- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (11/25)
- Next Post »Reading Classics Together - Redemption Accomplished and Applied (III)
The Manhattan Declaration
- 11/25/09
- 101
Last week saw the release of The Manhattan Declaration, a document crafted by Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George and signed by a long list of Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox leaders. I have not been able to gauge the interest in the Declaration or whether it has had an immediate impact. But I have seen a bit of buzz about it through the Christian blogosphere. Today I want to address it, even if only briefly.
Here is a brief description of the document:
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
It is, then, a declaration on these crucial issues of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of religious liberty. Among the more notable signatories, at least to readers of this site, is Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Unfortunately a portion of The Manhattan Declaration site is down now so I cannot refer to the list of signatories to reference other names.
Some Evangelicals have chosen to decline signing the Declaration on the basis that it is a joint statement by Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox leaders. I am among those whose conscience will not give me freedom to add my name to the 100,000+ who have already signed.
Rather than write a lengthy defense of my refusal, I thought I would direct you to some useful articles.
John MacArthur offers this explanation as to why he will not sign. “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. … [It would] relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time.”
James White writes “There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says ‘the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us’? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he ‘re-presents’ the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an ‘alter Christus’? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man’s false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the ‘right’ side of a vitally important social issue.”
Frank Turk also declines, saying “It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a ‘believer’, assumes that law is greater than grace in reforming the hearts of men, and provides moral reasoning that those who are unbelievers have no reason to accept — because they are unbelievers. And in making these three items “especially troubling” in the ‘whole scope of Christian moral concern’, it overlooks that the key solution to these moral concerns is the renovation of the human heart by supernatural means established by the death and resurrection of Christ.”
To varying degrees I agree with each of these critiques though on the whole my thoughts line up mostly closely with John MacArthur’s. In my view, this line says it all: “Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.” It is good to speak of the gospel, but what does the term mean if used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox? Each has their own understanding of the term—the term that stands at the very heart of the faith. I just cannot see past this issue.
I see that there is much more to lose than to gain in joining together across these denominational boundaries. I would not and could not sign it.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (101)
Why does there need to be a document like this at all? The question is, “what are we who call ourselves Christians, saved by Grace through Faith alone, doing about these issues?” Signing or not signing a document condemning these issues does not change anything. Being used by God in your community, state and nation to present the Gospel with our lives and lips is what God will use to adresss these issues. A Christian does not have to sign a document to stand against these issues. They need to trust God to use them in this world for HIS glory in every aspect of their lives. Please, understand I am not condemning those who singed or did not sign it, instead I am asking why do we need the document at all?
May God be please to use HIS people to combat these issues on a daily basis through HIS Gospel that saves from the penalty, the power and eventually the presence of sin.
From David Porter’s linked post in #13: “I must confess, I have read of a few, who call themselves Christians, who refuse to sign.
Here is the essence of their sanctimonious logic:
Roman Catholic Person: I just read the Manhattan Declaration, and I stand behind the three truths proclaimed in the document. I am going to sign it.
Sanctimonious Christian: I am not going to sign it!
Roman Catholic Person: why not?
Sanctimonious Christian: because I do not agree with your position on Justification, therefore, I will not stand with you.
Dear sanctimonious ones, please grow up, please stop looking for arguments, please stop acting like Pharisees.
Would you too criticize Christ for having his feet washed with oil by the prostitute?
Stand for truth, yes, but not at the expense of your commanded love. You will have no witness if you continually nauseate the world with your holier-than-thou attitude.”
David, I don’t think they realize the harm to the witness of the Gospel they do when they attack the Christians who have signed and supported the Manhattan Declaration.
Since the opponents of the Manhattan Declaration are agitating for more clarity, let me forthrightly ask based upon their spirit, “Do you want to separate and break fellowship with the Protestant Christians who signed and supported the Manhattan Declaration because they chose to sign and support the Manhattan Declaration?”
There are some anti-MD’ers who want to do that.
And FWIW, I have not heard of any conservative pro-MD Christian wanting to separate from a conservative anti-MD Christian just because they don’t support the Manhattan Declaration.
Seems to me that the right or wrong lies in where we see Catholics and Orthodox affirmed as “Christians” in a general sense. This is surely a potential problem. However, I think it points out the watered down meaning of the word, Christian. As it is a word that, as far as the world is concerned, includes all of these people, I’m not sure it is worth fighting. That is why we have gone to using words like “evangelicals”, “born-again” etc. Most people in the world would call Mormon’s Christians. Nevermind Orthodox and Catholics. These are terms that further define Christians into different groups.
In addition, I did notice that as far as what is shown here, the document mentions that “Christians’ stand for…(first paragraph) and then it says “Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christians”…(2nd paragraph). So, it doesn’t explicitly state that Orthodox, Catholic OR evangelical Christians are Christians. Maybe a technicality, but important I think.
Thoughts?
Tim I agree with your position totally . The responses of Mac , White ,Beggs are worth reading and I cannot add anything to what they all have said. Plus R.C Sproul is not signing it . The gospel is the answer , not some convoluted statement that blurs lines of clear differences .
NO ONE says the Gospel is not the answer. I do not have the slightest idea how one possible could read that into the document.
Meanwhile,more than 3,000 abortions happen every day. soon pastors will be jailed for speaking on behalf of marriage, our freedom to practice our faith goes out the window because Christians look for excuses to make a statement that does not in the slightest try to replace or re-define the Gospel.
And since we are at it, we should also never associate with Arminians and Pentecostals.
VirtualCheese: “And since we are at it, we should also never associate with Arminians and Pentecostals.”
Heh. Actually, for a couple of days now it’s been percolating in my mind now that if the Manhattan Declaration had been written for only conservative Protestants to sign, there would still have been angry critics who would have said that the Gospel is being blurred or obscured or compromised because these other Protestants were signing it. To wit:
Paedo-baptists vs. credo-baptists.Calvinists vs. Arminians.Federal Vision vs. Westminister Confession of FaithDispensational vs. Covenant TheologyCreationists vs. Theistic EvolutionistsCharismatics vs. Cessationistsetc…
Protestants are a factious bunch. Is that a feature or a bug or both?!
