Document cu ceva infiltratii politice, The Manhattan Declaration are sanse sa devina ceea ce An Evangelical Manifesto este acum. Adica un document, o luare de pozitie si…cam atat.

Blogerul canadian Challies – unul din cei cu care ma intersectez cel mai des – mentioneaza trei abtineri de la semnarea acestui document:

“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.”

un alt teolog Alistair Begg argumenteaza pozitia sa:

“I care passionately about the issues addressed in the Manhattan Declaration (the sanctity of life; the dignity of marriage between one man and one woman; and the rights of conscience and religious liberty) and believe that they are critical to our culture today. In the end, I concluded that I could not sign the statement. As I wrote to the project organizer, “I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, section 18.)” Ultimately, the Gospel is the issue and it needs to govern issues of lesser or secondary importance, including those mentioned in this document. It is my prayer that the truth of God’s Word will bring the Gospel to bear on these important issues that are affecting our culture today.”

parerea mea…mai dospeste inca…