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
Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard, Steve Anderson, the Pope, the Catholic priests who abuse children Why do you list the Pope with that group?tribune7
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Matteo @38 you ask how does doing works differ from exercising faith? Well faith itself is a gift (Eph 2:8 and many other scriptures) such that the Christian can boast of nothing at all in his salvation. I see the doctrine of election/predestination coming....! I don't have time to go there right now.... stephenB @47 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.halo
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
NZer @ 53
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — For the second time in a week, 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.
For some reason, this calls to mind a paraphrase of Senator Joseph McCarthy: "Are you or have you ever been a Christian?" Who or what decides what is a true Christian? Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard, Steve Anderson, the Pope, the Catholic priests who abuse children as well as those who work selflessly and without recognition for the poor, the deprived, the oppressed, the hopeless and the dying, all believe themselves to be Christian. No doubt Martin Luther or those who prosecuted the Inquisition or conducted pogroms against the Jews or defended slavery believed themselves to be Christian and could cite passages from Scripture to justify those beliefs just as well as those who would denounce them today. Where, then, is this "objective morality", this indisputable yardstick by which these matters can be measured and settled beyond any doubt?Seversky
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Mung @ 52
Am I still a Christian?
How do you answer that question?Seversky
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
In case any should feel pity for rome and be moved toward some emotional embrace of her, remember that your feelings are not reciprocated... LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — For the second time in a week, 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. Benedict approved a document released Tuesday from his old office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which repeated church teaching on Catholic relations with other Christians. While there was nothing doctrinally new in the document, it nevertheless prompted swift criticism from Protestants, Lutherans and other Christian denominations spawned by the 16th century reformation. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.htmlNZer
November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
First, he made big hay about 20 years ago by suggesting something he called “Lordship Salvation.” It is the view that good works are a necessary condition of forensic justification. So, ironically, McArthur takes a stronger stand on the necessity of works than the Catholic Church does!
I remember that book. I loved it! There's a "revised" edition out now, which I have not read: http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Jesus-Authentic-Faith/dp/0310287294/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259211573&sr=1-8 Did he admit somewhere in a subsequent book that he was wrong? http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Apostles-John-MacArthur/dp/0785271805/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b Thank you Francis for reminding me of these books. They were instrumental in my formation as a Christian. It would be devastating to find that the author was mistaken. Am I still a Christian?Mung
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Given the nature of this discussion, some of you may be interested in a recent blog post of mine on my Return to Rome blog, "Is Catholicism rational?: a reflection" You can find it here: http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-catholicism-rational-reflection.html Blessings, Frankfbeckwith
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
I want to retract my signature. Would that be un-Christian of me?
Nope. You’re free to do so.
But didn't Jesus say, "let your yes be yes, and let your no be know, anything else is from the devil"?Mung
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
The basis of the Trinity is easier to understand than many make out.
Indeed. To deny that Jesus is God is to deny the Trinity. To accept that Jesus is God, is to affirm the Trinity. Anyone who denies the Trinity, is someone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. As always, the relevant question is, "who do men say that I AM"?Mung
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
It is you who came in here hurling the charge that Catholics are not Christians.
no, No, NO! He came here claiming that someone else was hurling the charge that Catholics are not Christians, and that this "someone else" was perfectly justified (um, is it ok if I use that word in this context?) in affixing his (or her) signature to some document because that document failed to make a clear statement to the effect that "Catholics are not Christian" because they preach a different gospel. As a catholic non-Catholic, I fidn this all very confusing. Didn't Jesus say, "you shall know them by their fruits"? yeah yeah, I know. Apples. Oranges. whatever.Mung
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
---halo: But Rom 3:28 and elsewhere seem to undercut that understanding of salvation. ‘One is justified by works apart from faith.’ I still don’t see how you guys explain it. ---"Also is this view of works consistent with official Catholic teaching like the Council of Trent?" I'll say one thing. You certainly pay attention to you Bible. The passage actually reads "faith apart from the works of law.” Roman’s 3:28 refers to initial justification, which of course comes by faith and must precede any good work. When he writes about works of the Law, St Paul is referring to Mosaic observances, which would include things like circumcision. He is not talking about Christian obedience. Our good works, while necessary, don’t earn our initial justification. The Council of Trent puts it this way: “We are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that preceded justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.” On the other hand, the works of Christian obedience that follow our initial justification contribute something as well. That is what James means at 2:24: [A man in justified by works and not by faith alone.]StephenB
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
My 2 cents, Brief background. I was raised in a very devout Catholic home I attended Catholic grade school and high school. What a blessing and what a great education. In college I left the church and drifted into strong agnosticism but later became a christian and now am a Calvinistic Protestant. I can categorically state that as a Catholic I was not a Christian. That is not to say that Catholics are not Christians. Being a Christian is not about being a Catholic. It is not about being a Baptist. It is not about being a Protestant. Nor is it about being an Arminian or being a Calvinist. There are some Catholcs who are Christians and some who are not. The same is true for the Calvinists , the Arminians or any other flavor represented by the various Protestant denominations. Dont get me wrong doctrine is important but we are not made right before God based on our doctrinal positions rather God judges the heart. Many Catholics will tell you that the last thing they are going to rely on when before God is to point to their good works. I have great respect for MacArthur and know James White personally but I a with Beckwith when he writes "Buy this man a glass of wine and a copy of Summa Theologica" Vividvividbleau
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
A better statement of “Billy-goat” Christianity you will not find (but, but, but…). Scott, If you could be saved by obedience to the law, then Christ came for nothing. He could have just stayed in heaven and saved himself a lot of grief.
So He was joshing when He said "Take up your cross and follow Me." Paul was joshing when he explained in Rom 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. Wait, what? Boy, Jesus sure wasted His time on the Cross if we need to take up ours and also suffer with Him. His whole sacrifice is in vain, because it didn't get the whole job done, and because our suffering is also somehow necessary. Doesn't Jesus know about "faith alone?" The poor Guy, born before the 16th Century and all, how could He possibly know? And Paul, that Romanist fool, was completely deluded when he said (Phil 2:12) "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." What an insult to Christ, who already did all that was necessary! But Paul was much further from the time of the Gospel events than any Reformer, so what does he know?Matteo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
There are so many ironies in McArthur's stance. First, he made big hay about 20 years ago by suggesting something he called "Lordship Salvation." It is the view that good works are a necessary condition of forensic justification. So, ironically, McArthur takes a stronger stand on the necessity of works than the Catholic Church does! See, for example, the Catechism's take on grace and justification: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm Second, for many years McArthur embraced an ancient heresy: he denied Christ's Eternal Sonship. He has since changed his mind. But, in doing so, he has become more Catholic! See http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp God bless John McArthur. He has brought many souls to Christ. But I wish on this matter that he would entertain the possibility that the Holy Spirit may very well work beyond the confines of American Regular Baptist Fundamentalism. Buy this man a glass of wine and a copy of Summa Theologica! :-)fbeckwith
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
"A person is saved by faith, not works. Salvation is a gift, not a wage. But if a person does not obey God’s commandments, his faith is dead and he will receive no such gift." A better statement of "Billy-goat" Christianity you will not find (but, but, but...). Scott, If you could be saved by obedience to the law, then Christ came for nothing. He could have just stayed in heaven and saved himself a lot of grief.riddick
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Catholics are Christians. I would say they are kind of stunted Christians though. I can't for the life of me figure out why you would actually want to put a barrier between you and God when it's clearly not needed. I don't buy that the Pope is the voice of God on earth just because he gets voted into office by the Cards just like some Electoral College deal. I don't get the Eucharist thing either. Practically speaking, most lay Catholics have little or no idea what is in the Bible even if they went to Catholic school which I find a bit puzzling. But all in all, Catholics are most definitely Christians I don't think there's any doubt about that. Also Bill, I think Francis Collins for one might have an issue with the opposition to therapeutic cloning. He didn't give an opinion on it in his book but I think he definitely leans in favor of it from what he wrote in the Appendix.tragic mishap
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
All I know is, I don't base my decisions about something like this based on what it doesn't say. That's just a joke.tragic mishap
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Respectfully, anyone who reads the Bible from cover to cover and concludes that obedience to God's commands is optional has missed the point, or rather, all the points. Read Hebrews chapter eleven, which defines faith by example. Which example of faith does not include the actions by which it was demonstrated? There are at least twenty examples of faith demonstrated by action. What an odd way of telling us that faith requires no action. Much of the Bible is a record of those who obeyed and those who didn't, and their outcomes. That's a whole lot of pages to read if it doesn't matter anymore because obedience is optional as long as we believe. A person is saved by faith, not works. Salvation is a gift, not a wage. But if a person does not obey God's commandments, his faith is dead and he will receive no such gift.ScottAndrews
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Matteo, you accuse me of what I did not say. When did I say that Catholics are not Christians, full stop? See comment 13.
You said
I personally think many Catholics do not really hold to justification by works in reality and so the label ‘Catholic’ is not accurate for them. Hence many Catholics are genuine Christians.
So Catholics are Christians, but only provided that the label "Catholic" is not accurate for them. I don't doubt that you meant no offense, but then you're not Catholic. To a Catholic, your original statement is a provocative insult with a clear meaning: "The only good Catholic is a non-Catholic." That may not be what you intended, but to Catholic ears, that is precisely what you said. Especially since you imply that only a Protestant understanding of justification could make them real Christians. So the Catholics who are Protestants, hey, they're okay. But not the Catholics.Matteo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
And if you have to depend on yourself to open the door of grace (even though you don’t deserve that grace) then it is hard to see how you cannot claim a piece of your own justification – well done for opening that door.
And how precisely is this any different for an act of faith? You do the altar call, you pray the sinner's prayer, and, hey, well done for opening that door. Your own justification required that you make the act of faith, so you can claim a piece of it, thereby ripping off God in some way, I guess. So it's into the pool of fire you go? I've never understood why Protestants (Calvinists?) tie their minds up in knots over this. It seems that in the magnificence of His power, God gave us free will instead of having us be puppets, but in using this free will to perform works that he allows Himself to be pleased by, well then we're in trouble because it might look like we had something to do with it instead of God being the puppet master? And all of this being based on one verse being made into the lynch pin around which everything else must revolve (and fifteen centuries after the fact, to boot)? Again, I highly recommend the lecture series "Romanism in Romans" in which Scott Hahn deals with Rom 3:28 at length and quite convincingly. Regardless, why is it valid to say that Rom 3:28 trumps everything else, when from a logical view, one could (with greater justification) just as well say that everything else trumps Rom 3:28? If you check it out, you'll see that Hahn does a great job harmonizing all of these things.Matteo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Matteo, you accuse me of what I did not say. When did I say that Catholics are not Christians, full stop? See comment 13. Second, surely you can appreciate that Protestants do not see this as splitting hairs. You seem to say that you must depend on performing certain works as well as having faith in order to be saved, whereas if Paul is fiercely against such a view like I have argued, then works are never the ground, only the fruit of salvation, and so to neglect that is to turn to a false gospel that cannot save. When have I been 'hurling' charges? That is unfair, I have tried to be quite respectful in our discussions. You keep saying Mat 25 but I am not denying that but have explained that I do not see that it says works justify, but rather fits very well with the understanding from James that works evidence those who have genuine faith.halo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Halo, Your initial statement in this thread was:
In the rest of the article he says that the document portrays Catholics as bona fide Christians along with Protestants, which according to their official theology which allows a place for works in justification (e.g. Council of Trent), is a denial of the Gospel. And MacArthur things it is a travesty to send out a message that Catholic theology is ok to be a saved Christian.
I don't see the point in splitting hairs. I've provided plenty of plain-on-the-face-of-it scriptural evidence that we'll be judged by the faith we have and by the things that we do. Call it justification, call it sanctification, who cares? Jesus did not come here to offer salvation on the condition that everyone hold to a 16th century logic-chopping understanding of the Gospel. Like I'm really going to find myself on Judgment day saying "I know my works are worth very little, and that my salvation owes to Your grace and mercy, which I now appeal to." And he's going to turn around and say "You've confused justification and sanctification! Go forth into the fire prepared for the devil and the unrighteous!" Riiight. It is you who came in here hurling the charge that Catholics are not Christians. On the basis of what? That Jesus didn't mean what he said in Mt 25? That James was just being sly and subtle? That Paul reversed himself a few verses after Romans 2:5? I don't think so.Matteo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Ok, I see your point StephenB, that works you do are by God's grace and so they are not really *your* works but are a gift of God, that sounds a bit different. But Rom 3:28 and elsewhere seem to undercut that understanding of salvation. 'One is justified by works apart from faith.' I still don't see how you guys explain it. Also is this view of works consistent with official Catholic teaching like the Council of Trent?halo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Mung # 32: Nope. You're free to do so.Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Matteo, the verses you quote don't identify works as the ground for salvation, only a necessary fruit. I am not denying that Christians are to do good. The James scriptures you quote perfectly describe what I am saying - faith, if it is genuine, will be evidenced by works - faith that is devoid of works is bogus. I am denying that scripture teaches that we must perform works in order to earn any part of our salvation. You quote Paul and say: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” [and remember from the James quote above, it was credited to him as righteousness due to a particular act] This seems to clearly say that you think righteousness itself can be gained by works. (Note that Paul bases righteousness of Abraham's belief not his work, and teaches that our righteousness is from God (Rom 1:17). You say: But God can say to Man, if you want to get into Heaven, this is the work I am requiring you to do. and "However that simply does not mean that God cannot require certain things of us in order to receive the grace of getting to a Heaven that we simply do not in any way deserve" This really seems to be saying that man has to achieve of himself certain works that are required to get into heaven. It seems that you have to depend on yourself to gain access to God's grace, since on your view that is how God has set it up - 'do these works and only then you will you get access to my free grace that is undeserved.' And if you have to depend on yourself to open the door of grace (even though you don't deserve that grace) then it is hard to see how you cannot claim a piece of your own justification - well done for opening that door. But most importantly I don't see how you get round: 'one is justified by faith apart from works of the law' Rom 3:28. I have tried to understand your explanation but it does not seem to account for the fact that 'one is justified by faith apart from works...' I.e works are not what enables/opens the door to justification as you seem to say.halo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
I want to retract my signature. Would that be un-Christian of me?Mung
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
---halo: ‘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 that no one may boast’ Eph2:8 May I ask how a Catholic would understand that?" Yes, Catholics interpret that to mean that we are saved through faith, in the same spirit in which Jesus says, "without me you can to nothing." Without faith in Christ we cannot be saved nor can we do a single good thing. So, it is foolish to boast about our works, or to believe that they can save us, because we cannot do a single one of them without the power provided for us by faith in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we don't have to do them. Christ doesn't say that we are saved through faith alone. It gets back to the words "necessary" and "sufficient" again. A misreading of the Gospel can prompt one to mistakenly insist on faith at the exlusion of works, or, for that matter, works at the exlusion of faith. For example, when Peter says, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling," he is not saying that works will save us in the absence of faith and grace; he is saying that they are, nevertheless, necessary. That is not the same as saying that we are "saved by works," which, of course, we are not. When the Gospel emphasizes the importance of something, it doesn't mean that the thing being emphasized is the only thing that counts. If someone was bleeding to death and was saved by a blood transfusion, that doesn't mean that food and air are not also necessary to keep him alive. On the other hand, it would be pretty foolish for that man to say that he had no need for the medical intervention and boast that he saved himself with his careful eating habits. In keeping with that point, when James says that the Devil's belive and "tremble," he is dramatizing the obvious point that not everyone who believes will automatically follow up with good works. It gets back to interpreting the whole of the Gospel and not just parts of it, which, in isolation, can be misleading.StephenB
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
stephenB oh, and regarding John MacArthur, I'll just paste in the salient points: "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. • Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions. • The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light."halo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
it is implied throughout the document by referring to all parties who signed - Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox - as Christians, obviously speaking of genuine Christians. (As I mentioned earlier I don't necessarily deny this, see comment 13). Plural phrases such as 'we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak...' abound. James White said in his article: 'I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that "Christian" then is "Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content."' I find that conclusion hard to deny. Anyway, no hard feelings...halo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Halo, the way I see it is the way Paul sees it: Romans 2:5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. Jesus speaks quite plainly in Mt 25, Paul speaks quite plainly above. Let's delve a little more into James: James 1:22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world. James 2:13 For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Now, how does a Catholic resolve the apparent contradiction between the passage you cited (Romans 3:28) and all of the above? Basically it is that we cannot do anything that would *require* God to let us into Heaven. However that simply does not mean that God cannot require certain things of us in order to receive the grace of getting to a Heaven that we simply do not in any way deserve. We cannot bind God, but that does not mean He cannot bind Himself by letting us in if certain conditions are met. The passages I quoted above are some of those conditions. Romans 4:2 describes the difference between works that would somehow obligate God, as if we deserved Heaven, and those that are pleasing to God, because God, by His grace, allows them to be: "Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." [and remember from the James quote above, it was credited to him as righteousness due to a particular act] A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." ------ A key phrase above is "A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due." In this case "worker" means someone who can obligate God in an absolute sense. In the case of all of the works referred to above, man is not binding God via justice and he is receiving a gift rather than a wage, because God is binding God as an act of grace. In no way whatsoever is the judgment scene in Matthew thereby nullified. Man cannot say to God, "Look, I am working, so you have to let me into Heaven! But God can say to Man, if you want to get into Heaven, this is the work I am requiring you to do." An entirely fascinating lecture series on this whole topic is Scott Hahn's "Romanism in Romans". I highly recommend it. Now I realize, that a Protestant can somehow attempt to explain all of this by making distinctions between "salvation" and "justification", etc, but I find that this can all be understood quite cleanly without having to do such a thing. As far as I'm concerned, Catholicism and Scripture mix just fine. And if so, I guess that makes us "real Christians". When you accuse Catholics of thinking that we get to Heaven by works, do you really imagine that we're running around in fear doing this that and the other, all without any faith in the grace of God to save us? Do you really imagine that we think our pitiful efforts are, in and of themselves, going to get us anywhere, and that we don't have faith in Christ? Do you think people with a deep devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus are actually wallowing around with no understanding of God and his works? I mean really? Come on, that's about as accurate as thinking that because "Bible Christians" are against "works righteousness" then that means that they are sitting around drinking cases of beer, fornicating, and cheating on their wives and taxes because they at one timed prayed the sinner's prayer and, you know, "once saved, always saved". Both are ludicrous caricatures.Matteo
November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply