Comments on: To Sign Or Not To Sign http://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/ Christian, southern baptist, theology, reformed, thinking, culture, religion, apologetics, defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:23:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: charles hodgeshttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-24405 charles hodges Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:42:31 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-24405 [...] will ever be called to do. ... Adam Winterss last blog post..Charles Hodges's Birthday Prayer ...Manhattan Declaration | to sign or notShould protestants and evangelicals sign the Manhattan Declaration with roman catholics and [...] [...] will ever be called to do. … Adam Winterss last blog post..Charles Hodges's Birthday Prayer …Manhattan Declaration | to sign or notShould protestants and evangelicals sign the Manhattan Declaration with roman catholics and [...]

]]> By: Linkathon 2009: The year in links, part 2 (plus Linkathon 12/30) at Phoenix Preacherhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23964 Linkathon 2009: The year in links, part 2 (plus Linkathon 12/30) at Phoenix Preacher Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:01:31 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23964 [...] Begg, Michael Horton, Andrew Jones (Tall Skinny Kiwi), Mark Lamprecht, John MacArthur and Frank Turk explain why they didn't. Update: added links for Mark Lamprecht [...] [...] Begg, Michael Horton, Andrew Jones (Tall Skinny Kiwi), Mark Lamprecht, John MacArthur and Frank Turk explain why they didn't. Update: added links for Mark Lamprecht [...]

]]> By: Charles Hodgeshttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-24172 Charles Hodges Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:59:21 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-24172 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.<br>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.<br>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. 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.

]]> By: Charles Hodgeshttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-24170 Charles Hodges Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:32:03 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-24170 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.<br> 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.<br>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. 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.

]]> By: Markhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-24171 Mark Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:57:13 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-24171 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. <br><br>Point 1 can go in many directions and point 2 is probably why some have seen this document along the lines of ECT.<br><br>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."<br><br>In my example who would be the compromising party, the Pope or Matt? 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?

]]> By: Charles Hodgeshttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23899 Charles Hodges Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:59:21 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23899 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.<br>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.<br>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. 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.

]]> By: Charles Hodgeshttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23897 Charles Hodges Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:32:03 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23897 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.<br> 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.<br>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. 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.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23898 Mark | hereiblog Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:57:13 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23898 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. <br><br>Point 1 can go in many directions and point 2 is probably why some have seen this document along the lines of ECT.<br><br>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."<br><br>In my example who would be the compromising party, the Pope or Matt? 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?

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23862 Mark | hereiblog Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:09:40 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23862 dsutton, historically Protestants and Roman Catholics have deemed each other as teaching different gospels, as heretics. Trent has plenty of <a href="http://hereiblog.com/trent-let-me-be-anathema/" rel="nofollow">anathemas</a>. The official statements of faith have not changed. 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.

]]> By: dsuttonhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23861 dsutton Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:29:25 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23861 I signed it, and I am Converting to the Catholic Faith, What makes you think that Catholic teaching is false, or heretical? I signed it, and I am Converting to the Catholic Faith, What makes you think that Catholic teaching is false, or heretical?

]]> By: Linkathon 10/3, part 2 at Phoenix Preacherhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23860 Linkathon 10/3, part 2 at Phoenix Preacher Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:23:32 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23860 [...] Begg, Michael Horton, Andrew Jones (Tall Skinny Kiwi), Mark Lamprecht, John MacArthur and Frank Turk explain why they didn't. Update: added links for Mark Lamprecht [...] [...] Begg, Michael Horton, Andrew Jones (Tall Skinny Kiwi), Mark Lamprecht, John MacArthur and Frank Turk explain why they didn't. Update: added links for Mark Lamprecht [...]

]]> By: Darrinhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23857 Darrin Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:30:05 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23857 A declaration which calls for the clarification of the definitions of marriage and baby while simultaneously blurring the definition of Christian is indeed problematic. A declaration which calls for the clarification of the definitions of marriage and baby while simultaneously blurring the definition of Christian is indeed problematic.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23856 Mark | hereiblog Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:03:29 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23856 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. 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.

