Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Manhattan Declaration — Where are the theistic evolutionists?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

About 150 Christian leaders were the original signatories of the recent manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience — the Manhattan Declaration. At the time of this writing, over a 100,000 have signed it (including me). I encourage readers of UD to read the document and sign it if it reflects your views on God and culture.

Of the 150 original signers, I know about 25 personally. Interestingly, the original signers seem overwhelmingly pro-ID. That raises the question why no notable theistic evolutionists are signers (e.g., Francis Collins). To be sure, signers such as Tim Keller and Dinesh D’Souza have indicated an openness to evolutionary theory. But I’m not finding any among the signers who are adamantly committed to theistic evolution, seeing it as the only way to be both scientifically and theologically responsible.

Perhaps I’m missing something here. If so, I’m happy to be disabused. But is it possible that ID is friendlier to classic Christian teaching on the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience than theistic evolution? It not, I’d like to see the names of theistic evolutionists who are also signers of the Manhattan Declaration.

——

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
November 20, 2009

The following is the text of the Manhattan Declaration signed by 149 pro-life and Catholic and evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders. LifeNews.com supports the pro-life aims of the resolution.

http://manhattandeclaration.org

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes­from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right­and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation­to 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.

Life

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion­a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo- research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-twentieth century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. 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.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24 This is a profound mystery­but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33 In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society­indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits­the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling­and alarming­indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society­and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average­is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. 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.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same- sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being­the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual­on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality­a covenantal union of husband and wife­that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non- marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. 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). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God­a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law­such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro- life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. 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 biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust­and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust­undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Dr. Daniel Akin President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC)

Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria (Abika, Nigeria)

Randy Alcorn Founder and Director, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) (Sandy, OR)

Rt. Rev. David Anderson President and CEO, American Anglican Council (Atlanta, GA)

Leith Anderson President of National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, DC)

Charlotte K. Ardizzone TV Show Host and Speaker, INSP Television (Charlotte, NC)

Kay Arthur CEO and Co-founder, Precept Ministries International (Chattanooga, TN)

Dr. Mark L. Bailey President, Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, TX)

His Grace, The Right Reverend Bishop Basil Essey The Right Reverend Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Wichita, KS)

Joel Belz Founder, World Magazine (Asheville, NC)

Rev. Michael L. Beresford Managing Director of Church Relations, Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn. (Charlotte, NC)

Ken Boa President, Reflections Ministries (Atlanta, GA)

Joseph Bottum Editor of First Things (New York, NY)

Pastor Randy & Sarah Brannon Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church (Madera, CA)

Steve Brown National radio broadcaster, Key Life (Maitland, FL)

Dr. Robert C. Cannada, Jr. Chancellor and CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL)

Galen Carey Director of Government Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, DC)

Dr. Bryan Chapell President, Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO)

Scott Chapman Senior Pastor, The Chapel (Libertyville, IL)

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, CO

Timothy Clinton President, American Association of Christian Counselors (Forest, VA)

Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

Most Rev. Salvatore Joseph Cordileone Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, CA

Dr. Gary Culpepper Associate Professor, Providence College (Providence, RI)

Jim Daly President and CEO, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Marjorie Dannenfelser President, Susan B. Anthony List (Arlington, VA)

Rev. Daniel Delgado Board of Directors, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference & Pastor, Third Day Missions Church (Staten Island, NY)

Dr. James Dobson Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. David Dockery President, Union University (Jackson, TN)

Most Rev. Timothy Dolan Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, NY

Dr. William Donohue President, Catholic League (New York, NY)

Dr. James T. Draper, Jr. President Emeritus, LifeWay (Nashville, TN)

Dinesh D’Souza Writer & Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, CA)

Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America (Ambridge, PA )

Joni Eareckson Tada Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills, CA)

Dr. Michael Easley President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL)

Dr. William Edgar Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA)

Brett Elder Executive Director, Stewardship Council (Grand Rapids, MI)

Rev. Joel Elowsky Drew University ( Madison, NJ)

Stuart Epperson Co-Founder and Chariman of the Board, Salem Communications Corporation ( Camarillo, CA)

Rev. Jonathan Falwell Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church (Lynchburg, VA)

William J. Federer President, Amerisearch, Inc. (St. Louis, MO)

Fr. Joseph D. Fessio Founder and Editor, Ignatius Press (Ft. Collins, CO)

Carmen Fowler President & Executive Editor, Presbyterian Lay Committee (Lenoir, NC)

Maggie Gallagher President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a co-author of The Case for Marriage (Manassas, VA)

Dr. Jim Garlow Senior Pastor, Skyline Church (La Mesa, CA)

Steven Garofalo Senior Consultant, Search and Assessment Services (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Robert P. George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University (Princeton, NJ)

Dr. Timothy George Dean and Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School at Samford University (Birmingham, AL)

Thomas Gilson Director of Strategic Processes, Campus Crusade for Christ International (Norfolk, VA)

Dr. Jack Graham Pastor, Prestonwood Baptist Church (Plano, TX)

Dr. Wayne Grudem Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)

Dr. Cornell “Corkie” Haan National Facilitator of Spiritual Unity, The Mission America Coalition (Palm Desert, CA)

Fr. Chad Hatfield Chancellor, CEO. And Archpriest, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (Yonkers, NY)

Dr. Dennis Hollinger President and Professor of Christian Ethics, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA)

Dr. Jeanette Hsieh Executive VP and Provost, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL)

Dr. John A. Huffman, Jr. Senior Pastor, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (Newport Beach, CA) and Chairman of the Board, Christianity Today International (Carol Stream, IL)

Rev. Ken Hutcherson Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, WA)

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church (Beltsville, MD)

Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse President, American Orthodox Institute and Editor, OrthodoxyToday.org (Naples, FL)

Jerry Jenkins Chairman of the board of trustees for Moody Bible Institute (Black Forest, CO)

Camille Kampouris Publisher, Kairos Journal

Emmanuel A. Kampouris Editorial Board, Kairos Journal

Rev. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)

Dr. Peter Kreeft Professor of Philosophy, Boston College (MA) and at the Kings Collge (NY)

Most Rev. Joseph E. Kurtz Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville, KY

Jim Kushiner Editor, Touchstone (Chicago, IL)

Dr. Richard Land President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)

Jim Law Senior Associate Pastor, First Baptist Church (Woodstock, GA)

Dr. Matthew Levering Associate Professor of Theology, Ave Maria University (Naples, FL)

Dr. Peter Lillback President, The Providence Forum (West Conshohocken, PA)

Dr. Duane Litfin President, Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)

Rev. Herb Lusk Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church (Philadelphia, PA)

His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida Archbishop Emeritus, Roman Catholic Diocese of Detroit, MI

Most Rev. Richard J. Malone Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, ME

Rev. Francis Martin Professor of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Heart Major Seminary (Detroit, MI)

Dr. Joseph Mattera Bishop & Senior Pastor, Resurrection Church (Brooklyn, NY)

Phil Maxwell Pastor, Gateway Church (Bridgewater, NJ)

Josh McDowell Founder, Josh McDowell Ministries (Plano, TX)

Alex McFarland President, Southern Evangelical Seminary (Charlotte, NC)

Most Rev. George Dallas McKinney Bishop, & Founder and Pastor, St. Stephen’s Church of God in Christ (San Diego, CA)

Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns Missionary Bishop, Convocation of Anglicans of North America (Herndon, VA)

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy, Union University (Jackson, TN)

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Dr. Russell D. Moore Senior VP for Academic Administration & Dean of the School of Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Most Rev. John J. Myers Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, NJ

Most Rev. Joseph F. Naumann Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City, KS

David Neff Editor-in-Chief, Christianity Today (Carol Stream, IL)

Tom Nelson Senior Pastor, Christ Community Evangelical Free Church (Leawood, KS)

Niel Nielson President, Covenant College (Lookout Mt., GA)

Most Rev. John Nienstedt Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Tom Oden Theologian, United Methodist Minister and Professor, Drew University (Madison, NJ)

Marvin Olasky Editor-in-Chief, World Magazine and provost, The Kings College (New York City, NY)

Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, AZ

Rev. William Owens Chairman, Coalition of African-American Pastors (Memphis, TN)

Dr. J.I. Packer Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada)

Metr. Jonah Paffhausen Primate, Orthodox Church in America (Syosset, NY)

Tony Perkins President, Family Research Council (Washington, D.C.)

Eric M. Pillmore CEO, Pillmore Consulting LLC (Doylestown, PA)

Dr. Everett Piper President, Oklahoma Wesleyan University (Bartlesville, OK)

Todd Pitner President, Rev Increase

Dr. Cornelius Plantinga President, Calvin Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. David Platt Pastor, Church at Brook Hills (Birmingham AL)

Rev. Jim Pocock Pastor, Trinitarian Congregational Church (Wayland, MA)

Fred Potter Executive Director & CEO, Christian Legal Society (Springfield, VA)

Dennis Rainey President, CEO, & Co-Founder, FamilyLife (Little Rock, AR)

Fr. Patrick Reardon Pastor, All Saints’ Antiochian Orthodox Church (Chicago, IL)

Bob Reccord Founder, Total Life Impact, Inc. (Suwanee, GA)

His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, PA

Frank Schubert President, Schubert Flint Public Affairs (Sacramento, CA)

David Schuringa President, Crossroads Bible Institute (Grand Rapids, MI)

Tricia Scribner Author (Harrisburg, NC)

Dr. Dave Seaford Senior Pastor, Community Fellowship Church (Matthews, NC)

Alan Sears President, CEO, & General Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund (Scottsdale, AZ)

Randy Setzer Senior Pastor, Macedonia Baptist Church (Lincolnton, NC)

Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, CO

Dr. Ron Sider Director, Evangelicals for Social Action (Wynnewood, PA)

Fr. Robert Sirico Founder, Acton Institute (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. Robert Sloan President, Houston Baptist University (Houston, TX)

Charles Stetson Chairman of the Board, Bible Literacy Project (New York, NY)

Dr. David Stevens CEO, Christian Medical & Dental Association (Bristol, TN)

John Stonestreet Executive Director, Summit Ministries (Manitou Springs, CO)

Dr. Joseph Stowell President, Cornerstone University (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. Sarah Sumner Professor of Theology and Ministry, Azusa Pacific University (Azusa, CA)

Dr. Glenn Sunshine Chairman of the history department of Central Connecticut State University (New Britain, CT)

Luiz Tellez President, The Witherspoon Institute (Princeton, NJ)

Dr. Timothy C. Tennent Professor, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA)

Michael Timmis Chairman, Prison Fellowship and Prison Fellowship International (Naples, FL)

Mark Tooley President, Institute for Religion and Democracy (Washington, D.C.)

H. James Towey President, St. Vincent College (Latrobe, PA)

Juan Valdes Middle and High School Chaplain, Flordia Christian School (Miami, FL)

Todd Wagner Pastor, WaterMark Community Church (Dallas, TX)

Dr. Graham Walker President, Patrick Henry Univ. (Purcellville, VA)

Alexander F. C. Webster Archpriest, Orthodox Church in America and Associate Professorial Lecturer, The George Washington University (Ft. Belvoir, VA)

George Weigel Distinguished Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center (Washington, D.C.)

David Welch Houston Area Pastor Council Executive Director, US Pastors Council (Houston, TX)

Dr. James White Founding and Senior Pastor, Mecklenberg Community Church (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Hayes Wicker Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church (Naples, FL)

Mark Williamson Founder and President, Foundation Restoration Ministries/Federal Intercessors (Katy, TX)

Dr. Craig Williford President, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL)

Dr. John Woodbridge Research professor of Church History & the History of Christian Thought, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL)

Don M. Woodside Performance Matters Associates (Matthews, NC)

Dr. Frank Wright President, National Religious Broadcasters (Manassas, VA)

Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

Paul Young COO & Executive VP, Christian Research Institute (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Michael Youssef President, Leading the Way (Atlanta, GA)

Ravi Zacharias Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)

