I’m not going to recite all the issues again, read the previous posts for background.
These are a collection of statements that sort of summarise the issues that people have with the document.
On Reformation 21 Ligon Duncan posts a statement observing that members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals both signed and did not sign the document.
Duncan explains: “The issue boils down to a matter of judgment, not a disagreement in principle, between those Council members who signed and didn’t sign. The non-signers believe that the content of the document and the associations of the primary authors imply an ECT-like [Evangelicals & Catholics Together] confusion about the Gospel. The signers believe that the explicit assertions and emphasis of the documents relate only to areas of principled social-ethical agreement between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. Further, they believe that it is important for individuals from the major quadrants of the historic Christian tradition to speak on these pressing matters in solidarity.”
He affirms the continuing fellowship of the members of the Alliance.
At Ligonier Ministries R.C Sproul offers an explanation: “The Manhattan Declaration: Why didn’t you sign it, R.C.?”
In part: “As anyone familiar with my ministry will know, I share the document’s concern for defending the unborn, defining heterosexual marriage biblically, and preserving a proper relationship between church and state. However, when the document was sent to me and my signature was requested a few weeks ago, I declined to sign it. In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.”
Sproul goes on to state that “The framers of the Manhattan Declaration seem to have calculated this objection into the language of the document itself.” Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs analyses public statements by Robert George, one of the three framers of the Manhattan Declaration, and a Roman Catholic.
Among other references and links to online articles, Johnson offers this quote from George: “For Christians who are part of this new ecumenical alliance, ancient animosities and mutual suspicions have quite simply vanished. No longer do we view each other as “heretics” or “apostates,” much less as “infidels.” Many of us find it increasingly difficult to fathom how it could be that generations of Christians did perceive and speak of each other in these harsh terms. Despite our differences, we regard each other—effortlessly—as brothers and sisters in the Lord.”
There are quite a few invitations for Christians, protestant and Bible believing to stand ‘in unity’ alongside others who also are called Christian but have vastly different understandings of salvation and Biblical authority. There are times when we will agree with these folk without necessarily affirming that we accept them as fellow believers.
We should also be careful of allowing ourselves to be manipulated by those who invite us to express agreement on one issue in a manner that seems to embrace agreement on much, much more.
This is not avoiding the duty of standing for the standards of God’s Word in the world. This is carrying out that duty in a way that maintains the truth of the Gospel with clarity and conviction.
mgpcpastor's blog 