Mike Wittmer

the manhattan project

In light of our recent discussion about homosexual practice, I thought that you might want to know about and even sign The Manhattan Declaration, a joint statement from Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians (it was written by Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson) which defends our religious freedom to live by the teaching of Scripture and participate in the public square.

Look here for Al Mohler and Kevin DeYoung’s reasons for signing it, and here for evangelicals who won’t.

I almost never sign anything, but I did this time.

Posted

in

, ,

by

mikewittmer

Tags:

Comments

39 responses to “the manhattan project”

  1. Joel

    Maybe I’m a pragmatist deep down, but if unifying with Roman Catholics and Orthodox on this issue maybe opens some doors to dialogue, then how is that wrong?

    Either I’m naive or incredibly hopeful, but I find many Roman Catholic leader and Orthodox leaders to be believers in Christ, though misguided in some areas (some of those areas are quite big). I see them as part of Church, as part of the family of God. So I have no problem unifying them on these very basic issues – after all, in terms of morality there is very little difference between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

    I dunno, I see this declaration as an ethical declaration among those who share quite a few commonalities in their faith. This wasn’t an attempt to subvert the doctrine of justification or anything else; it was simply a way to unify against an increasingly hostile and anti-Christian world.

  2. Michael Dewalt

    Signing that went completely against everything you were interviewed about two weeks ago in the White Horse Inn. The fact is that joining hands with Catholics and pretending that we’re ok with a few minor differences is throwing a huge bucket of ice water on the white hot coals of the Gospel (in my opinion). Almost seems like an emergent social justice type ideal?? Maybe I am the one wrong, but I see no difference in this, than some emergent joining up with the RCC going to help treat aids in Africa.

    No matter if it is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience, it still is a document of that is not needed, nor needed to show in how Protestants and Roman Catholics agree upon some moral standards.

    I understand that the document is not dealing with “central-gospel” issues, or Christ as mediator, etc.

    But how is signing a document with Roman Catholics over; the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty ANY different than an emergent/”live like Jesus” guy joining hands with a catholic helping the hunger issue in Africa? Both seem to be social justice to me. But maybe I am wrong?

  3. mikewittmer

    Michael:

    I have no problem with anyone, including an emergent, who cooperates with Roman Catholics to accomplish some social good, and I’m surprised that you would.

    It’s important for you to distinguish between what a document is and what it isn’t. As you say, this document isn’t dealing with our important theological differences, and it says nothing that would lead one to think that these are unimportant.

    How exactly does signing this compromise my commitment to the gospel?

    As I noted in my post, there are some who agree with you, but there are many other evangelical leaders, such as Al Mohler, Mark Bailey, and Joe Stowell, who see it differently. The fact that so many good people didn’t think they were compromising when they signed it should at least make us careful in our rhetoric.

  4. Michael Dewalt

    I don’t have any issue with an Emergent working with a Catholic either, both are apostates churches.

    It is important for me to “distinguish between what a document is and what it isn’t.” I understand the document is no a Gospel matter. However I do understand Jude’s words, verses 3-4,
    “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

    If Jude begins his account dealing with the false teachers by describing the devious way they have slipped into the church, why would we today allow any means for such a gospel of the Roman Catholic church to pervert the Church today?
    What may seem very little to the many evangelicals today, the Reformation Heroes laid down their lives for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so that man did not have to ever agree with Rome, nor partner with Rome, and nor shall we Protestants today! For the Gospel of Protestant Faith, is not the same as Rome.

    However, now is when someone to me says, “this is not a Gospel issue.” I understand that The sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty are social justice problems, Yes. To which I respond, would you travel to Africa to help the water problem with Catholics, would you go to take food to the homeless with Catholics, would you have a homeless shelter with Catholics? Would you pass out Turkeys for thanksgiving along side the Roman Catholic church? My point is that these issues like The Manhattan Declaration are social justice problems.

    Although many of them should be the Churches job, they should be the True Church, the elect of God – doing them together for the sake of the True Gospel, and not together with one that is false. Protestant theology affirms the sole authority of Scripture, for that we practice together among ourselves the True Faith that has been granted to us, and purchased by Christ for us.