]]> By: Greg Alfordhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23850 Greg Alford Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:56:43 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23850 Mark,<br><br>Would this solution win your support? <br><br>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?<br><br>Grace Always,<br>Greg 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

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23846 Mark | hereiblog Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:09:21 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23846 Dan Phillips asks <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/nineteen-questions-for-signers-of.html" rel="nofollow">Nineteen questions for signers of "The Manhattan Declaration."</a> No. 19 starts <blockquote>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,"...</blockquote> <br><br>Check it out. 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.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23838 Mark | hereiblog Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:06:46 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23838 #mdec Alan Kurschner writes <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/11/galatian-declaration.html" rel="nofollow">THE GALATIAN DECLARATION</a>-A Call of Christian Conscience as a test of Faith-Alone and Judaizer Christians with Roman Empire inhabitants, Christians and pagans alike working together. #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.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23837 Mark | hereiblog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:31:18 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23837 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>What is especially fascinating to me is your comment that <i>...yet almost no one who has argued against signing the declaration has explicitly stated that RC /EO is heresy.</i> 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.<br><br>Thanks for stopping by again. Blessings. 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.

]]> By: Dallashttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23836 Dallas Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:53:31 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23836 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.<br><br>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. 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.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23835 Mark | hereiblog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:09:03 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23835 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. <br><br>Please, move along. It's not helpful. 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.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23834 Mark | hereiblog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:04:33 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23834 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?<br><br>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. 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.

]]> By: Truth Unites... and Divideshttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23833 Truth Unites... and Divides Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:24:07 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23833 <i>"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."</i><br><br><b>AMEN</b>!! Where can I go and sign up for the Dallas Declaration! “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!

]]> By: Dallashttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23832 Dallas Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:17:10 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23832 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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. 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.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23831 Mark | hereiblog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:33:33 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23831 Thanks NV. I appreciate the input. It's very interesting that Adrian Rogers' son, David, will also not sign. Thanks NV. I appreciate the input. It's very interesting that Adrian Rogers' son, David, will also not sign.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23830 Mark | hereiblog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:32:38 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23830 Dallas, thanks for stopping by. I think Dr. Mohler's position refutes your claim. You said <blockquote>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.</blockquote><br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>Could you tell me based upon my reasoning above using the MD itself where I am off? 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?

]]> By: NativeVermonterhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23829 NativeVermonter Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:45:03 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23829 (What I said on <a href="http://sbcimpact.net" rel="nofollow">sbcimpact.net</a>) The Manhattan Declaration loses me right here: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians…” <br><br>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. (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.

]]> By: Dallashttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23828 Dallas Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:35:36 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23828 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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. 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.

]]> By: mattsvobodahttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23827 mattsvoboda Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:26:51 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23827 Jeff,<br><br>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?<br><br>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. <br><br>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,

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.

]]> By: Mark | hereibloghttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23826 Mark | hereiblog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:13:47 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23826 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. <br><br>Are you a Christian? 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?

]]> By: Jeffhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23825 Jeff Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:06:14 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23825 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!!!!!!! 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!!!!!!!

]]> By: John Wilsonhttp://hereiblog.com/to-sign-or-not-to-sign/comment-page-2/#comment-23822 John Wilson Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:34:11 +0000 http://hereiblog.com/?p=2668#comment-23822 Whilst I am deffinately against false 'gospels' as you would see if you visited my site, I am proud to sign this declaration because:<br><br>Despite any doctrinal differences it stands for clear Christian moral standards.<br>It draws a line in the sand - a united line - against the targeted destruction of Christian based morality by other faiths and secular beliefs.<br>It makes it clear that in a world run on 'diversity' we WILL have a voice.<br><br>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. 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.

]]>