Anyways, the point being is that there would always be nay-sayer critics even if the Manhattan Declaration was restricted to Protestants only.
Tim, in your book on Discernment, you discuss theology triage:” Three levels of theological urgency guide us toward the issues that are of greatest importance.
1. First-level issues are those that are most central and essential to the Christian faith. This includes the doctrines of the Trinity, atonement, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith alone, and the authority of Scripture. Denial of these key doctrines necessarily represents the abandonment of biblical Christianity.”
The above issues are where we are not to go worship/associate with others. The issues with The Manhattan Declaration are issues we would agree with. There are no doctrinal errors there. You are going against what you state in Lever One issues if you refuse to sign.
Keith wrote:
“It saddens me greatly that Tim and others are so forthrightly set against supporting this declaration - feeling that your denominational distinctives (however valid) take precedence over matters of justice and righteousness. Is this truly what the Lord wants of us? Though I applaud and support your strong stand for the gospel, I suspect that Amos would weep at the desperately self-righteous pride and principals being expressed here - and even Pilate and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day would stand over in judgement against us as they see us washing our hands and turning away from the needy”
Why do the defenders of the document keep ignoring some of the points that have been made by its critics? Again, the Manhattan Declaration isn’t the only means of furthering justice, righteousness, the cause of the needy, etc. And prominent critics of the document have a demonstrable record of doing such work. See my comments about James White above, for example.
Keith, would you explain how your reasoning couldn’t also be applied to the apostles in their response to the false gospel of the Judaizers? Their differences with the Judaizers seem to have been less than our differences with Catholics, for example. Not only has Catholicism added works to the gospel, but it’s also taught Purgatory, the worship of the communion elements, a highly unhealthy view of Mary, and other significant errors the Judaizers were never associated with. If you’re so upset with Tim Challies’, James White’s, or John MacArthur’s response to Catholicism, how much more upset must you be with the apostles’ response to the Judaizers? Why didn’t Paul stop arguing with the Judaizers about “denominational distinctives” and, instead, affirm the orthodoxy of the Judaizers while working with them on issues like infanticide and sexual immorality?
You write:
“Aside from the single phrase that McArthur takes exception to, there is surely not a word in the declaration that you could not support?”
There isn’t just a “single phrase” that’s problematic. The document repeatedly refers to the drafters and signers as “believers”, suggests that they’re following “the faith”, etc.
It’s true that a term like “Christian” can be used in more than one sense. We can refer to somebody as a Christian in a variety of ways. We can give a historical figure the benefit of the doubt, since he’s vaguely associated with Christianity, and thus refer to him as a Christian, even if we don’t have much evidence by which to judge that he’s a Christian by Biblical standards. For instance, we often refer to the author of an anonymous document of ancient church history (such as The Epistle Of Barnabas or The Epistle To Diognetus) as a Christian, even though we don’t know much about him beyond his affirmation of some Christian concepts. People often use the term Christian in a more historical or social sense rather than in its highest, Biblical sense.
And the Manhattan Declaration could be read as using terms like “Christian” and “believer” in some lesser sense. But is that the most natural way to read the language? I don’t think so. Especially when ecumenists like Chuck Colson and Timothy George were so involved in the drafting of it, when so little effort was made to avoid giving people the impression of a more ecumenical meaning, and when reading it in a non-ecumenical way would be so awkward. At a minimum, the document is poorly worded and misleading on this issue. And I suspect that it’s worse than that, though some signers, like Albert Mohler, surely had better intentions than others.
Paul Bruggink wrote:
“I’m sorry, but people who can affirm the Apostles and/or the Nicene Creeds ought to be able to get together on important things without nitpicking.”
Those creeds address some of the most important issues of the faith, but they don’t address every foundational issue. I see no reason to conclude that a Judaizer wouldn’t be able to affirm those creeds. Yet, the Judaizers were criticized by the apostles as erring on a foundational issue by adding works to the gospel.
Evangelicals can work with Catholics in the pro-life movement, in political offices, by voting for Catholic political candidates, by recommending books written by Catholics, by drafting and signing documents with them in some contexts, etc. But it would be inappropriate to join them in other contexts. The Manhattan Declaration repeatedly makes comments that, when read in their most natural sense, affirm the orthodoxy of groups that aren’t orthodox. That’s a significant error. Yes, the document is mostly good, and its error that I’m referring to is on an issue that the document doesn’t focus upon. Those are significant qualifying factors, and they do lessen the significance of the document’s problems. The document is problematic, though, and signing it isn’t of much importance. People can still work to oppose abortion or homosexual marriage, for instance, without signing the Manhattan Declaration. I don’t think the document is as important as some people in this thread have suggested.
In the future, people who draft such documents ought to be more careful about the language. Men like Chuck Colson and Timothy George should have anticipated this sort of reaction to the document. Why aren’t supporters of the document criticizing them for failing to avoid problems that could so easily have been avoided?
Jason Engwer: “And I suspect that it’s worse than that, though some signers, like Albert Mohler, surely had better intentions than others.”
Are we now judging intentions? And how would you refer to someone who is part of the visible church who wants to join those of the invisible church in cause?
Furthermore the document says “we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities”. So if they do not speak on behalf of their organization, who knows what their personal convictions and beliefs are? I have many friends, who are Christians, who went back into the Catholic church to spread the true Gospel.
virtualcheese wrote:
“Are we now judging intentions?”
As far as they’re objectively discernable, yes. We make such judgments frequently in our everyday lives, in law courts, etc. Some of the people associated with the document have told us what they think of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. And it’s unlikely, upfront, that such a large number of people from such diverse backgrounds would have identical intentions. The people associated with the document came to it from different backgrounds and have acted in different ways since signing it. It would be irresponsible to ignore such distinctions. The fact that we don’t know everything that motivated the signers of the document doesn’t mean that we can’t reach any reliable conclusions on the subject. You don’t need exhaustive knowledge of men’s hearts in order to discern that Chuck Colson probably approached this document with a more ecumenical perspective than Albert Mohler did.