    I’m sorry but I feel that it is very important that in no matter Protestants work along side neither in a social setting, nor theological (which this is not) setting. It stands against everything our early and reformed fathers stood upon, and help pave the way for your freedom to even be an evangelical.

  5. Adam F.

    Michael, I am confused – on what grounds do you refer to the Catholic church as “apostate”? Are you arguing from the authority of particular creeds, doctrines or scholars? Or particular passages of Scripture?

    Are you considering the modern Catholic church to be categorically different from the church of the original Apostles and early Church Fathers? If so, why?

    …

    I am trying to understand your points better because as a Protestant, I find your claim about Catholicism to be offensive. To answer your rhetorical questions: would I travel to Africa to help the water problem, or any other problem, with Catholics? I would, yes.

  6. Michael Dewalt

    Adam,
    “On what grounds?” Are you even serious? On the grounds that they claim their god is the one and true God, and yet do not believe upon Christ alone, Faith alone, nor Grace alone. Let alone a number of other issues that we could name in person and in much debate.

    And yes modern, postmodern, and the middle ages Catholic church are much different than that, which was practice during the ancient church time period, let alone the Catholic church at that time was not like that of today (650A.D. – present), nor did it even start till 311/313A.D. Many of those Church fathers were nothing like that of what Rome did during the middle ages.

    My point is that as a Protestant, I would never work with them, in any matter. Nor did my Church fathers work with them, but they gave their lives for the True faith, died for the true Faith so that you can even be an evangelical today. For that, and what Catholicism has done to “Christianity” I would never work on social justice issues with them. Nor would I ever allow a catholic to be called an evangelical, but that is another issue.

    Catholicism, like Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons are churches that claim to know the True God, but yet do not follow the Scriptures and preach that of another gospel. That is called apostasy, and they are nothing but cults. One that confessing the Son, knows that Father did not John say this throughout all of 1 John? And one that confesses God like that of Rome, does not believe in Christ Alone.

    As far as being offensive to you, I don’t know you, never meet you, and never wrote to you, but wrote to Dr. Wittmer. But what is offensive to me, a believer of Protestantism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is one that preaches and teaches another faith/gospel. As Paul said, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

    I stand with my fellow brothers in the faith, of the faith for the faith in which Christ has given to His elect. For that I would never do the work of the True Church, doing social justice matter with Mother Teresa, the pope, nor any other saint in the Roman Catholic church, for that is to be done of the True Church, the Universal Church that Christ laid down His life for. Not apostates.

  7. Michael Dewalt

    Just seems for the sake of Evangelism, there is much more to lose than to gain in joining together across these religion boundaries.

    Dr. Wittmer you’ll understand when I say,
    “We already lost the term “Catholic Church” to Rome, and so it seems that we Protestants are loosing the term “Evangelical” as well. Maybe we already did?

  8. Adam F.

    For anyone reading this –
    I’d like to go on record and say, I don’t think Catholicism is a cult.

  9. Michael Dewalt

    Adam, are you a protestant? or even an evangelical? postmodernist? “I don’t think Catholicism is a cult.” Then please tell me what it is? Is it a religion preaching the true Gospel? The Truth of Jesus Christ? Salvation through Jesus Christ?

    Does not Catholicism practice strange or sinister theology, promising their people grace through something other than Jesus Christ alone?

    If any Religion/practicing faith provides a means of Salvation other then Faith, Grace, and Christ Alone, it is a cult. For there is only one way to the Father, and that is Christ alone.

    Any promise of any other means, any other back door, any other indulgence to gain forgiveness is a promise of a false salvation. Any organization that practices a false salvation can only equal cult, IF you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and Salvation.

    However in the above statements there are so many presuppositions that I would never expect you to believe. Namely, because if you have enough gull to actually defend Catholicism or stick up for it, who knows what else you would allow. I’d start by asking yourself if you believe there is absolute Truth? If so who it is and what did he say regarding His Word.

  10. Kyle B

    Adam,
    You do know that if you are a Protestant the Roman Catholic Church has anathematized you, right? RCC excommunicated herself from Biblical Christianity with Troy’s declarations. If you’re not familiar with them I suggest you go read them.
    -kb

  11. Adam F.

    Kyle B – What are Troy’s declarations? Where can I find them? My internet searches are not yielding helpful results. Thanks,
    adam

  12. Adam F.

    Oh, the council at Trent — I see why parts of that would make you uncomfortable. I guess they were taking James pretty seriously.

  13. Jonathan Shelley

    Michael and Kyle:

    I would recommend that you bring your arguments into at least the 20th century, if not the 21st century with Benedict’s attempts at reconciliation. The RCC has undergone some radical and significant changes in practice since Trent. You might also find your arguments more effective if you point to particular dogmatic statements rather than blanket statements such as they “do not believe upon Christ alone, Faith alone, nor Grace alone.” I’d be curious to see a single official RCC doctrinal formulation that denies these, or any other, core doctrines of the Christian faith. The problem is not that the RCC denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ but that they add things to it that Protestants find unnecessary. This is not to deny the seriousness of the doctrinal distinctions between the RCC, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the various Protestant movements, but it is to highlight that we share far too many core doctrinal beliefs to merely dismiss one another as apostate based on misconstruals and caricatures.

    Furthermore, since all three groups affirm the Manhatten Project for the same reason – the clear teaching of God’s Word as revealed in Scripture and taught by the Church throughout the centuries, why would we not want to stand together as a show of unity? Didn’t Jesus tell his disciples – when they complained about others performing miracles in Christ’s name – that whoever is not against us is for us? Didn’t Jesus pray for unity among his followers? Didn’t Paul admonish the Romans to accept the weaker brothers in their errors so that they may be strengthened and corrected? Certainly not every Orthodox and Catholic parishoner is a believer, just like not every person who attends a Protestant church is a believer, but neither can you dismiss both groups entirely. Both Orthodox and Catholics place themselves under the authority of Scripture and look to Christ for salvation as an act of God’s gracious mercy. If that does not make them brothers and sisters in Christ, what does?

  14. Layman Speaks

    Jonathan,

    As far as I know the RCC has never rescinded the following from the Council of Trent;

    CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema

    Is this not the core of what the reformers died for? While I am sure that there are many true believers that are part of the Catholic Church, they did not come into relationship with Christ because of the offficial doctrine of the Catholic Church. This is no “small potatoes” difference about terms, it is life and death. In My view Rome is apostate and is no church.

    Larry

  15. Adam F.

    Layman Speaks –

    Could you help me understand the following clause:
    “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost.”I’m confused because I didn’t know the Reformers denied the “grace and charity…[of] the Holy Ghost.”

    As to people who call justifying grace merely the “favour of God,” I don’t understand what that means – how is “favour” theologically loaded?

  16. Michael Dewalt

    “Both Orthodox and Catholics place themselves under the authority of Scripture and look to Christ for salvation as an act of God’s gracious mercy.” This is totally false? do you go to a college? seminary? read? or just make this stuff up as you go?
    They do not hold the authority of Scripture, nor do they look towards Christ for salvation as an act of God’s gracious mercy.

    Statements like have no truth behind them,
    “The problem is not that the RCC denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ” Your blind or you just don’t know anything. To even say such a comment. Then worse off you say.

    “we share far too many core doctrinal beliefs to merely dismiss one another as apostate based on misconstruals and caricatures”

    WHAT! What is an apostate? An apostate is one who claims to know the True God, but then renounces their religion either by act of leaving, or by having false doctrine.

    When a church as a whole such as Roman catholics make clear of obtaining a salvation in another means than Christ alone, they do not know the true God.

  17. Michael Dewalt

    Adam,
    Are you in seminary, if so where?

  18. Adam F.

    Mr. Dewalt – I encourage you to pause before you call people ignorant.

    PS – I do go to seminary, but I respectfully decline to say more, because this thread is taking on the vibe of “anything you say can and will be used against you.” I like discussion and even civil argument, but I don’t feel like we share the same convictions about what constitutes civility. Have a good weekend,

    adam

  19. mikewittmer

    Michael:

    Please stick to the issues and refrain from attacking individuals. The tone of your posts is neither helpful nor appreciated. Please prove that you can be both theologically conservative and pleasant.

  20. Layman Speaks

    Adam F,

    The dispute has to do with a word that you did not include in your question. The word is INHERENT. According to CANON XI a person is not declared justified by God until righteousness is inherent within. The New Testament it seems would disagree with that understanding. It is why the reformers talked about the fact that we are at the same time Just and sinner.

    Please read Romans 3:22-28; 5:1-11, Ephesians 2:1-10
    Notice especially in Romans 5:10 that it is while we were enemies with God that we were reconciled (declared righteous). Notice in Romans 3:26 that God brought about our redmption the way that He did so all the glory would go to Him and not to anything that resides in the merits of the sinner.

    Larry

  21. Kyle

    Sorry I meant Trent, not Troy (stoopid mistake-pun intended), I was in a hurry.
    The main thrust of Article 11 is that man is not justified only by imputation but ALSO by faith working in love. This is to introduce works into justification and conflate justification and sanctification (for more see Chemintz’ examination of the Tridentine Council, while he’s a Confessional Lutheran it’s a great work).
    Layman Speaks is right. The RCC has not recanted it’s anathema’s from Trent. IOW it’s still an authoritative declaration of Rome. While the Pope has moved to repair relations, we need to realize that he does so with the exact same chasm that existed four hundred years ago which is why this isn’t simply a 16th century issue. This issues haven’t gone away, only been pushed into the background in an increasing evangelical world that is giving up doctrine.

  22. Michael Dewalt

    Adam, “I encourage you to pause before you call people ignorant.” I do not believe I ever said those words, nor called you that. It does however seem that you may need to take a few more history classes while in seminary. But maybe I wrong and I am extremely misreading you.

    Dr. Wittmer, sorry for my “tone”.
    How can you allow someone (who I am assuming may even be one of your students) who claims to be evangelical (adam), then at the same time say that the RCC is not an apostate church?? And for one to tell me that “we share far too many core doctrinal beliefs to merely dismiss one another as apostate based on misconstruals and caricatures.” I mean seriously, come on. He is saying that to me, you and every other evangelical that we are brothers with the RCC??? Just absurd in every way. If that is the case then why have a Reformation huh.

    However besides the doctrinal issues, back to social issues among the religions. Which is shown in the above comments. The fact that we evangelicals allow ourselves to work together on social justice issues, and think in a way “well I disagree but we can still do common grace together” is absurd.
    Does anyone that is reading this honestly think that Martin Luther after all he did would have went back at the end of his life and signed any document with the RCC because he agreed with them on marriage? Never, Luther saw how the RCC had ruined the covenant in making it a sacrament of all things, and no matter what he agreed with or not, would have died before doing so.

    How about John Calvin, after dismissing the Catholics out of Geneva, would have he allowed them to come back so that he could sign a document with any catholic, on any matter? Calvin of all people would have understood that it was the True churches job in social justice issues, and those false religions are not to mingle nor be involved with Christ Bride.

    Could have anyone imaged after the writing of the Westminster Confession, that one, just one of them were to sign a bill/document on an social matter?

    Would you signed in agreement with a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Amish if they agreed upon the same three things in this document? The sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

    If we allow Eastern Orthodox, RCC to sign, then why can’t we have the Church of Science, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, etc. sign it?

  23. Michael Dewalt

    However I should have added, that is social justice even the work of the Church? I’d assume most reading this blog, like most of American Evangelicals would agree with separation of the church and state. If that is the case then why as Evangelicals, are the trying to gather other religions like RCC and Eastern Orthodox to make such a statement? Maybe some two-kingdom theology would be good here Dr. Wittmer? Your Thoughts?

  24. mikewittmer

    Michael:

    I have Amish relatives, so careful! I still don’t appreciate the way you express yourself, and so I really don’t want to respond to your questions. Your “tone” has an unwelcome edge.

  25. Nick Norelli

    Funnily enough, Mr. Dewalt’s rigid fundamentalism far more resembles anything you’d see with a cult member than any Orthodox or Catholic believer in Christ that I’ve ever come across. All this chiding about apostate churches reminds me of what Mormon missionaries say about Evangelicals. Hmm…

  26. Kyle

    Mike W,
    Could you elaborate your reasons for signing this a little more? I guess here’s what I mean. From a strict political platform I agree with the Declaration, and from a theological one I do as well. However, can two Christians, in good conscience, disagree on the issue of the state’s regulation of same-sex marriage?

    I guess my problem with the Declaration is that it puts a “Christian” stamp on these issues–as if the ecumenical “church” is saying “This is what we do/should confess.” As individual Christians living in a secular world I don’t have a problem with signing such a statement–but I do if it bears the stamp “Christian.” Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the full reason for the Declaration, but it seems to me that it is being used as an avenue for the church to police the morality of the state. I’m not sure if that made much sense, but your elaboration could be helpful.
    Grace.

  27. Randy Buist

    I won’t sign the declaration for numerous reasons, but the primary one is exactly what Kyle notes above.

  28. Randy Buist

    Dr. Wittmer,

    Reading all of the comments above, is it any wonder that unbelievers are confused about the church? We can’t even agree if Catholics are legitimate followers of Jesus.

    We argue about marriage being between a man and a woman, and we will put great effort into getting people to sign a declaration. Yet, we omit the numerous wars, genocides, AIDS epidemics, and extreme poverty currently plaguing our world as issues that need immediate attention?

    How does a non-believer understand that Christians are seeminly fine with millions of people suffering, and yet we’re disturbingly disgusted with homosexuals having physical relationships? While some Christians believe homosexual relations are a sin, your outcry for the poor, for the helpless, for those on the margins should hold the primary position.

    From the perspective of the biblical text, our passion for those on the margins is where we should be focusing our attention. As you’ve pointed out, when our attention moves away from the biblical text, then we’re in trouble as followers of Jesus.

  29. Joel Shaffer

    Randy,

    The problem with your argument is that you assume that evangelical Christians do not care about the poor and oppressed. In fact, study after study has shown that evangelical Christians are at the front lines of helping the poor in our country and throughout the world. Even the fundamentalist Baptists that I grew up with helped the poor that they came in contact with. Rather than assuming the worst about your Christian brothers and sisters thinking they are disengaged from the maginalized, I think it would be more accurate to not ask if, but rather HOW ARE AND HOW SHOULD EVANGELICALS HELP THE POOR?

    Is it better to reduce poverty through the government? Or is it better through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) or a combination of both? Is reducing poverty/social justice a primary aspect of the mission of the church? How does social action/justice coincide with evangelism/discipleship? These are the questions that we wrestle with, not questioning whether the church is even engaging the poor. That is what turned me off to the emergent church (when I first began reading Brian Mclaren and realizing that he was making false and/or exaggerated characterizations of evangelicals in order to justify his views).

    By the way, I commend you for your passion for the poor and the oppressed. I also share that heartbeat. And there are things that evangelicals need to be called to repentance to in regards to the poor (for example, justifying their multi-million $ facilities and over-budgeted, quirky Christmas programs) because more resources are needed to help the poor and oppressed. I just wish that you could see the big picture as to what evangelical Christians are actually doing (think of the thousands of NGOs that have been started to fight local and global poverty) and not have to buy into the lie that the only social issues that Christians care about are gay marriage and abortion.

  30. Kyle

    “Is reducing poverty/social justice a primary aspect of the mission of the church?”
    No. The primary aspect of the mission of the Church is Word and sacrament 😉

  31. joel shaffer

    Kyle,

    On my blog, I have asked the question how evangelism and social justice interface with the mission of the church. Would love to get yours, Randy’s and others to comment! Check it out here. http://utmsentiments.blogspot.com/2009/11/familiar-divide.html

  32. Bill N.

    Getting back to the real issue:

    They came for the Orthodox and I said nothing because I wsa not Orthodox. They came for the Catholics and I said nothing because I was not Catholic. They came for the Lutherans and I said nothing because I was not Lutheran. They came for the Evangelicals and when I spoke up in protest, there was no one left to hear….

  33. Michael Dewalt

    Michael Horton seem to address the issue well. http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/250.html

  34. Joel

    If we lived in a culture that held to Judeo-Christian values where the majority of the population understood there was a God and certain things are right and wrong, I think we’d have legitimate ground to have a serious debate between the three main branches of Christianity.

    As it stands, we don’t have such a luxury. Is it any wonder that Paul was so adamant that people avoid useless arguments in his time? It is because there were bigger issues to tackle. Granted, we must avoid false teachers who change the Gospel, and I would agree that Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics come close in some respects, but it’s quite a leap to say that they change it completely. It’s quite a leap to say they have abandoned the true Christ when if we look to traditional creeds that Christians have held to throughout the years, they can ascribe to them.

    In light of the above, I don’t think we have the luxury of arguing over certain things in faith. Certainly these differences will continue to distinguish one group from the other and they are legitimate differences, but where we can stand together and have the same justification, we must do so.

    When I’m having to explain to a thirteen-year-old why his teacher is wrong and homosexuality isn’t acceptable, my desire to debate Roman Catholics instead of standing with them against an eroding culture just dissipates.

  35. Michael Dewalt

    “Why didn’t you sign it, R.C.?” see here, http://new.ligonier.org/blog/the-manhattan-declaration/

  36. Michael Goodwin

    I feel there are already too many Michaels posting on this site, but I thought I would add some hopefully helpful thoughts to this discussion.
    First, I am more in agreement with the convictions of Michael Horhton and R.C. Sproul. I believe the our enemy, the one who clothes himself in the brilliant light of deception, is ever trying to deceive and bait the Church.
    Being the Christmas season, The Manhattan Declaration seems to be one of Satan’s packages dressed up all nice, including the pretty bow.

    Let me ask a question. When has agreement and compromise ever not felt right?

    When we “agree” with temptation, isn’t always pleasing to the eye? Was the fruit not appealing and acceptable to Eve?

    My aim in this reply is not to condemn those Christians who signed the declaration, but to urge and caution them to consider what is gained and lost by their signing of the document. It is not enough to just have a good intention in signing it; we must consider aims and outcomes. There are so many tragic stories of good intentions found throughout Scripture. (consider the two Israelites that grabbed at the Ark when it was falling or Aaron’s sons who used an innapropriate form of worship as some of the harsher examples).

    As Horton mentions in his review, the idea and motive of this document is a good one, but as they say, ‘the devil is in the details’. What help can a document like this be for the Church? In what way does it declare the gospel? In what ways does it actually undermine the message of the Church.

    I also want to say I also disagree with Michael D.’s attitude he’s taken toward the others who have posted.

    I would encourage Michael D. to himself consider the history. I was just reading a document today that was speaking of the Bethel Confession, which was a document that Bonhoffer was trying to have churches sign to unite against Nazi germany. Bonhoffer and Niemoller were hoping to bring together the reformed Churches and it says their hopes were torpedoed because the other participants “had different agendas”.
    The call for the Church to be unified is a call given by our Lord Christ himself and the Church’s often unwillingness to do so can have terrible consequences.

    The reason the instance of Bonhoffer is different than the Manhattan Declaration was the Bethel Confession was in my analysis, a gospel-centered document that was refuting the deceptions running throughout many of the Churches in germany promoted by Hitler’s regime. The Manhattan Declaration, while making similar claims, does not provide such in its actual content. This is what I believe Horton and Sproul are arguing. I agree.

    I think the Church (I mean the gospel-confessing Church) should take a step back and draw up its own document saturated with gospel proclamation. Because, truly and really, it is the gospel and only the gospel that can address the three areas that the Manhattan Declaration has concerned itself with. I am still resonating lately as I read “The Gospel-Driven Life” by Michael Horton. I think the Church has a message that it must proclaim better. I don’t think the Manhattan Declaration is a help to the message of the gospel. It will probably end up being more of a distraction. (as all the comments of this post have proved. Doesn’t it look like Satan has us right where he wants us when we fall into these same traps?).
    James Grier, when visiting a class I am taking, recommended another book in the vein of TGDL by Horton. It’s called CrossTalk: Where Life and Scripture Meet. by Michael Emlet. (I know, another Michael. Believe me, I’m not biased.)
    I hope Christ sees the comments of I have made in this post edifying, profitable, and beneficial for those he has read them. May Jesus’ name be praised!

  37. Michael Dewalt

    Just to correct the above post, Kevin DeYoung after signing the MD recanted for his decision and you can read so here. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/11/27/re-visiting-the-manhattan-declaration/

    Also D.H. Hart’s article on the MD is great: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=7488

  38. Michael Dewalt

    Michael Goodwin,
    I appreciate your thoughts much.

  39. Z. Bartels

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I would so rather read Randy’s emergent thoughts on this subject than one more word from Michael Dewalt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: