Radical Unity, Radical Separation
Many evangelical leaders, from both within the SBC, as well as without, have signed the Manhattan Declaration.
Though I am fundamentally in agreement with the basic objectives spelled out in the document, and I have not been loath to add my name to various documents, which, such as this one, seek public support, I have been asking myself, since I first saw it a couple of days ago, whether or not I should add my name to the list of signatories.
Reading the following commentary by John MacArthur helped me place a finger on my misgivings…
Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity… (read the rest of the article here).
In the past four years or so on the blogosphere, I have consistently made my case for an increased practice in practical Christian unity among evangelical believers. Such being the case, some who have followed what I have written may find odd what I am saying here.
Understood properly, I believe that a consistent, biblical practice of Christian unity—what I would also call radical unity—carries along with it a corresponding commitment to a radical separation from all those who are not truly our brothers and sisters in Christ.
I suppose that cobelligerency with non-believers for the advance of certain causes has its time and place. However, we must be extra careful to never confuse this type of cobelligerency with our essential unity in Christ.
If the Manhattan Declaration, for instance, had included Jews, Muslims, and even “moral” atheists, among its signatories, I might be more inclined to jump on board; because, in such a case, it would be clear that this is not a document written and promoted from an implied common perspective on the essentials of the gospel. But, since it claims to be a specifically Christian document, it seems to me that adding my name to the list of signatories would imply my support of the claim of the sum total of the framers to be authentic, biblical Christians.
I’m sure some of you are thinking, by now, how narrow-minded of me. As I understand it, however, the core of what makes us authentic, biblical Christians is our embracing of the biblical gospel. The Apostle Paul did not mince words, when he said, in Galatians 1:6–9:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
I am aware of recent dialogue between leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and certain Protestant (and even Evangelical) leaders over the nature of justification by faith, and have followed it with some interest. If I could be convinced that the “gospel” officially taught by the Roman Catholic Church really was the true gospel, I would be much more open to endeavors such as the Manhattan Declaration, and even Evangelicals and Catholics Together. If I could be persuaded, for example, to accept that the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that participation in the sacraments of baptism, the eucharist, and auricular confession of “mortal sins” is a sine qua non for obtaining eternal salvation for all those who have come to a full understanding of the truth, I might be able to see this differently.
However, in my present understanding, I am not yet convinced that, if a person consistently believes and practices the doctrines taught in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, they can be saved. This does not preclude the possibility of many who respond to the name Roman Catholic being true born-again believers. Indeed, I believe there are many who match that description. However, I believe this occurs in spite of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and not because of it.
The same holds true, as far as I am concerned, with all so-called Christian groups who do not truly embrace the biblical gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone. As Christians, that which joins us together is not the name Christian. Neither is it our common acceptance of this doctrine or that doctrine. It is our common embracing of the gospel, and, as a result of our common embracing of the gospel, our common relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
And, if you truly embrace the same gospel I embrace, and have a true saving relationship with the same Lord and Savior who has saved me, then you are my brother or sister in Christ, no matter what else you may happen to believe or practice on this or that.
Now, that doesn’t mean I am never going to call you down on matters in which we are in disagreement, nor that I don’t give you the right to call me down, whenever you think I may be wrong. But, on the most important matter of all, the eternal gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we are in deep, binding, fundamental agreement. We are members of the same Body. We are brothers and sisters. And, we should never minimize the importance of that.
As Southern Baptists, however, we are united, in cooperation, on something a little more narrowly defined than the gospel itself. The basic thrust of our cooperative work, as Southern Baptists, are our efforts directed toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Ideally, we are joined together with all who believe in the same gospel, and are members of the same Body of Christ, in our work toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission. However, not all members of the Body of Christ cooperate in the same way with us in the same subset of ministry projects that specifically join us together as Southern Baptists, nor in the same subset of doctrinal affirmations that we confess through the Baptist Faith & Message.
Now, it is a matter of theological debate exactly what comprises our mission as Christians. In missiological circles, a good bit of discussion has gone on, in recent years, regarding the difference between missions (focusing specifically on such tasks as evangelism, discipleship, and church planting, as embodied in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20), and the missio Dei (or the underlying and overarching mission of God throughout history, that is broader than the specific mission of the New Testament Church).