Most Rev. David A. Zubik Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA

Comments
The explanatory filter indeed clearly is not tied to a religious world view. What are the current or imaginable scientific uses for the explanatory filter methodology?Walter Kloover
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
---Walter Koover: "I think a methodology is a body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; is that what you mean by methodology?" Sure. ID's "explanatory filter" is a good example of a methodology. The point, as you can probably gather, is that it is not tied to a religious world view.StephenB
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
What is the “ID methodology” you speak of?
Step 1: Identify internet trolls.Mung
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
StephenB at 81- What is the "ID methodology" you speak of? I think a methodology is a body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; is that what you mean by methodology?Walter Kloover
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Seversky,
My answer, as before, is that all human beings have a number of interests in common.
And one interest is recognizing objective morality, such as it is always wrong to torture other people's infants to death for fun. This is objective, whether it serves interests or not is, quite frankly, beside the point. Even if it served no interest it would still be wrong. "Interest" as you use it seems vague anyway, to be invented on the spot to fit every scenario. But it can't be the true matter, because, in the last resort, we would have to say that it is objectively "right" to serve interests in the first place. No matter what you use as your basis, interests, life, cooperation, etc., all imply and rely on the moral premise that they "should" be followed, but you can find no reason in the last resort except that it is "right" to do so. Morality is always the premise, not the conclusion.Clive Hayden
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
For those who are interested in digging more deeply into this issue of justification and Catholicism, please consider one of my favorite papers. Written by Richard A. White in 1987 for a class he was taking from Harold O.J. Brown at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, it offers a careful articulation of the Catholic view of justification. (I believe that Dr. White, who at the time he wrote the paper was a Calvinist, eventually earned his Ph.D. at Marquette University and is now a professor of theology at Benedictine College). Here's how it begins:
The doctrine of justification was, as John Calvin stated, the "hinge of the reformation." James Buchanan provides us with the classic "reformed" definition: "Justification is a legal, or forensic, term, and is used in Scripture to denote the acceptance of any one as righteous in the sight of God." (The Doctrine of Justification, p. 226). Understood in this way, justification is purely extrinsic to the sinner, inasmuch as he is justified solely on the basis of Christ's righteousness graciously imputed to him. The sinner does not become righteous himself, but because he trusts in Christ's work for him, he is considered innocent by God the judge. In this way, works contribute nothing to justification; it is "by faith alone" (sola fide). In contrast is the Roman Catholic position, which sadly, few evangelicals even bother to consider, let alone understand. In many cases, the issue is naively boiled down to justification by faith, on the one hand (evangelicalism), versus justification by works, on the other hand (Roman Catholicism). This crass caricature has little basis in reality, and hampers the cause for theological truth and Christian unity. In this essay then, I will summarize the Roman Catholic teaching on justification. To accomplish this task, I will consider the Council of Trent's "Decree Concerning Justification," (Session VI) the most authoritative, even-handed, representative Church pronouncement on the issue to date (the Council was held 1545-1563). I will also consider a wide array of Catholic authors, both past and present. My goal is to set forth the Catholic position, not to critique it. Thus, I will not preface my remarks with such phrases as "the Catholic position says" or "in Rome's view." The reader should assume that all of the text represents the Catholic teaching. Now the Catholic view of grace and justification is very complex. Due to the scope of this essay, therefore, many subject areas (e.g., metaphysical questions, purgatory, indulgences, the mode of God's indwelling in the soul, etc) relating to the Catholic teaching on justification have been excluded. The reader should consult the bibliography for elaboration on certain points.
You can read the whole thing here. It is one of the many works I read when I was thinking more seriously about Catholicism. In any event, it is a real shame that so many Protestant Fundamentalists like John McArthur, who clearly love Christ, must continue to jealously guard a Catholicism they do not believe and that the Catechism does not embrace.fbeckwith
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
On the matter of religious discussions in general, here is a thought. Some on this site feel a bit put out because we sometimes put science aside and have these debates about theology. Consider this: When the ACLU provided the intellectual firepower for Judge Jones' decision at Dover, they had three goals in mind, not one. [A] Smear ID and discredit the science [B] Chill religious speech [C] Divide the ID community Judge Jones's decision accomplished all three goals because too many of us are running scared. We should not play along by hiding in the tall grass everytime an atheist comes to this site and seizes on these religious discussions, hoping to perpetuate the lie that ID methodology is faith based. We can talk about world views and we can talk about scientific methods. All ID contributors here know the difference. If our adversaries do not know the difference, we should not reward their ignorance by chilling our own speech. We should, instead, send them to the FAQ section to become familiar with the subject matter.StephenB
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
---riddick: "Considering how they interpret the Bible, one wonders if Matteo and StephenB still have eyes and hands (see Mt 5:27ff)! You’ll never make sense of the Scriptures until you realize the difference between the old and new covenants. Jesus taught under the old, and told us to look forward to the new, which did not go into effect until His death (see Heb 9:16-17)" Adding to the arguments that I have already presented, there is also the matter of placing them in their historical context. In order to accept the novel doctrine of "faith alone," which was introduced by one man in the 16th Century, one must hold that the apostles, the Church Fathers, and, indeed, the whole body of believers had it wrong all that time, and that God was waiting patiently for Martin Luther to come along and make it right. Further, one must hold that this same man, who admitted that the book of James contradicted his novel teaching, and was, therefore a "book of straw," had to be taken out of the Bible. This is more than a small stretch.StephenB
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Poor, confused Jesus. He just didn't understand the New Covenant when he gave us the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which, coming from His lips, is a direct prophecy of what will happen at the time of Judgment (and is in no way, shape, or form, given the merest whiff of an implication by Jesus of meaning anything else whatsoever). But, no. Everything He taught and said while He walked the Earth is to be tossed out and/or radically reinterpreted in order to accomodate a dispensationalist theology that was only explicated 19 centuries after the fact (or perhaps a Reformed theology that came a mere 15 centuries after the fact). Riddick, in charity, and in all due respect, I'd advise you to start worrying if you've embraced a hermeneutic that can so lightly toss aside the direct sayings of Jesus. Should not one start with precisely what He said and go from there, rather than with precisely what the Reformers said and go from there? I appreciate your concern, but I'll take my chances with the former.Matteo
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
I have said more than once that if ID should somehow win the argument, then you will see the real food fight begin again.jerry
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Considering how they interpret the Bible, one wonders if Matteo and StephenB still have eyes and hands (see Mt 5:27ff)! You'll never make sense of the Scriptures until you realize the difference between the old and new covenants. Jesus taught under the old, and told us to look forward to the new, which did not go into effect until His death (see Heb 9:16-17).riddick
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Tsmith said
In regards to works being necessary for salvation…I would ask those who advocate that position, what works do you need to do? how many times do you need to do them?
Jesus has helpfully provided a list of works in Mt 25 (parable of sheep and goats). How often should you do them? How about more often than one would naturally prefer, for starters? What happens to the goats in this very clearly stated (and what *should* be quite difficult to misinterpret) parable coming from the Lord Himself? Work, strive, take up your cross, work out your salvation, do things for "the least of these" as the Lord has commanded to avoid the pool of fire ("He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment"), and trust in God's mercy, grace, and forgiveness while doing these things. And also don't insult God by saying this amounts to a checklist and that salvation is our own doing. Where's the difficulty?Matteo
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
in regards to works being necessary for salvation...I would ask those who advocate that position, what works do you need to do? how many times do you need to do them?tsmith
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden @ 60
Where, then, is this “objective morality”, this indisputable yardstick by which these matters can be measured and settled beyond any doubt?
It is implicit in your declaration that folks like “Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard, and Catholic priests who abuse children….Martin Luther or those who prosecuted the Inquisition or conducted pogroms against the Jews or defended slavery” actually did something wrong. You have to use it, otherwise, you have no case whatsoever.
I have pass such a judgement on the basis of a moral standard, certainly, but we have no reason to think that mine or anyone else's is The One True and Objective Standard. Those who make such a claim are simply trying to impose their personal beliefs by diktat. In another comment, you argue that the lack of any objective moral standard implies that, in principle, baby-torturing for pleasure could be permissible. I agree, in principle it could. Yet, as far as I am aware, there is not, nor has there ever been, a human society, Christian or otherwise, in which such behavior is, or was, morally acceptable. Why not? My answer, as before, is that all human beings have a number of interests in common. Whatever their origin, moral codes function as a means of trying to protect those interests. We haven't discovered, or been provided with, some sort of objective morality. What we have done is to evolve a collective morality.Seversky
November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
zeroseven, A couple of things. A large percentage of those who espouse ID are religious. Some are very prone to talk about religious or social issues because that is their interest. Several pro ID commenters rarely talk about religion. For example, Joe G, PaV, Patrick (when he posts) will hardly talk about religion and focus mainly on the science issues. I tend to stay away from religious issues but will occasionally comment on moral or social or historical contexts. Most of the ID books stay clear of religion. Michael Behe is a religious man but keeps religion out of his writings. Stephen Meyer is a religious man but his book, Signature in the Cell, is pure science and logic. Dembski's books are often esoteric mathematics. There have been a couple of threads recently that have run over a hundred comments where little if any religious thoughts were discussed. There have been a few in the past that were over 300 and did not discuss religion directly. Since the science for ID or against naturalistic evolution has been discussed hundreds of times, some believe it is not necessary to repeat the same things again and again but over time they all get treated on an on-going basis. With that said, evolution has always been highly involved with religion and you get three major players in the evolution debate define their position based on religious implications. There are atheistic Darwinism as espoused by Dawkins, Coyne and many other aggressive atheistic proponents; theistic evolutionists who by the very name include religion and evolution and some of which are vehemently anti ID; Young Earth Creationists whose ideology and theology has direct implications for evolution. These are all major players in the evolution debate and religious conclusions are part of their ideology. Some are consistent with ID while others are antagonistic to ID. So ID finds itself in this religious environment and even if religion has no part of ID (show me where it does) it will have to deal with the issues that these other players espouse especially if they are antagonistic to ID. I personally have strong religious beliefs but rarely bring them into the ID debate because they are not relevant. I could just as easily accept Darwinian evolution and not change my religious beliefs one iota. I know of others who have strong religious beliefs and never consider evolution at all. It is not something that is of concern to them. Some were at dinner at my house today. I personally would like to see less bible quoting on this site but I don't see where it has ever entered into the framework of ID, which is essentially one of logic, science and probability. A lot of people are interested in ID because it has implications that are consistent with their religious beliefs. But that does not make ID religious.jerry
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
halo, thanks for your post and your courtesty. I am familiar with the passages that you allude to, but the problem of "necessary" for salvation and "sufficient" for salvation persist. In my judgment, we have to take the whole gospel, not just those parts that are emphasized for one reason or another. When Jesus says that some will say, "Lord, Lord," did we not prophecy in your name...." yet condemns them because they had not love, he was talking about Christians. When St. Paul tells us that we can have faith that moves mountains, and then goes on to tell us that if we have not charity, we have nothing. He is not just kidding around. He is talking about Christians who do not act on their faith. When James tells us that we are NOT saved by faith alone, he means exactly what he says. He dramatizes the point a second time so that there will be no misunderstanding. When Peter tells us to work out our faith with fear and trembling, he is making it very clear that we are to take nothing for granted. When Jesus says, "Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect," he is asking everyone to strive for sainthood--to pay the price that must be paid for sanctity. It doesn't come cheaply, which is another way of saying that it does not come automatically---certainly not from just getting on the roster. In fact, faith does not automatically produce good works, neither does grace. People lose their faith and reject grace daily. We must cooperate with the grace God gives us, which is the source of our good works. It does no good to say after someone falls from grace then they were never saved in the first place. Before they fall, they thought they knew well enough. How can anyone know that they are infallibly saved unless they know they will not fall before the fact? How does one distinguish between that kind of infallible knowledge and presumption. Those who did fall were quite sure they could not fall. {Pride cometh before the fall}. And that is the whole point. Salvation is a drama. Judas was once once high, and fell: Peter was once low and rose up. Sure, I think we can grow toward that kind of assurance, but not easily, not overnight, and not without the kind of spirtual progress that Christ asks for. The rich young man who walked away sadly was full of faith, but he was not willing to follow through. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The road to perdition is wide and the road to life is narrow not because Christians are unwilling to join up, but because they are not willing to get in the game after they do.StephenB
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
We make this commitment ... as followers of Jesus Christ ... What if Im not a follower of JC ? And what has all this to do with Intelligent Design ?Graham
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
@67 Sorry Vivid if I wasn't clear. I meant other threads on UD that aren't ostensibly about religion often break down into religious discussions as well. On a site that is meant to be about ID, and given ID adherents' oft stated mantra that ID is science and religion has no part of it....well, I just find that very interesting. It would not happen on a site that was actually dedicated to scientific exploration. However, let me add, I think this is a great forum. I have enjoyed reading it for a long time. Great clash of ideas. I don't bother with the threads on sites like pharyngula as they are too monotone.zeroseven
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
stephenB @62 not so fast... whose to say your explanation of those scriptures is convincing, plus there are many more scriptures you must deal with, we haven't touched on Jesus or the Apostle John yet: John 3:36 'He who believes in the Son has eternal life'. The fact remains that 'has' is present tense - believing ensures eternal life. And the following part of the verse confirms the Reformation saying that 'salvation is by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone'. John 3:16: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.' John 3:18: 'Whoever believes in him is not condemned'. Again, present tense - faith is what delivers from condemnation. John 5:34: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.' Present tense again. What about having to do some works too? John 6:29: 'What must we do to be doing the works of God?' Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.' So why say that people must do works as well as believe in order to gain salvation? John 20:31: 'These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.' Again it is believing that ensures life. I only see works as a product of genuine faith, as in James, and not as a requirement for justification. Does it not seem unsettling to you that you do not depend on Christ alone for your justification but must also depend on doing some of your works? Add to these Paul's verses I have already mentioned such as: Eph 2:8: 'For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works...' So I think it is best to interpret the unclear (the verse in James) in light of the clear. Especially since the whole context of James is all about that true faith results in works - a 'faith' without works is dead, so works justify in the sense of proving that the faith was genuine, that the person really is justified. Also, apparently Catholic scholars do not even take this verse are referring to justification by works, but as progressive justification (growth in righteousness) - which is what Protestants call sanctification. Regarding the passage in Matthew again - I don't see that this has anything to do with our actual justification, where does it say that - rather it is about God's rewarding of his saints. Respectfully, halohalo
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Madness here! I think I started this w/ comment #8 and citing James White and John MacArthur. (Forgive me!) But let me just add... Just what is the difference between Protestants vs Roman Catholics vs Evangelicals. We are all called "Christian" properly b/c we all believe in the Triune God. So how are we different? The key difference is that though we have the same religion we have different GOSPELS!!! Galatians 1:8 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed [ie go to hell]" **************** Here are the 3 DIFFERENT GOSPELS (though we have the same God) 1) Evangelicals: Justification/Salvation by Faith Alone 2) Roman Catholics: Justification/Salvation by Faith + Works 3) Eastern Orthodoxy: Justification/Salvation by Faith + Works ************** This is why it's a big deal , b/c one God, but 3 different Gospels. That's why Godly men like John MacArthur and James White would not sign the document (though I understand why one would...). I am no one to lift my tongue at Dr. Beckwith, but I have to with all respect disagree with his return to Rome and stand with the John MacArthur and Co. and vehemently oppose such a move and it is easy to see why: I will not support a different Gospel. To say that justification by faith alone and the other unique protestant doctrine of sola scriptura are such small differences that we 3 august Christian bodies are one is more than an oversight. Besides, how could a Roman Catholic worship along someone who preaches a different Gospel than them? How can someone who practices Easteran Orthodoxy? How can an Evangelical? The answer is we can't and we haven't [see the past 500 years (ie reformation) and 1000 years (ie West/East split]. But since the advent of postmodernism and relativism where there is no such thing as absolute truth, well you can see how that is fertile ground for ecumenism. I will end with this quote: "Pope Benedict XVI has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church and saying other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches" ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/ ) And I agree! I mean if Roman Catholicism is true then the Pope is right. This ain't small potatoes folks - it is the very heart of our religion ie the Gospel itselfjpark320
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Re #66 Hmmm Zero recognizes that this thread is religious in nature ( the manhattan decaration)then criticizes the posts on this thread because one would be hard pressed to find a post that at some point doesn't delve into a religious discussion!!! Lets see the topic is religious, the thread is religious yet he calls the elephant in the room that the posts are religious. Truly an example of incoherency on zeros part. Allen also comes up out of his hole to throw up his favorite carnard " ID is religious" because we are talking about theological subjects about a topic and a thread that deals with theology. Sad as well as instructive. Vividvividbleau
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
From a psychotherapeutic point of view I think everyone would feel much better if they give up this pretence that ID is not religious (well, Christian). This thread is purely religious but you would be hard put to find thread with over 20 posts here that doesn't at some point delve into a religious discussion. Talk about the elephant in the room. I've never seen so many bible quotes in my life, and this on a blog who's adherents claim the central topic is a legitimate part of science! Give me a break.zeroseven
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
----faded glory: "None of us can step outside our own perspective. All we can do is try to accept these differences and settle on the only workable solution: discuss the moral ground rules that society should accept on the merits of their content, rather than their claimed provenance." How would you settle the issue of abortion?StephenB
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
---Allen MacNeil: "Once this comment makes it out of moderation (assuming it ever does), I’m confident that I will once again be accused of mis-characterizing ID as an essentially religious doctrine. This, despite the fact that it’s the pro-ID commentators here that most clearly and regularly illustrate that conflation." May the spirit of thanksgiving bless you, illuminate your mind, and teach you the difference between a method and a world view.StephenB
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
faded_Glory,
None of us can step outside our own perspective. All we can do is try to accept these differences and settle on the only workable solution: discuss the moral ground rules that society should accept on the merits of their content, rather than their claimed provenance.
All moral judgments imply a standard. If the standard isn't objective, there is no real standard. If it is a matter of convention, like driving on the right side of the road, then no morals are "real" in the respect that they could have been just the opposite, such as torturing other people's babies to death for fun could be considered perfectly good if that was the conventional consensus.Clive Hayden
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
---halo: "whether or not you see your works as meriting any of your justification does not take away from the fact that you still depend on your works to fulfill an important part of your justification." Yes, I think we have established that. However, the issue on the table is whether or not that point of view reflects the correct Biblical theology. I believe that I have argued successfully that it does.StephenB
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Clive, this is always the same point made by people claiming that morality is objective. It is flawed because it reasons from within a system of objective morality, thereby concluding what it assumes, aka circular reasoning. People who consider morality a cultural, social and historic inter-subjective construct that originated at some time with the advent of man and has slowly evolved over the course of history, claim that certain things are right or wrong in the context of such a framework. They don't make moral pronouncements in a vacuum, they use their concept of morality just as you use yours - a yardstick of right or wrong, larger than and outside of themselves, a tool to decide how to judge behaviours and actions of all people in society. Such a framework is necessary for societies to exist, and dialogue around it is necessary for societies to adapt to the inevitable changes caused by the relentless march of history. No morality has remained constant over the course of the generations; even though each generation undoubtedly contained many who thought that their personal version of morality was the one and only objective and eternal one. I have no illusion that you will concede this, because that would be incmpatible with your concept that morality is objective. Conversely, those who view morality as man-made can logically never accept claims of objective morality, because to them these are merely transparent attempts to stack the deck. None of us can step outside our own perspective. All we can do is try to accept these differences and settle on the only workable solution: discuss the moral ground rules that society should accept on the merits of their content, rather than their claimed provenance. fGfaded_Glory
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Seversky,
Where, then, is this “objective morality”, this indisputable yardstick by which these matters can be measured and settled beyond any doubt?Where, then, is this “objective morality”, this indisputable yardstick by which these matters can be measured and settled beyond any doubt?
It is implicit in your declaration that folks like "Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard, and Catholic priests who abuse children....Martin Luther or those who prosecuted the Inquisition or conducted pogroms against the Jews or defended slavery" actually did something wrong. You have to use it, otherwise, you have no case whatsoever.Clive Hayden
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill,
It’s also very interesting to find what amounts to a purely theological dispute at a website which claims to be focused only on the “science” of ID, and at which almost all of the commentators adamantly assert that ID is a completely non-religious doctrine.
We can talk about whatever we like on this blog. It's Thanksgiving, give the ol straw man a rest please, and have a good time with your family today.Clive Hayden
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Interesting: the hatred and revulsion with which some ID supporters hold evolutionary biologists is apparently small potatoes compared with that with which they hold their fellow "Christians". It's also very interesting to find what amounts to a purely theological dispute at a website which claims to be focused only on the "science" of ID, and at which almost all of the commentators adamantly assert that ID is a completely non-religious doctrine. Interesting, because similar disputes regularly break out among evolutionary biologists (I vividly recall the brouhahas over the neutral theory and punctuated equilibrium). But, however much they disagree on the details, they all agree that evolution has indeed occurred and almost all agree that their intellectual opponents are only misguided (usually as the result of making what they perceive to be mistaken inferences from the data), not genuinely evil or somehow deliberately perverse. Once this comment makes it out of moderation (assuming it ever does), I'm confident that I will once again be accused of mis-characterizing ID as an essentially religious doctrine. This, despite the fact that it's the pro-ID commentators here that most clearly and regularly illustrate that conflation.Allen_MacNeill
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply