The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Manhattan Declaration

Recently, a document was released (drafted in part by Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George) called the Manhattan Declaration. This document has already been signed by nearly 200,000 people. Please read the Manhattan Declaration and determine whether or not you could in good conscience sign this document. Of the signers, many are well known to many of us and may be quite surprising and even disappointing.

To give you an idea of what this document says here is a concluding statement from the Declaration:

Sound good? So what is there here that might cause a Christian some consternation. Below are links to web sites of some people who have chosen to NOT sign it with their reasons why.

David Wheaton
James White
Further thoughts from James White
John MacArthur
Alistair Begg
Tim Challies

I would be interested to hear your response to this and reasons why you would or would not sign the document.

I don't like bandwagons. I expected that I would not sign the document, but after reading it, I signed it because I agree with it. It's well written and thoughtful and compassionate.

It made me think of Francis Schaffer and his willingness to act as a co-beligerent on social issues.

Albert Mohler wrote a piece on his blog (www.albertmohler.com) on why he signed it and I agree with him. It's evident that Dr. Mohler thought long and hard about whether or not to sign it.

I think I understand why Drs. White, MacArthur, and Pastor Begg didn't sign it. And while I haven't read why Challies didn't sign it, it doesn't suprise me that he didn't. He's Canadian. [As a Canadian (who now lives in the States) I can say that Canadians usually have a different perspective on such things.]

This document, for me, only articulated what decent people believe on a couple of critical social issues. I am glad it didn't not go any farther than that. It didn't need to.

I wouldn't sign it myself. It implies that evangelicals are on the same ground as Roman Catholics & the Eastern Orthodox, but while these groups may agree on the basics of the specific items addressed in this declaration, they differ fundamentally on essential Christian doctrines. Since the declaration treats all as "Christians," it gives credence to the damnable errors promulgated by Rome & Constantinople. Beyond that, I'm not sure I see the whole point of the declaration. Have these groups wavered before in their position on the issues addressed there? What is the perceived need for it?

After reading through the document I would decline and do decline to sign it. The statements of those "notables" who have declined found in the links provided above are those which I agree with for the most part. And I think CovenantInBlood has summarized their fundamental positions accurately; lumping Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox together as equals.

From the document itself, here are some of the statements I found to be most objectionable along with my comments:

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. 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. May God help us not to fail in that duty.
[All signors implied are considered Christians and that their understanding of the "Gospel" is the same. We know that this simply isn't true. Personally, I do not and cannot recognize Roman Catholics nor Orthodox adherents as true Christians.]


The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.
[It is assumed that the 'unborn, disabled and dependent' are "our brothers and sisters...", which is a flat denial of the doctrine of Total Depravity and at the same time the spiritual separation that occurs at regeneration and conversion when a true believer is called out of darkness and death and given life through the light that is found only in the Lord Christ.]


Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.
[The Bible teaches and thus I must embrace that God does not love every man indiscriminately. Nor does Scripture bifurcate sin from the sinner since sin is the fruit of a sinner and cannot therefore exist in and of itself apart from its origin; the depraved nature of the human heart or from fallen angelic beings.]


Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4).
[The "Epistle to Diognetus" has no authority since it is not part of the divinely inspired written Word of God. To follow Jesus faithfully includes the promulgation of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. These three groups have fundamental differences as to what the Gospel entails. More so, the Gospel as preached, taught and embraced by the Reformers and Puritans is decidedly different than that embraced by the vast majority of 'Evangelicals' today.]


We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.
[The Bible teaches no such liberty nor obligation whereby a true believer is to disobey any civil law if it is simply "unjust". That we should voice our disapproval and seek to correct such injustices is true. However, what Scripture teaches is that Christians are to disobey any civil law or other type of law which demands commit sin; that which God's moral law forbids. Likewise, Christians are to disobey any such law that forbids them to do what God has commanded them to do.]

Cal Gal

I am a Canadian and actually know the reason Tim Challies would not sign the document. It is basically for the same reasons James White and John MacArthur would not sign it.

I could not in good conscience sign the document for the same reasons others on this thread gave.
While I share the same concerns that Dr. Albert Mohler gave concerning the reason he signed the document.
I believe he is wrong to say that the document does not compromise the beliefs between Protestants, RCs and Orthodox.

Dr. Mohler stated the following:

Look a little closer at the document yourself (i.e. sections Pilgrim quoted) and ask yourself if Dr. Mohler is correct.

Tom

For those who are interested; on the Dividing Line Broadcast, Dr. James White discusses the issue of why certain Reformed believers have signed this document.
The bottom line seems to be on how they understand the document to be understood. As Dr. Ligon Duncan (one of the Reformed signers) says “If I thought that the document compromised the Gospel in any way, I would not have signed the document.”

Yet, I believe that Dr. White made it very clear that the drafters (Chuck Colson & Timothy George) of the document actually consider Roman Catholics to be Christians. This is clear by Chuck Colson's comments about the document.
Similarly, if we are going to be able to properly understand Scripture, we are going to need to understand what the original authors of Scripture intended. In the same way, if we are going to understand a document such as this properly. We need to understand the authors understanding and intentions, or we will fall into error.
I hope I stated that coherently?

Anyway those are what I took of the Dividing Line Broadcast, which can be listened to here

Tom