As I understand it, what joins us together, first of all, as Southern Baptists, is cooperation, specifically, in New Testament missions. This does not mean that, as Christians, or Southern Baptists, we must be disinterested or uninvolved in broader missio Dei-type concerns, such as caring for the environment, justice, and secular politics. However, I question to what extent our cooperative efforts, as Southern Baptists, should be focused on these areas.
In any case, it seems to me that, as Southern Baptists, the projects that join us together should, as far as priority is concerned, be specifically Christian projects, and not projects that Jews, Muslims, and “moral” atheists, could just as well sign on to. And, they should even more specifically be evangelical projects—that is, projects that exist specifically in order to promote and proclaim the gospel, and with which only Christians who believe and accept the gospel could, with a good conscience, support.
In addition to this, there are other projects in which we may cooperate, which are not specifically Christian projects. The Baptist Faith & Message distinguishes between these types of projects (I believe correctly) in the following statements (I have highlighted certain phrases in bold print for emphasis):
From Section XIV on Cooperation:
Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God…Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.
From Section XV on The Christian and the Social Order:
Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth.
I believe the balance advocated here is a positive, though subtle, one. And, at the core, I believe the underlying truth at stake, in this particular instance, is the need to maintain and defend a radical unity with all those who are truly part of the Body of Christ, and a corresponding radical separation with those who are not.
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.
Brother David,
Well stated…. These types of documents do have some sort of obvious moral ground that is the loci of its purpose. Yet it is easy to mask grand ideas underneath an umbrella still confusing the gospel ethic.
The Apostle John was clear on this matter….
1 John 1:6-7 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; (7) but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
It is a much easier assignment to agree on the obvious (especially for those that name Jesus)….the Manhattan Declaration seems to uplift the obvious…. “that God creates all life”, “that God designed marriage”, and “that God provides true freedom”. But go just another step beyond the obvious by actually defining the gospel, and “the fellowship” quickly vanishes. There is a reason why!
There are some dear Christians brothers that have signed this document, yet others that encourage another way into the Kingdom. Your right David, there are other ways to cooperate civically with all of these men where the gospel is not impugned by politic.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. As I tried to point out in To sign or not to sign the Gospel is definitely in play. Either the Gospel is named explicitly or implicitly by the word “Christian” or in phrases likes “…the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ.”
Also, at least two people have told me they could not sign based on the reference to Martin Luther King, Jr.
Do yall know if I’ll sign it, or not?
David
volfan, could you re-phrase the question please? :)
Want to talk about “Radical Separation”?
Gentlemen the football game that “separates” what football is all about from wannabee football games is about to start.
THE ALABAMA CRIMSON TIDE is about to take the field against the AUBURN TIGERS.
It will not be an event for the faint-hearted or Yankee football fans or any football nation fan other than those of the glorious SEC.
But, boys if you want to see what “Radically Separates” SEC football nations from the rest of you; drag up a chair get you some B-B-Q, Coke-a-Cola and Golden Flake Potato Chips and watch the game of football as it was meant to be played and enjoyed.
Eat your heart out BUZZARD-EYE NATION and all you other Jr. High Football Nations, especially all you Texans.
The SABANATION is on the Roll; ROLL TIDE, that is.
cb
David, I wish you would expand on your belief in “radical separation” from those you consider to be non-true Christians.
As far as I can tell, Jesus did not radically separate himself from ANYONE during His earthly ministry. Quite the opposite. He sat and talked with Pharisees, prostitutes, tax collectors and lepers. He visited and spoke in the very temple where all kinds of misunderstandings were being propagated. His Apostles did the same, including Paul. I’m trying to understand how your concept fits this example.
Patrick,
I think the proper balance to the question you pose is found looking at the following two passages together:
2 Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?
1 Corinthians 5:9-11
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
In order to share Christ effectively, in most cases, we must develop a relationship with those we are trying to win. However, we cannot do this by leading them to believe they are already Christians, just like us.