You write:
“Furthermore the document says ‘we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities’. So if they do not speak on behalf of their organization, who knows what their personal convictions and beliefs are?”
If you don’t know “what their personal convictions and beliefs are”, then why refer to them as if they’re believers in the highest sense of that term? And they’re being referred to as believers in a document in which such references could easily have been avoided. For reasons I’ve explained already, I doubt that any of the Evangelical signers know every non-Evangelical signer well enough to discern that they’re believers in spite of the false gospel of the groups they’re associated with.
We all know that Jesus would never sign a document with the Pharisees to fight against Roman taxation; that Paul would not sign with the Judaisers to hold the line against Roman persecution; that Luther would not sign with the Roman Catholics to bring social reform.But it has happened nevertheless. The loudest herolders of Gospel purity have succumbed to ecumenism. We’ve signed a document that clearly assumes a unified Gospel?! (to deny this is ridiculous) I guess discernment has officially abandoned the conservatives.
“John MacArthur essentially believes that you aren’t a real Christian unless you believe in a literal six 24-hour day creation of the universe around six thousand years ago.”
That’s just dishonest slander, and therefore, deleted.
I am waiting for someone to answer my original question. - November 26, 20099:30 AMWhy does there need to be a document like this at all? The question is, “what are we who call ourselves Christians, saved by Grace through Faith alone, doing about these issues?”
Bryan,
I share your question … I fail to see what effect the document will, or even is intended to, have.
I can’t really see clarification being the intent; I honestly don’t think there is a big confusion out there as to where Evangelical Christians and other these other faith groups stand on these issues.
Reading through it, it seems like its defining the battle lines of a cultural war … but as I mentioned, aren’t these already fairly well defined?
Jason Engwer: (and Nate Graham)
I am fascinated by your Judaizer analogy. Although my inclinations lie with those who have signed this document, I think the analogy is well conceived. Paul decisively denounces those who are requiring new believers to be circumcised, etc as a requirement for salvation. Interestingly, of course, he then has Timothy circumcised so that he won’t be a stumbling block to Jews. I wonder how those things fit together—on the one hand, he stoutly denounces the Judaizers, yet for the sake of unity he has his young protege circumcised so that Christians who chose to keep the Law wouldn’t be offended by Timothy. Was Paul compromising his convictions in doing so? In addition, Paul stoutly denounces Peter (according to Galatians) for removing himself from table fellowship with the Gentiles. Does this mean that until Peter saw the truth of Paul’s argument, that they had nothing to do with each other?
My question, then, is this: is it possible that, even in Paul’s rigorous defense of the Gospel, that he could still seek cooperation with those who believed the Gospel imperfectly? If that is so, could we then in good conscience sign a document like this one, even if we believe Catholics and the Orthodox believe the Gospel imperfectly?
Bryan:
There needs to be a document like this because people could be doing more about these issues. It seems as simple as that—a call for people from the various Christian traditions to be aware of and engage concerning these issues.
(Nate Graham, new user name)The answer to your question lies in the Jer. Council. While they condemned salvation by law, they ended by encouraging the observance of certain laws for the sake of peace. (since Moses is preached everywhere, v21). For the sake of peace, not salvation, Timothy was circumcised in accordance with the spirit of the Council. There was no compromise here with Paul—circumcision for peace or salvation are radically different issues. I agree that Peter’s compromise was against the Gospel (Gal. 2:12) but he was not an apostate unbeliever selling a false Gospel—just a stumbling Christian. I don’t think we can seriously draw a comparison between his “imperfect” understanding of the Gospel and Judaizers/RCCs. Our compass is Gal 1:9. Why can’t orthodox evangelicals create a declaration of social justice which is founded on the one, true Gospel? Brother, the Gospel should be more precious to us than this.
I second nmgraham’s well-written response to Josiah.
nmgraham:
Thanks for your response, and for your heartfelt admonition to keep the Gospel central. Your point on the Jerusalem Council is well taken—I did not mean to suggest that Paul had Timothy circumcised as a sign of salvation, but what I wrote could be read that way. It does seem to me, though, that Paul’s circumcision of Timothy is still problematic for your view, since although Paul does it for the purpose of peace and not for salvation, it seems likely that in the minds of those Paul and Timothy would be eating with Paul had done it for salvation. Does that make sense? From the perspective of the converted Pharisee who still wanted to keep the Law (or even the Judaizer!), Paul had circumcised Timothy so that he was complying with Torah—not just to keep peace. Perhaps I’m going too far to say Judaizer there, but I’m not sure I am. They probably wouldn’t understand Paul’s distinction.
In addition, why can’t we put Peter in with the Judaizers? It seems that their false understandings of the Gospel are exactly the same—once the men from James comes, he withdraws, because in their understanding one has to be circumcised and keep Torah to be saved. How is this different from the Judaizers?
In my view, this extrapolates out into the present situation in this way: there are things that we can do to seek peace and common cause in the Church without compromising our core distinctives. Gal. 1:9 is true—I believe it. But even if those who preach a false Gospel will be accursed, does this mean that we cannot cooperate with them on secondary issues? It seems that the classic Reformed position has been that in causes which are just, cooperation with those who are (even) secular can be called for. Isn’t this part of the creation mandate?
It seems to me that this is an issue of conscience, and I respect your stand. Too few people really care about the Gospel, and I commend you for that.
Sorry to monopolize the comments…but I am really a slow thinker and it takes me a long time to process stuff. The crux of my argument is this: it seems that those who cannot sign do so because they fear Catholics may think that they have the true Gospel, or worse, that Protestant lay people may think Catholics are saved. If this is the main concern—and I think it is legitimate—then what of Paul, who has Timothy circumcised at risk of the Judaizers saying “see! We’re vindicated!” It seems that Paul had a higher priority in that case.
Jason refers:
“And the Manhattan Declaration could be read as using terms like “Christian” and “believer” in some lesser sense. But is that the most natural way to read the language? I don’t think so. Especially when ecumenists like Chuck Colson and Timothy George were so involved in the drafting of it, when so little effort was made to avoid giving people the impression of a more ecumenical meaning, and when reading it in a non-ecumenical way would be so awkward. At a minimum, the document is poorly worded and misleading on this issue. And I suspect that it’s worse than that, though some signers, like Albert Mohler, surely had better intentions than others.”
Yes, it is the most natural way to read the document in such a “lesser but generic sense” and this is where I think the nub of the argument settles and the issue really lies. You choose to read it as a document that ascribes a negative thesis to it’s import, all because you have narrowed the definition of “Christian” and because of that it is inevitable that you and others would question at the very least it’s potential to compromise gospel integrity. But all that this document is doing is defining a Christian in exactly the way that it would be received and understood by those who it seeks most to affect. To an audience that knows little if anything of the distinctions you make and knows everything about the lesser generic sense to which you refer. There can be no other interpretation of the word Christian other than in this generic sense here because it has to be causally related to the audience it is intended to reach. It becomes therefore a document that connects people together under the banner of Christian in a way that there is no misunderstanding to the audience to whom it is intended to reach about what Christian means since that is the understanding they have anyway. It neither adds anything nor takes anything away in other words from people’s perceptions about Christians as that is what they understand it’s meaning to be anyway. The word Christian then becomes no longer the issue or the focus, but instead the message that is put out. An important one, a matter of life and death for some and for others the difference between deprivation of liberty or not.
You’ve sealed your own tomb. You are right. In the document the word “Christian” is defined according to the audience, not according to the Bible.
It would be of interest to me to know the Eschatological view of those opposed to the declaration.
Nicodemus writes:
“You choose to read it as a document that ascribes a negative thesis to it’s import, all because you have narrowed the definition of ‘Christian’ and because of that it is inevitable that you and others would question at the very least it’s potential to compromise gospel integrity.”
As I said earlier, the term “Christian” isn’t the only relevant language in the document. And I didn’t “choose” to read the document as I did. I read it according to the textual and contextual evidence, some of which I discussed above.
You write:
“But all that this document is doing is defining a Christian in exactly the way that it would be received and understood by those who it seeks most to affect. To an audience that knows little if anything of the distinctions you make and knows everything about the lesser generic sense to which you refer.”
You haven’t argued for the identity of the audience as you’re defining it. Rather, you’re just asserting a conclusion without arguing for it.
Why are we supposed to believe that the audience of the document would interpret phrases like “believer” and “the faith” as referring to some lower meaning of those terms? Why should we think that the document is meant to be read as highly ignorant individuals would interpret it, and why should we think that those who are so ignorant would know about the lower meaning of every term in question, but none of the higher meanings? Even people who know little about Christianity are often aware of concepts such as the salvation of believers (John 3:16). Why should we think that they would interpret a reference to Catholics and Orthodox as “believers” in some lower sense? There are other words they could have used if they didn’t want to suggest that the people in question are Christians in the highest sense of the term (“Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals”, etc.). Using terms like “believer” and “[Jesus’] disciples” suggests something more than being born into a Christian family or attending a church. Why would the drafters of the document repeatedly choose a variety of less clear terms to use when other terms that would have been clearer and commonly understood were easily available? As I said before, the document is poorly worded at a minimum, and I think the evidence suggests that it’s even worse than that.
It’s likely that the document assumes an above average knowledge of the subject matter among its readers. Not many people would read such a document. Those who do read it probably aren’t as ignorant as the average person. That’s why the document can use terms like “gospel” and various historical and moral phrases without defining them for the audience.
Even if the document had been drafted with a highly ignorant primary audience in mind, the drafters surely knew that more knowledgeable people would be reading it as well. Where, then, is the effort to communicate effectively to those people? If phrases like “Catholic” and “Evangelical” had been used, without using terms like “believer” and “[Jesus’] disciples”, the language would have been accurate and understandable to both the more ignorant and the more knowledgeable readers. The more often the drafters use problematic language instead, the more difficult it becomes to argue for your interpretation of the document. And the drafters chose the problematic terminology more than a few times. I doubt that they would have done so if they didn’t intend to suggest the orthodoxy of all of the groups involved.
Mike Ekim wrote:
“It would be of interest to me to know the Eschatological view of those opposed to the declaration.”
We have a variety of eschatological views. John MacArthur is a premillennialist, whereas James White is an amillennialist, for example.
Josiah wrote:
“The crux of my argument is this: it seems that those who cannot sign do so because they fear Catholics may think that they have the true Gospel, or worse, that Protestant lay people may think Catholics are saved. If this is the main concern—and I think it is legitimate—then what of Paul, who has Timothy circumcised at risk of the Judaizers saying ‘see! We’re vindicated!’ It seems that Paul had a higher priority in that case.”
What’s the logical connection between having somebody circumcised and doing so in an attempt to attain justification? People can get circumcised for a variety of reasons. Anybody who had interpreted Paul in the manner you’re suggesting some might have interpreted him would have been doing so irrationally and incorrectly. In contrast, it hasn’t been shown that an interpretation of the Manhattan Declaration such as mine is irrational or incorrect. The language of the document isn’t as ambiguous as having Timothy circumcised. And we know that many of those involved with the document, including the ones most influential in the process of putting it together, view Catholicism and Orthodoxy as Christian in the highest sense of that term.
Isn’t the logical connection between circumcision and justification established in Galatians, where Paul is writing against those who connect the two, saying that it is necessary for salvation? Would having Timothy circumcised, before going to meet Jews, have been seen as an “ambiguous act” by the Jews? That’s seems pretty implausible. Although people get circumcised for a variety of reasons—illustrated here by Timothy, who is circumcised so as not to be a stumbling block—the question is how would the Jews have understood this. It would have meant, to their way of thinking, that he was entering into covenant with God—-that he was following Torah. Right?
Tim:
Your refusal to sign strikes me as a kind of spiritual pride; perhaps the very kind that delights the Divider.
It’s no wonder that unbelievers scoff at Christians—how can we expect the world to be drawn to Christ if even His followers bicker, quarrel and turn up their noses at each other?
Honestly, your cold tone (“I would not and could not”) grieves my heart so deeply. It truly brought me tears.
“By this shall men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.” John 13:35
The identity of the audience is obvious, it does not need arguing.It is illogical to infer necessarily that those who would see the terms in a generic “narrower” sense are ignorant unless of course you are defining ignorant in a less offensive way. It is just of little interest to many to want to know what these terms might mean to various vested interests. It is their practical outcome in terms of policy and change that is of primary interest.
The document achieves it’s primary goal to assert the “christian” bedrock values in the three key areas and that it achieves and it achieves it well.
I have tremendous respect and appreciation for Dr. Mohler, but I have to agree with Tim, Dr. MacArthur, Dr. White, Frank Turk, Dave Doran (http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=177&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fe…), et al. The fundamental problem is simple: the document says “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians …” and “We are Christians …”
I hope that Dr. Mohler would agree that a consistently confessional Romanist cannot give a credible profession of faith in Christ and His Gospel of grace. If there are Romanists in heaven, it is surely in spite of the fact that they were part of a false church full of deception, confusion, and damnable heresy. By and large, we should not refer to Romanists as “Christians.”
Does this make me a “legalist” for not signing the document? Surely not, for my concern is to preserve the purity of the blessed Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. If I start calling Romanists (or other run-of-the-mill moralists who discard sola fide) “Christian,” the term loses all meaning. To be a consistent Romanist is to be damned eternally (not to mention temporally), and I would defend this statement to my death. Theirs is a different Gospel. They are not Christian, and we should not pretend that we can unite with them as Christians. I am not hostile to Romanists, but rather I desire to share the Gospel of Christ with them; they need evangelism, not someone to pat them on the back and affirm their “Christian” values.
Someone once said that these types of statements such as the Manhattan Declaration represent the “… error of thinking that ‘broad commitments, concerns, and postures’ are somehow more important or more fundamental than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Calvin said that justification is the “main hinge on which religion turns,” not simply an important yet debatable issue among Christians. If we cannot agree that a true Gospel-affirming “Christian” must believe in sola fide, God help us! Maybe we re-read Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers of the 16th Century before we can credibly and uncompromisingly address what the pagans in our culture and nation are doing morally. We will not have salvation, temporally or eternally — in our souls or in our culture — without a right soteriology!
To David Kjos (Comment #63):Re your “That’s just dishonest slander, and therefore, deleted,”I suggest that you read John MacArthur’s Introduction to his book “The Battle for the Beginning” (W Publishing Group, 2001), particularly pages 18-30, which conclude with John MacArthur writing: “I am convinced the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is the one that comes naturally from a straightforward reading of the text. It teaches us that the universe is relatively young,albeit with an appearance of age and maturity, and that all of creation was accomplished in the span of six literal days.”
Then on page 44, John MacArthur states: “In other words, if you reject the creation account in Genesis, you have no basis for believing the Bible at all.”
I hope, for Christianity’ sake, that John MacArthur has changed his views on the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 since 2001, but if he has not changed his views, then I stand by my deleted comments.
Hmm
Some of the people entering comments about dissenters being sanctimonious, unloving, and a damage to our reputation to the world have it all wrong. I think unbelievers would mostly side with all us dissenters because they think that Christianity is getting hijacked by the politically conservative. In the United States, there is an active attempt by left wing politicians to become more appealing to the religious people in our country. They view attempts such as those from the Manhattan Declaration as an attempt to garner votes for Republicans/conservatives. Unbelievers would most likely be open to listening about the religious opinions of dissenters, particularly when they are of the faith that they think Al Mohler is a part, I think.
Again I will say what so many Christians don’t seem to understand. It is not the role of the church as the church, and Christian leaders as Christian leaders speaking in religious terms, to tell the world that they should support some just cause. All those Old Testament quotations don’t apply to unbelievers in the US. The United States is not in a covenantal relationship with God. We are not living in a theocratic state, as in Old Testament Israel, in which people received direct law from God on how to order their society. America has no Moses. It is the role of the church to call people to repentance and faith in Christ. As a private citizen or as a secular group, we can advocate for certain views speaking in a secular way. In other words, we should argue with unbelievers, as citizens of a secular state, as to how to live in a just and orderly way using natural law, “the moral revelation that God gives in creation itself.”
Check out these links on natural law and it’s use by Christians like Calvin.http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=93&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=62
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/resources-for-reformed-approaches-to-natural-law/
It would do wonders if every evangelical read Caleb’s post every morning before getting out of bed.
Nicodemus wrote:
“The identity of the audience is obvious, it does not need arguing.”
I cited evidence against your view of the audience, and your response is to say that your view is “obvious” and doesn’t need argumentation. Why don’t you interact with what I said in my last response? Why should we think that the audience is as ignorant as you suggested, considering the factors I mentioned in that post? Given that the drafters of the document would have known that some more knowledgeable people would be reading the document as well, why didn’t they use language that would be appropriate for both the less knowledgeable and the more knowledgeable readers? Etc.
There are many ways to word such a document. It wouldn’t even need to describe who the signers are aside from including their names at the end. Or if they wanted to identify themselves further, they could have used terms like “Catholics”, “Orthodox”, and “Evangelicals”. That sort of terminology would have been understandable both to less knowledgeable and more knowledgeable readers, and it wouldn’t have suggested what terms like “believers” and “[Jesus’] disciples” suggest. And, as I explained earlier, it’s not as though the primary drafters (Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson) are people who would normally use such language only in a lower sense.
You write:
“It is illogical to infer necessarily that those who would see the terms in a generic ‘narrower’ sense are ignorant unless of course you are defining ignorant in a less offensive way.”
I was responding to what you said about the audience of the document. Here’s how you described them:
“But all that this document is doing is defining a Christian in exactly the way that it would be received and understood by those who it seeks most to affect. To an audience that knows little if anything of the distinctions you make and knows everything about the lesser generic sense to which you refer. There can be no other interpretation of the word Christian other than in this generic sense here because it has to be causally related to the audience it is intended to reach.”
If the audience “knows little if anything of the distinctions”, then why would it be inappropriate to refer to people who know little or nothing as people who are ignorant of that subject?
You write:
“It is just of little interest to many to want to know what these terms might mean to various vested interests.”
Now you’re not only telling us that they’re ignorant of the distinctions I made, but you’re also telling us that they have “little interest” in learning such things. Do such people usually read documents like the Manhattan Declaration? If they’re so ignorant of and uninterested in Christianity, how likely is it that they’re interested in reading a document about issues like abortion and embryonic stem cell research, a document that frequently refers to Jesus Christ, believers, the church, etc.?
Even if “many” readers are as you describe, what about the other readers? There would be many ways to word such a document so that it would be unproblematic and understandable to both less and more knowledgeable readers.
You write:
“The document achieves it’s primary goal to assert the ‘christian’ bedrock values in the three key areas and that it achieves and it achieves it well.”
I agree that the document is mostly good. But the bad portion of it that I’m criticizing is significant. It’s not just one bad word chosen, but a series of poor choices made several times throughout the document by drafters who have a history of being overly ecumenical.
Elizabeth Esther wrote:
“Your refusal to sign strikes me as a kind of spiritual pride; perhaps the very kind that delights the Divider. It’s no wonder that unbelievers scoff at Christians—how can we expect the world to be drawn to Christ if even His followers bicker, quarrel and turn up their noses at each other?”
Did you have the same reaction against Paul when you read Galatians?
Many unbelievers think that it’s unreasonable for us to “bicker” and “quarrel” with Muslims, Buddhists, and other groups as well. Should we accept the world’s standards of unity with regard to those groups?
When Celsus criticized the early church for being too divisive, did the Christians of that era respond by accommodating Celsus’ definition of unity?
You write:
“Honestly, your cold tone (‘I would not and could not’) grieves my heart so deeply.”
As opposed to the warm tone with which you accuse Tim of pride, delighting Satan, etc.?
Josiah wrote:
“Isn’t the logical connection between circumcision and justification established in Galatians, where Paul is writing against those who connect the two, saying that it is necessary for salvation?”
What Galatians establishes is that some people were arguing that circumcision is a means of justification. It doesn’t follow that anybody who gets circumcised is doing so to be justified or will be perceived in that manner.
Circumcision should be avoided in some contexts, but it’s acceptable in others. Acts 16:3, the passage you’re citing, doesn’t tell us much about the Jews in question.
You write:
“Would having Timothy circumcised, before going to meet Jews, have been seen as an ‘ambiguous act’ by the Jews?”
Yes, if they were being logical. If the Jews in question believed in justification through circumcision, why would they assume that other people, namely Christians like Paul and Timothy, agreed with that view?
Paul, the leader among those meeting with the Jews in question, was circumcised, and he would be communicating the gospel to the Jews he was addressing. The passage you’re citing is about delivering the decisions of Acts 15 to the churches (Acts 16:4). What the apostles affirmed in Acts 15, in part, was that justification is through faith alone, apart from circumcision.
The circumcision of Timothy wasn’t left to itself. It was accompanied by proclamation of a gospel that doesn’t require circumcision. The same can’t be said of the Manhattan Declaration. There is no affirmation of justification through faith alone accompanying it.
Even if Paul’s circumstances hadn’t included such qualifiers, would it follow that we must or should be involved in activity like signing the Manhattan Declaration today? No. Acts 16:3 has some significant qualifiers that you’ve neglected, and even if it didn’t, you haven’t established a connection between that passage and signing the Manhattan Declaration.
Ok…I may not have established a connection (I still think there’s something to it), but then you fellows haven’t established the Catholics=Judaizers connection.
I think you are right on about there needing to be further discussion among Protestants and Catholics—it’s terribly wrong to say: “Hey, we all believe the same thing!” Things like the Manhatten Declaration should lead to a detailed discussion of our differences with Catholics in issues such as justification. Part of doing that would need to involve having some relationship with Catholics other than showing up and saying, first thing, “You are all apostates who deny the faith.” But how is a respectful relationship established that doesn’t compromise our essentials? In my opinion, things like the Manhatten Declaration are a starting point—although I appreciate the opinions of Tim Challies and the others on here who think differently.
Paul Bruggink:
I have read The Battle for the Beginning, and also believe that “if you reject the creation account in Genesis, you have no basis for believing the Bible at all.” But that’s not the same as saying “you aren’t a real Christian unless you believe in a literal six 24-hour day creation of the universe around six thousand years ago.”
Caleb, #80: “If we cannot agree that a true Gospel-affirming “Christian” must believe in sola fide, God help us!”
Let’s examine this statement through several examples and see if it holds.
(1) A young child comes to faith in Jesus Christ at an early age. The child then dies at 12 years old through accident or illness and did not believe in sola fide and did not confess or profess sola fide because they did not learn about sola fide. Damned to hell? After all, Caleb says the Christian “must believe in sola fide”.
(2) Let’s say we have a special needs person whose reasoning capacity will never get better than a 2nd grader’s. This special needs person has faith in Christ but the doctrine of sola fide is not fully grasped. Damned to hell? After all, Caleb says the Christian “must believe in sola fide”.
(3) Let’s say a person raises their hand at the end of a preacher’s sermon to become a Christian or comes forward at a crusade. The doctrine of sola fide is not explained to them. Before they have a chance to mature, they are killed by accident or illness. Damned to hell? After all, Caleb says the Christian “must believe in sola fide”.
(4) In some churches people give their testimonies before they get baptized. Suppose the baptismal candidate does not give verbiage in their testimony to give some assent or acknowledgement of sola fide. Furthermore, let’s say the pastor who administers the water baptism does not make reference to the doctrine of sola fide. Is that baptized person damned to hell? Damned to hell? After all, Caleb says the Christian “must believe in sola fide”.
I would suspect that there a number of people who neither affirm, nor reject sola fide. Are they all damned to hell? After all, Caleb says the Christian “must believe in sola fide”.
If you say no, they’re not damned to hell, then Caleb’s declaration does not hold. And therefore, must be rejected for over-reaching.
Wow, Jason your energy levels must be amazing or else this is your only or main activity.
I have come to a point when I must gracefully withdraw since otherwise you will tire me out and I anticipate there would not be much encouragement for either of us in continuing, nor any change in essential conclusion about the matter at hand. You have heard me out and I have heard from you. Thanks for that. It is wet and windy here in the UK and Christmas is almost upon us and another year gone. Still, I am grateful for the joy that comes from knowing Jesus Christ and the power of His resurrection.
.
I’m with Dr. Mohler on this one. These types of declarations tend to not mean much, and the MD is no exception other than putting a stake in the ground on certain specific issues. I respect many who chose not to sign, but in all honesty it seems like too many Christian leaders are more intent on being known for what they are against rather than what they are for. In this case a little lightening up may be in order.
“What are the criteria for deleting Comments and why is the writer not notified that his/her Comment has been deleted because … ?”
This has been explained more than adequately.
Josiah wrote:
“Ok…I may not have established a connection (I still think there’s something to it), but then you fellows haven’t established the Catholics=Judaizers connection.”
You didn’t ask me to establish it. I’ve addressed the subject many times, at Triablogue and elsewhere. Go here (including the comments section) to read a recent example, and you can find many more by searching the Triablogue archives. Here are some of the problems with the Catholic view of justification:
- Paul doesn’t just exclude the works of the Judaizers from the gospel. He also tells us that there isn’t any type of work whereby we can attain justification (Romans 3:27, 4:4, 9:11-12, 11:6, Galatians 3:21-25). Passages like 2 Corinthians 11:2-15, Galatians 1:6-9, and Galatians 3:21-25 demonstrate that Paul wanted all types of work excluded, not just the works the Judaizers were advocating. He was concerned about false gospels (plural), not just one particular false gospel.
- The Jewish law includes commandments such as honoring our parents and caring for the poor. Catholicism doesn’t include some works of the Jewish law in its gospel, such as circumcision and animal sacrifice, but it does include other works of the Jewish law, such as the ones mentioned in the previous sentence. Paul excludes all works of the law, whereas Catholicism only excludes some. As Romans 7:7 illustrates, Paul had moral aspects of the law in mind, not just ceremonial aspects of it.
- Paul doesn’t just tell us that works are excluded. He also tells us what’s included. What’s included is faith, not faith and baptism or faith and all of the works required by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. As Paul tells us in Galatians 3:21-25, the gospel shuts us up to faith. But the Roman Catholic gospel, in contrast, shuts us up to faith and works. Saying that God empowers us to do the works by His grace doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic gospel fails to shut people up to faith. The alternative to the Judaizers’ gospel, according to Paul, isn’t faith combined with a different system of works. Rather, the alternative is just faith.
- Paul cites Genesis 15:6 to illustrate what he’s communicating. What does Abraham do in that passage? He just believes (sola fide). Not only are there no works of the Jewish law in Genesis 15:6, but there isn’t any baptism or other work of Roman Catholicism either.
- Scripture gives us many examples of how individuals were justified. What we see, over and over again, is justification attained at the time of faith, apart from baptism and all other works (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, 19:2, Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). Thus, even if a Catholic wants to dispute an Evangelical interpretation of a passage like Romans 4 or Galatians 3, we can turn to other passages, like the ones just cited, to see that the Evangelical reading of passages like Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is correct.
Much more could be said, but I think that the points above and my directing you to the Triablogue archives are sufficient for now.
” Where? ”
Comments 63 and 89.
Josiah, I echo Jason Engwer’s encouraging you to explore the Triablogue archives. There is a wealth of excellent information there!
I think this post titled “Witchburners for Christ” has general principles that pertain to the discussion at hand. Here’s an excerpt:
Phil Johnson: “You seem to deduce from your theonomic beliefs an implicit imperative for political activism and aggressive, formal co-belligerence (where evangelicals join cartels and forge yokes with anti-Christian religions to campaign for moral causes).”
Steve Hays: “There are two separate issues here. Let’s deal with one at a time:
First of all, as regards political activism there are three possible options:
1.A Christian is duty-bound to participate in the democratic process.
2.A Christian is duty-bound not to participate in the democratic process.
3.Political activism falls under category of the adiaphora.
Now, there are arguments for and against (1). And it isn’t essential to my position to argue for (1). At least, not here and now.
However, some of the critics of ECB talk as though they espouse (2). They regard political activism as a false priority. For them, preaching the gospel should be our priority, and since political activism necessarily diverts time and resources away from that endeavor, it is wrong for Christians to invest any time in political activism.
As to (3), this can be taken in more than one way. As I’ve said before, I think the proper way to establish Scriptural warrant operates not on a one-to-one correspondence between a specific injunction and a specific practice, but on a one-to-many correspondence between a general injunction and a variety of special cases which adapt and apply that general injunction to our particular circumstances.
Now how, exactly, we apply the general norm is, in some measure, a matter of Christian liberty. There may be more than one way we can do it. But whether we do it at all is not a matter of Christian liberty.
So, for example, look at what Paul has to say about the civil or political use of the law in 1 Tim 1:9-10. How, exactly, we implement that standing obligation varies with our opportunities and circumstances. There is more than one way of enacting and enforcing this moral norm. But we are certainly not at liberty to disregard it if we are in a position to honor and uphold it.
Secondly, there is the question of what associations are licit and what are illicit. Are we talking about first-degree separatism, second-degree separatism, or what?
For example, critics of ECB are critical of alliances between Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals. This would be a prescription for first-degree separatism: don’t associate with non-Evangelicals or unbelievers.
But they are equally critical of those who, while Evangelical in their own profession, associate with non-Evangelicals. Dobson and Colson are favorite whipping boys in this regard.
That would be a prescription for second-degree separatism: don’t associate with those who associate with non-Evangelicals or unbelievers.
And although critics of ECB are fond of quoting 2 Cor 6, they don’t explain how their apparent endorsement of second-degree separatism is consonant with 1 Cor 5:9-11.
Thirdly, critics of ECB are not only critical of cobelligerence, but they are equally critical of political activism per se, on the grounds that it diverts time and attention away from the only real solution to crime and moral decline, which is the gospel.
But if that is the case, then the objection to ECB is secondary. For even if such political alliances were limited to fellow Evangelicals, whether in the form of first- or second-degree separatism, critics of ECB would still disapprove on the primary grounds that we should not lobby for legislation anyway; since legislation treats the symptom rather than the cause.
Now, I really don’t think it’s asking too much at this point that critics of ECB sort out their own position and explain what, precisely, they are opposing. Is it cobelligerence in particular, or is it political activism in general? There appears to be a shell-game going on in which critics of ECB veer between opposition to cobelligerence and opposition to political activism as though these were interchangeable.”
I’m amazed to see someone accuse Tim of “spiritual pride” here for refusing to attach his name to something. Yikes! Some of the “group think” and guilt trips that surrounds some things like this declaration is sickening. I can just hear people shouting at people who don’t sign: “You couldn’t be against life, liberty, and marriage, could you?” Eeek!
The assumptions loaded into her accusation against Tim are at least two. First of all she’s assuming there is no negative obligation against signing (MacArthur and others are suggesting there is such a negative obligation.. for the sake of the gospel’s integrity) and then she’s assuming that there is a positive obligation to sign.
It is my opinion that there is a negative obligation against signing. But it is a fact beyond dispute that there is no positive obligation to sign. Even if this document were 100% correct, had no concerns whatsoever, etc. There is no positive obligation to sign! Signing your name to something is a pretty serious deal (even though it might take a very small amount of time)….and unless you can prove there is a positive obligation to sign it, don’t accuse people for not signing!
This is a document, you do not deny life, marriage, and liberty by refusing to sign. You do not exhibit spiritual pride for not signing. Not signing is a neutral act, the motives behind it are numerous.
First of all, it is not necessary to sign this to stand up for life, liberty, and marriage. Second, there are some reasons to believe signing it is aligning yourself with and, due to the wording of the document, approving the beliefs of certain individuals who do not hold to a Biblical gospel. Third, this document has not been proven to do anything substantive for the purposes of life, liberty, and marriage. Neither is it likely that any of our names will add to it much anyways.
Mark:
Wow, bro. Your deconstruction of my “accusation” was like triple the length of my original comment. I had no idea that I said what you said I said. But now that I know what I said, I thank you for saying it.
And *that* is a fact beyond dispute.
;-)
I want to expand on my post above.
Some people may question whether it was the claim that works are a means of justification that caused Paul to condemn the Judaizers’ gospel as a false gospel. What if Paul condemned the Judaizers for some other reason? Perhaps they were condemned for denying that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law. Thus, adding works to the gospel wouldn’t constitute a false gospel if the person or group adding the works acknowledges that the law was fulfilled by Christ. Since Catholicism acknowledges that Jesus fulfilled the law, and therefore doesn’t require circumcision and other such works, the Catholic gospel wouldn’t fall under the anathema of Galatians 1.
Notice, first of all, that the apostles frame their disputes with Judaizing opponents in the context of what the person who wants to be justified must do. Must the person be circumcised (Acts 15:1)? Paul said that the “only thing” he wanted to be told by the Galatians was what they did to receive the Spirit (Galatians 3:2). In Romans, Galatians, and elsewhere, when Paul is responding to Judaizing opponents, he keeps raising the issue of works. He tells us that works would nullify grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6), and his letter to the Galatians puts a lot of emphasis on the issue of works (Galatians 2:16, 2:21, 3:10, 3:21-25, etc.). Notice that Paul repeatedly uses illustrations that can’t be limited to works of the Jewish law, such as an employer paying an employee (Romans 4:4), or makes comments about works in general without limiting himself to the Jewish law (Romans 3:27, 9:11-12, 11:6, Galatians 3:21-25). If Paul considered it acceptable to seek justification through works, as long as the person doing so acknowledges that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law, then why does he place so much emphasis on the means by which a person seeks to be justified and the exclusion of everything other than faith? Paul’s gospel was a gospel of grace (Acts 20:24, the many references to grace and the gospel in Paul’s letters, etc.), and his principle that works nullify grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6) suggests that any form of justification through works would be a fundamentally different gospel.
It’s doubtful that Paul would mention justification through faith in Galatians 3:2 if he thought that justification is attained through faith combined with works or if he thought that adding works is wrong, but doesn’t constitute a false gospel. It would make little sense to argue that adding works of the Jewish law constitutes a false gospel, whereas adding other types of work doesn’t. As Paul explains, no conditions can be added to the gospel later (Galatians 3:15), and such a principle can’t be limited to the Jewish law. Adding Roman Catholic works later on would likewise violate the principle Paul lays down. Judging from Paul’s language in Galatians 3:2 (“This is the only thing I want to find out from you”) and how he builds upon it, it seems that Galatians 3:2 represents the heart of what he wants the Galatians to understand. And the Roman Catholic system of faith combined with non-Judaizing works isn’t what he’s communicating. Rather, it’s another gospel.
Paul does sometimes raise the issue of Christ’s fulfillment of the law. But he doesn’t do so in order to argue that we should acknowledge Jesus’ fulfillment of the law as we attempt to be justified through some other system of works. Rather, Paul raises the sufficiency of Jesus’ work in order to argue that works of every type are excluded from the gospel and that faith in Christ and His finished work is the only means of justification. Paul’s concept of the sufficiency of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 6:14) is radically diluted if we conclude that Jesus merely fulfilled the Jewish law so that we can seek justification through some other system of works, such as a system of works prescribed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Why don’t evangelical leaders just draft their own statements relating to social justice and freedom of speech issues and encourage their own to sign it instead of joining with others with whom they differ on central tenets of the faith?