacy of solid food of an understanding of some of the depth of the Word of God is the unity of the faith. And everyone understanding the same, believing the same, having the same mind, making the same judgments...there's no ground for substantial foundational disagreement. Quite the contrary to take a reductionist mentality and say, "We want to throw doctrine out so we can get together," is the antithesis of this and that is to sweep heresy under the rug and think that it's not something to be considered and to sweep sin under the rug as if it had no negative effect, as if the all compelling thing was to just accept everybody whatever they might believe, or however they might behave. Nothing could be more dishonoring to our Lord.

It is a VERY narrow path indeed!

there are doctrines, there are truths and there's a milk understanding and a meat understanding. I can speak to you about the fact that Jesus Christ died in your place on the cross. And for some of you, you understand that only in the milk sense, you're new, you're a babe and you only understand that in the simplest sense. To others of you, when I talk about the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, you plunge down and maybe don't come up for weeks because there are such profound depths to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Paul says I can't talk to you about the depths, I have to talk to you like babies, I have to give you the milk and not the solid food because you're not able to receive it. Indeed here's the proof, you're not able because you're still fleshy. And what is the manifestation of that? There is jealousy and there is strife or fighting among you. Are you not fleshly? Are you not walking like mere men?

Where you don't teach the Scripture with precision and care, there's no way people are going to think the same. There's no way they're going to make the same judgment on issues. And I really believe with all my heart that one of the great blessings and benefits of a church that has clear doctrine and clear teaching and handles the Word of God accurately and precisely is that it gets a legacy of unity because the people think the same thing, they render the same judgments, they agree. There might be a bit of a struggle here and there as to the wisdom necessary to make the application of the truth, but certainly you want to start with the truth.

Any kind of unity where you have violent disagreement and just keep your mouth shut is no true unity. I guess in some ways it would be better than starting a war, unless you have to admonish a heretic or confront a sinner.

Mark, see... it is amazing that even a statement made to lament out ability to say anything without making sides has made sides. ...the irony. But here's the good news. I can't wait to hear your next blog or tweet read the next manifesto written by whomever. Know why? There is a theme in all this, people really care, really are filled with zeal for truth and righteousness, love for God, passion for His Son to be exalted and for our worldly decay to be arrested. Write 'em! Long ones, short ones political ones, ones that I easily agree with, ones that raise my eyebrows. I'm in for the long haul...

Brother Bobby, I thought about this when I responded to you. In some ways it's like trying to deny logic by using logic. There is no real way around it in our sinfulness. When we start to lie down and not question anything in a biblical manner then we've lost our zeal and fight for and with the Gospel. I appreciate you stopping by again and look forward to your tweets, etc. Thanks, brother!

One source came from this very blog!!! The other source is Jim from Justin Taylor's blog here:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylo...

"Based on the quotes you and Joy have provided I admit those words could be divisive."

That's a really weak admission. They *are* divisive.

"I would say the majority of anti-MD folks are not doing this."

No one's ever said they were.

Making a case that Protestants signing the MD may blur the Gospel does not show a lack of grace. It's the name calling, condemnation and charges of division that does so. Making a case to sign or making a case not to is fine. Those of us who hold to sola fide and sola gratia, etc. will still be united in the Gospel. Those who do not will still not be fully united regardless of which document is signed.

I have not seen those folks until Joy and then you posted their words. I still don't know what your source is. Based on the quotes you and Joy have provided I admit those words could be divisive. I would say the majority of anti-MD folks are not doing this. Again, I've not seen them until you've spread them around. It is not the main position of those dissenting.

Wrong. I'm simply showing you that it is *some* of the anti-MD folks who are the ones causing division. Can you at least admit that?

Actually, I think the opposite is true. Those anti-MD seem to think that those for it are "compromising the gospel".

Glawccs, did you have in mind comments like the following?

"Short Statement in Response to the Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration is an ungodly manifesto, contemptuous of the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is an ecumenical treatise, complete with a Romish gospel and shot through and through with popish error. Those evangelicals who have authored this document and who have led the way in signing it show themselves to be in rebellion to God. It is, in their case, a brazen manifesto of treason against the Lord Jesus Christ. And they are not friends but rather are enemies of Christian liberty in that they disobey and provoke the Author of liberty with their spiritual fornication, even wresting His word and corrupting His blood-bought church. It is the biblical duty of all faithful Christian pastors to stand against the evangelical authors of the Manhattan Declaration and all evangelicals who sign it or promote it in any way. Such betrayers of Christ and His church must be separated from and called to account by all faithful Christian ministers and people.

Ralph Ovadal, Pastor of Pilgrims Covenant Church, Monroe, Wisconsin, http://www.pccmonroe.org/

There are some Christian leaders who've spoken against signing the #mdec MD. They are (with links) Alistair Begg, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, James White and Steve Camp. Even the worlds most famous Christian blogger Tim Challies has decided not to sign.There seems to be a growing list of others who will not sign. I'm not sure why, but it seems that some of those who are pro-MD have trouble showing grace to those opposed.

Because Christ has encouraged you, exhorted you, helped you, faithfully come alongside to enable you. because all of Christ's love and tender mercy and pity and sympathy and grace and forgiveness and care and comfort has been bestowed on you, be of the same mind. In other words, having received so much from Christ, can you not give back that which is dear to His own heart? He who prayed in John 17 to the Father about the church that they may be one, desires unity in His church. But you must see disunity and a bitter spirit, you must see your antagonism to the unity of the church as a direct act of defiant rebellious ingratitude to the Christ who has given you everything and to whom you desire to render nothing. And you must see it for what it is. It is a sin against a relationship, not an ethical code. It is a sin against Christ.

I've already replied to that. It is posted above and I don't endorse it. If all you want to do is cause division here then leave. Stop trying to connect dots where they don't go together. You want to persuade me or others who consciencely will not sign then deal with our objections please.

In Acts chapter 4 Luke wrote these words, "The multitudes of believers were of one heart and one soul." Acts chapter 4. And then he said a little later in that same chapter, "As a result of that unity they had power and great grace was upon them all." The multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul, they had great power and great grace. Power and blessing are related to unity.

Jesus, of course, made priority out of the unity of the church and so does the Apostle Paul. It is a great concern to his heart and thus he writes these opening four verses in the second chapter. "If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there's any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself. Do not merely look out for your own personal interest but also for the interest of others.

glawccs, I'm not bitter. Also, why am I singled out as one causing division? What if I am correct and it is those who do not fall in-line with me in standing for the Gospel who are causing disunity?

Here's my two cents: The Manhattan thing, like Sweet/Viola's Manifesto or the GCR et al, are human efforts. Efforts to find common ground, a starting place, a few sentences we can gather around to express a common good, theme, issue, perspective etc.

They inevitably show how utterly deeply divided we are. We have no common ground, period. Even if you say Jesus is our common ground many will quickly jump to box it in, "Is your Jesus my Jesus?", etc. There is no greater symptom of our brokenness as a Body than the next Manifesto we write... some will sign on some will dissent. That's who we are.

I agree with the fact that grace on both sides needs to be extended. There are good reasons to sign and not sign this document. for the time being, I have chosen to not sign. That does not mean that I do not feel passionate about the issues addressed in the document. However, I feel equally strongly that it is a slippery slope to think that we are doomed as the church if the government does not legislate Christian morality. If they don't, then we stand. If they throw us in jail, then they throw us in jail. Thanks for this post!

Hey--we all need grace! I am a signer willing to extend grace to those who are not in hope that they will grant me the same.

Bobby, I agree there will always be dissent. We are sinners. This is why we need to seek to promote the Gospel together. That's why I and others are not signing the MD. The other issues you mentioned seem to have more to do with disagreements over implementing sharing the Gospel rather than the definition itself.

glawccs said,
The multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul, they had great power and great grace. Power and blessing are related to unity.

Right, which is why there are those who will not sign. When it comes down to it those Protestants like Dr. Mohler are not one of heart and soul with many of the other signers as seen in his article defending his signature. That is, he admits that Rome's Gospel is false.

There are some Christian leaders who've spoken against signing the #mdec MD. They are (with links) Alistair Begg, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, and James White. Even the worlds most famous Christian blogger Tim Challies has decided not to sign.

There seems to be a growing list of others who will not sign. I'm not sure why, but it seems that some of those who are pro-MD have trouble showing grace to those opposed.

Mark,
Thanks for not throwing me under the bus--or consigning me to hell. For a minute I thought I had taken the mark of the beast (no pun intended, Mark).

Joy, I have to agree with Dennis below. I'm not ready to throw these folks under the bus. I'm ready to publicly voice my reasons with reasons why. To hopefully persuade them to see that the objections have to do with the Gospel. And to do this reasonably in love with patience.

The good thing about disagreeing as such is that if we keep pointing to the Gospel it has a chance to actually be heard.