“Radical separation,” as I am advocating it here, does not mean cutting off all contact or social networking with those who are not believers. It does, however, mean avoiding giving the false impression that those who are not one with us in the gospel really are.
CB,
So far, you are right. This is a great game!
CB…..?
David, thanks for the reply.
Based on the Scriptures you cite, you seem to be saying that you could not sign the Manhattan Declaration because some of the other signers are wicked, dark, sexually immoral, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and/or swindlers who also claim to be Christian but are really not.
Aside from the fact that we can easily find examples of all these in the pews of every Southern Baptist church, under this interpretation no true Christians should have signed the Declaration of Independence with its deistic view of “nature’s God.”
If some Lutheran, Presbyterian and Catholic folks wrote a statement saying “We all consider ourselves Christian and we agree that 2+2=4,” you would refuse to sign on because the others are not true believers?
I do not see how such an attitude helps evangelize anyone.
Patrick,
I am sorry. I should have communicated more clearly.
I cited 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 to indicate that, as Christians, we should not be “yoked together” with unbelievers. We can discuss at length just what it means to be “yoked together,” and who is a believer and who is an unbeliever. That would, no doubt, be a worthwile conversation. In any case, I am justifying my decision not to sign the MD on the basis of my understanding that doing so would be “yoking myself together” with unbelievers.
On the other hand, I cite 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 to show that avoiding being “yoked together” with unbelievers is not the same thing as avoiding all social contact with them. Paul says the only way to do that would be to leave this world.
As far as the 2+2=4 example is concerned, a good part of the way we answer hinges on our understanding of the word “Christian.” In modern usage, this is a term which has various different meanings, according to context. It may mean someone from a country or culture largely influenced by a “Christian” worldview. It may mean someone who adheres to a so-called “Christian” denomination or church. It may mean someone who agrees with all of the tenets of the Apostles Creed. Or, it may mean someone who has an authentic saving relationship with the Lord Jesus, which is uniquely obtained by grace through faith alone.
Personally, I believe it is important to maintain a public defense of the validity of the last definition, because, bibically, I think it is the most accurate.
Because society today more often than not assigns one of the other definitions to the term “Christian,” we must be careful to communicate just what we mean, however.
As far as evangelizing people is concerned, it is hard to convince them of their need of a Savior, if they mistakenly believe they are already saved.
Also, even though I was not citing 1 Cor. 5:9-11 with this intention in mind, my experience of 18 years in Spain has demonstrated to me fairly clearly that the religious system promoted by the Roman Catholic Church leads to idolatry, and that a large amount of people responding to the name “Roman Catholic” are indeed idolaters. We can talk all night about the difference between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia. But, my personal experience has been that a high percentage of people in overwhelmingly Catholic cultures do indeed worship idols. In my experience, as well, having their eyes opened to this reality has been an important step on the road to salvation for various ex-Catholics I have known who have been converted to a personal relationship with Jesus by grace through faith.
CB,
Glad ya’ll are still undefeated. That’s going to make beating you next week in Atlanta all the more fun.
Auburn shoulda won the game. They played with most heart and desire and dare I say it on this day,Integrity.
It is a shame they did not win.
On this day I say
War Eagle
Thanks again, David. We may just have to disagree here.
If I can just summarize what you say: Because (in your experience on another continent) Catholic teaching isn’t necessarily idolatrous but can lead people that way, and because some Catholics are indeed idolators, and because some of the people who signed the Manhattan Declaration call themselves Catholic, even though you admit they might be born-again Catholics, you believe that signing the M.D. would mean you are unequally yoked with people who are not truly true Christians. And all of the above might mislead someone about what Christianity actually is. You feel this way even though you agree with the stated goals of the M.D. regarding abortion etc.
With all due respect, I think this borders on paranoia. No one is going to accuse you of turning papist if you sign the M.D. You are reading way too much into the document, in my opinion.
Whether “a high percentage of people in overwhelmingly Catholic cultures do indeed worship idols” is irrelevant to this situation. The M.D. is about public policy in the United States, which is not an “overwhelmingly Catholic” culture. If it were, there would probably be no need for such a declaration because abortion, ESCR and gay marriage would already be outlawed.
One could also argue that a high percentage of Americans are just as idolatrous as the people you saw in Spain. We simply have different idols: money, sex, power, etc. Are the people you are yoked together with under the Baptist Faith & Message really so much more faithful than the people who signed the Manhattan Declaration?
A couple of points to consider:
1. As Baptists, we believe in religious liberty for all..”The Jew, the Turk, etc” as Baackus once said.
2. As Christians (Not Muslim or Jew), we have a specific definition of marriage, the Lord’s Day (you know we have Sat for Jews and Sun for Christians in this country…without which, we would have no weekend like the early church), sexual morality guaranteed and promoted my our earlier Am forefathers.
3. If the Christian definition (both RCC and Protestant) of human relations is not reinserted into our body politic, we fail to lose it completely. Already loose heterosexuality is winked at in many churches.
4. As far as separation, SBC churches find no problem associating with ministers and youth groups in other denominations that believe in losing your salvation…not really a Reformed concept, unless you are Anabaptist.
The Moral Majority was associated with the RCC on the issue of abortion. What is the difference?
I believe some in the RCC are saved due to their trust in Christ, not the merits of the church. However, I am not one to take a radical Vatican I reaction to the papacy.
Ga Baptist
David,
Forgive me for being late to respond to you. I have been in a state of paralysis since the first seven minutes of the BAMA-AUBURN game. My hands are just now beginning to move.
Let me say that only in the SEC can such a game occur. Again, there is empirical evidence that the SEC is the only true Big League Football Conference. For on any given day a SEC team can win against another SEC team. Of course the SABANATION always proves to be the only exception to the rule this year.
There is no doubt that the WAR EAGLE NATION would have beaten the GATORNATION today. But in the end the SABANATION proved to be invincible.
David, I will be sure to make contact with you on Dec. 5. For on that day, my joy will be complete because and quite frankly, Texas will be anti-climatic, because everyone knows that the National Championship is between the GATORNATION and the SABANATION. The LONGHORN NATION GAME WILL BE JUST FOR THE MONEY AND FUTURE RECRUITING.
Steve Fox, For some reason, I am glad you are a WAR EAGLE NATION fan. So maybe it will help your feelings if I say: CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR.
Have fun guys, I am going to feed my tribe another round of B-B-Q to close out a good night. (Although very fearful at times. Very fearful in deed.)
ROLL TIDE
Bottom line:
Rome–infused righteousness
Christianity–imputed righteousness
Two different gospel’s…yes or no? Again, Manhattan states: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians…” The document assumes all are Christian so by your signature you are saying that Rome is “in.” Any claim otherwise rings hollow.
Patrick,
Have you read the entire article by John MacArthur that I linked to? If not, perhaps it will help you understand my position better. I don’t always agree with MacArthur on everything. But, on this particular point, I think he did an excellent job of voicing my own concerns. If you still have the same objections to what MacArthur writes, I guess you are right: we may just have to disagree here.
If I remember correctly from our past interaction, you yourself are what I would call an “evangelical Christian” (I don’t remember if you are “Baptist” or not), inasmuch as you embrace the biblical gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Such being the case, I want to assure you that I accept you totally as my brother in Christ. I don’t believe in “second-degree separation,” or the idea that, because you may be more open to embracing someone from whom I feel I must separate, I ought to separate from you as well.
And no, I don’t think that Southern Baptists, as a group, are necessarily more faithful in their individual moral lives than the collective of people who signed the MH. Maybe so, maybe not. However, the BF&M is a document based upon actual agreement on the essentials of the gospel. That, for me, is a key consideration.
Blessings
I’ve been out of touch for a couple of days. I feel the same sense of support for the document. But I am not willing to present the idea that we are brothers in Christ with those whom I feel stand outside the faith. I appreciate your article.
You are always good, but much better when I agree with you!
Gabaptist,
I am not totally sure I am following correctly everything in your comment.
However, I will respond to these points:
When I talk about unity/separation on the basis of agreement on the gospel, I am not referring to “intramural” differences between Calvinist and Arminian evangelicals. If the gospel you believe in is sufficient to obtain the forgiveness of sin, regeneration, and the hope of eternal heaven (independently of how you articulate this aspect or that aspect of divine sovereignty/human free will), we are brothers in Christ and ought to share a “radical unity” one with another.
The Moral Majority did not claim to be a specifically “Christian” initiative.
That being said, I am not a big fan of the Moral Majority, in general. The observations of Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, in “Blinded by Might,” seem to me to be on target, if you are familiar with that.
CB,
I look forward to the game next Saturday.
And, to the Gators beating the Longhorns Jan. 7 in Pasadena.
I hope ya’ll make it to a decent bowl game as well.
You boys are silly!
The LONGHORNS have never fell to the GATORNATION (two Gator losses and one tie)….while the crimson and pink SABANATION gang has but a single win against the mighty Horns (7-0-1) out of eight tries.
I look forward to the GATORNATION / SABANATION clash next week. Either of those programs can use some TEXAS recruiting exposure…..so I can see why they want to try and get to the championship game. Its good to see Florida and Alabama beginning to warm up to the game of football though…. :)
-cj
Wait, is this SBCImpact or SECImpact? :)
Depends on whether CB Scott is around.
Good grief, dudes. Signing something like the M.D. is not an act of worship. Everyone understands that the people on the list have important differences.
If your objection is the inclusion of Catholics and Orthodox under the term “Christian,” the word “Evangelical” ought to be just as problematic. Plenty of people who call themselves Evangelical teach/practice all sorts of bizarre false gospels. That does not prevent us from all working together on things where we agree, and doing so does not damage our witness to the world.
What damages our witness is behaving like Shia and Sunni, separating ourselves from other people who love Jesus just as much as we do. Such things are one of the prime reasons the SBC is shrinking away so quickly. It’s sad and unnecessary.
Patrick,
I think I have communicated this point clearly enough, already. But, just to make sure it gets through, I will say it again.
When I use term “evangelical” in this context, I am not referring to a label, but rather a descriptor of someone who believes and embraces the gospel, independent of the label they use to describe themselves.
As far as individuals are concerned, the lines do not match up exactly with denominational lines. There are individuals who are “evangelical” (in this sense) who do not belong to “evangelical” denominations or groups. And, there are individuals who do belong to “evangelical” groups who are not truly “evangelical.”
However, there are groups, who, by their stated doctrinal position, define themselves as “evangelical” (by this definition), and others, who, by their stated doctrinal positions, define themselves outside of the boundaries of what it means to be “evangelical.”
When individuals speak as representatives of denominations and groups, we must take into account not only their personal point of view, but also the official position of the group they represent.
I am an ALABAMA football fan. Always have been. Always will be. But some things are of a far greater value than football among football fans.
In 1985, Bob Tebow and I were coming home from the Philippines following a church planting trip. Rarely in my life have I been so impressed of God as I was while on that trip home. I turned to Bob and said; “Within six months you will be back in the Philippines.” Bob just looked at me and said something like, “I don’t think so.” My response was. “Yes you will.”
Within six months we, along with some other folks, were forming the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association (BTEA). After much prayer time, along with raising financial support, Bob moved his wife, Pam, and their four children to the Philippines and began preaching the gospel of Jesus all over the PI. Bob and Pam Tebow were God made and called missionaries. It was simply amazing.
Shortly, Pam became pregnant. A Little while into the pregnancy, the doctors told Pam and Bob that she must have an abortion, because, if I remember correctly, the baby could not live and her life was in jeopardy.
Pam Tebow refused to abort her baby. Bob called on all of us back home to pray and they put their lives totally in the hands of Holy God.
In due time Timmy Tebow was born. There ain’t nothin’ wrong with that kid. And his Momma has done just fine. BTW, Timmy has done just fine too.
Later, I introduced the motion to have Sanctity of Life lessons in every piece of Sunday School material the BSSB produced. It took two years to get enough conservative (CR) votes to pass the motion. It is my opinion that we simply did not have enough preachers on that board who believed abortion was murder to get the motion passed in the beginning. What a shame that preachers didn’t have the biblical convictions of a pregnant missionary in the PI.
Timmy Tebow may very well be the greatest college football player in the history of the game. But one thing is for sure; If his Momma had exercised her “right to choose” we would never have had the opportunity to argue the point.
Every time Timmy Tebow runs over someone and scores another touchdown, I thank Holy God for Pam Tebow’s sanctified grit and steel and her absolute trust in her Lord Jesus even if it cost her her life. And I continue to pray that legalized abortion will end in this nation during my lifetime.
cb
David, I get your point. I just don’t agree. I do not believe the Manhattan Declaration and similar documents lead anyone wrong about the faith, nor do the Scriptures you cite require the kind of “radical separation” you and MacArthur are advocating. Thank you for the explanation, however. Blessings to you and yours,
-Patrick
CB,
Great story! Thanks for letting us in on this “inside scoop,” and for your part in the support of missions, and the fight against abortion.
Patrick,
I think I get your point as well. And, I appreciate the dialogue, and the way you have expressed your concerns. I hope to remain open to being taught by God’s Word, and by fellow-members of the Body (such as you), as I seek to better understand the unity of the Body, and the implications of faithfulness to the gospel.
David,
As you probably know, BTEA is not associated with the IMB. There is a story there also, but I will let that be for another time. But I will say we could not work within the structure so we had to become separate.
cb
As I see it, this is Colson’s way of getting Evangelicals and Catholics together by finding some common moral ground he knew they could agree on. From here he will try to move them together an inch at a time. In politics it is called incrementalsim, not that Colson is familiar with politics.
Brother Morris,
I think you are right. He has identified a few slam dunks of moral togetherness. Colson’s problems may surface though if he tries to persuade the adopted of God to believe in the doctrines of being placed into the kingdom by the Catholic way through the indelible mark.
One thing is certain,…the Catholic way is not the gospel and they admit it. Catholic’s are not silent concerning their gospel. Maybe we can just keep quiet about the real gospel and all just get along. No harm,..right? I mean after all,…some think these moral objectives are more important than the gospel of God….as if you can’t agree on morals and the gospel at the same time.
The real question in all of this may be…Is the Catholic church changing its understanding and preaching of the gospel of God to reflect the scriptures? The Manhattan document says “Christians” are doing something…. If you deny Christ, but then use his name for moral initiatives,…are you still considered a Christ follower?
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. (22) “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ (23) “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Surely the indelible salvific mark of baptism by man is still the practice of Lawlessness!
Blessings,
Chris
I need to request a name change on sbcIMPACT. I am now “Grandpa Dave” to William David Miller in Lynchburg Virginia.
It is kinda distracting to sit in church with your phone on waiting for texts from Lynchburg to tell me when William was born. I’m glad I got the text during the song service, not during the sermon.
I agree with you completely David and believe you have done well articulating your (and my) reasons for abstaining from signing this declaration.
Congratulations Grandpa Dave!!!
Dave,
Congratulations on the birth of William. May the Hand of God guide him in all his paths.
cb
Hey Grandpa Dave, that’s great news! I’ve had to sit in the services with that little buzzer on too and it is a great feeling when it finally goes off. What a blessing.
Grace,
Wes
Bro. David,
I appreciate your thoughts here.
Hey Chris P.,
I read your blog from the 25th on this subject. It goes to crux of the matter.
Sometimes our emotions and ambitions can cloud the real reason for unity. Because without the Holy Spirit, there can be no unity in matters of the gospel. And “another gospel”, beyond that given by God, is void of the Holy Spirit.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother David,
You kind of sound BI in your analysis. :) Funny, I agree with your article. It seems Dr MacArthur certainly articulates my concerns with this document.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Glad you agree.
“And, if you truly embrace the same gospel I embrace, and have a true saving relationship with the same Lord and Savior who has saved me, then you are my brother or sister in Christ, no matter what else you may happen to believe or practice on this or that…on the most important matter of all, the eternal gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we are in deep, binding, fundamental agreement. We are members of the same Body. We are brothers and sisters. And, we should never minimize the importance of that.”
[...] leaders published a document entitled the Mount Vernon Statement. Although, in contrast to the Manhattan Declaration from a couple of months ago, it does not purport to be a specifically Christian document, among its [...]
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics