Maybe ecumenism, at least for some, is not motivated by fear of offense, to man at least, but rather a desire to give charitable benefit of the doubt to all who claim Christ crucified and resurrected for the salvation of mankind.

I am certain that, humans (even Christian ones) being whom they are, there is no Christian nor group of Christians that does not, in some way, add to the gospel. I am also certain that there is no Christian or group (church, etc.) that does not also in some way miss the fullness of the gospel. Therefore, an ecumenism that embraces all those who would claim salvation in Christ alone, regardless of disagreements over just how that salvation is appropriated, seems to me just and wise.

Further, as my Catholic family members assure me, RCs do not doubt a Protestant can be saved, but believe that he or she is not “in full communion.” So there is a disunity, but the unity is greater.

And still further, I think I understand what you are saying about the meaning of “evangelical,” but historically, evangelicalism is an attempt to reclaim the gospel as essential and exclusive to salvation. It seems to me that attempts to define it too narrowly or exclusively (in truth adding to the essential meaning) actually contradict that goal.

Rev. Paul T. McCain: “Joe, thanks for the kind invitation. I am definitely interested.”

Dear Joe Carter,

I think Rev. McCain would be a terrific addition to the team of Evangel bloggers.

His comment regarding Frank Turk’s post “An Interview With The Devil Himself”:

“I hope this post is not indicative of a trend on this blog, for it will ruin it in a hurry: self-indulgent, passive-aggressive codswallop.”

is not only concise and accurate, but has the added benefit of engendering delight and amusement as well.

Joe, please approve Rev. McCain right away!

Please use my e-mail included with this post.

Thanks again!

Arthur, I think I missed the theme and trajectory of this entire post and thread. I was reading it after reading other posts about the MD and noticing the objections concerning the diminishing of the gospel or the MD lacking the centrality of the gospel, and I thought the concerns would be met by placing a simple and clear statement of the gospel in the declaration masthead; thinking the concerns were about the MD addressing issues that belonged to santification without preceding it with the gospel. Maybe, I’m confusing justificaton with the gospel, or something like that.

It appears there is no simple and pure call to the gospel like I hear presented on evangelical radio programs when I tune in on my way to work; rather, the centrality of the gospel is determined in relation to other doctrines or ecclisology(?) etc, where the gospel is always imbedded in an existing church doctrinal structure. So, I guess, there are no just-evangelical christians, but always evangelical Lutherans, or evangelical Calvinists, or evangelical members of the Orthodox church, nor is there any just-evangelical gospel as Darryl Little claims.

How does a protestant evangelicals exclude Orthodox and Roman Catholics without excluding other Protestant denominations?

Orthodoxdj, do you have the gift of prophecy? Or are you more modest, and just noting that past performance is simply a reasonable indicator for future behavior?

Regardless, your comment is spot on.

None of the Lutherans (or Methodists) that I invited to blog here accepted. We’d love to include a Lutheran, and would be glad to include you as a blogger if you’d be interested.

““The proper definition of the gospel is that it is the promise of Christ, which frees us from terror of the law, sin, and death, and brings grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness and eternal life.””

I can get a mormon to agree to that too. Do they have the Gospel?

That was my point. I was aware that this wasn’t an “underhanded plot”, as you pointed out. I do think that it’s obvious for someone used to dealing with Rome’s tactics to see what their eventual goal is. If you’re an ecumenist, you don’t see tactics as the motivation at all. Which is expected.

You are doing Joe a serious disservice, and betraying a fundamental parochialism that reflects poorly on any and all Reformational Christians. Let me share a quotation from a very profound Christian thinker, Hermann Sasse, one of the finest Lutheran theologians in the 20th century. And, perhaps also give Michael Spencer something to whine about when he sees the length of this comment. But I think it offers very good food for thought in the context of the whole Manhattan Declaration conversation, and the subsequent conversation on this post. I’d put this up as a blog post here, but apparently “Evangelicals” do not include Lutherans as blog contributors on EVANGEL.

“Currently there exists no Una Sancta, or no longer, or not yet; that has been the judgment of the world, also the Christian world, in every age and will continue to be so until the Last Day. Yet where one knows, however, what the church is, of which the New Testament speaks, the church that is the people of God, the Body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, one knows that faith in the holy, catholic, apostolic Church is not faith in a concept, that is, an ideal to be actualized, or not to be actualized. For the one Church of God, to read according to the Lutheran Confessions, is not a Platonic city, but rather a reality in this world that will be believed and that can only be believed by one that believes in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Faith in the Church is part and parcel of faith in the Triune God, who gives us testimony about Himself in Holy Scripture. The article about the Church therefore belongs in the Creed as a true article of comfort . . . It is therefore that we Christians need this article. To that end we pray it daily in the Creed, ne desperemus, “that we should not despair,” as the Latin text of the Apology says [VII/VIII.9]. For indeed, without this article we would otherwise despair and whoever does not understand this article, he must despair when he views the condition of Christianity and inquires about the one Church of God.

……

“Our fathers in the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy had no illusions about who the Pope was and about the Society of Jesus. Yet they believed that the Church existed in the mission churches of the Jesuits in America and East Asia even as we believe its existence in the communion of the Roman Antichrist that has again become so clear to us today [probably a reference to the events that would lead to the 1950 publication by Pius XII of Munificentissimus Deus and the promulgation of the assumption of Mary]–in conjunction with whom we do not overlook those figures of the Antichrist that are so similar to him in Protestantism–everywhere we believe it where the means of grace are still present. We know that we are bound together in the one Church of God with all those “that from this age to that in the world, from dawn to dusk, truly believe in Christ, that therefore have one Gospel, one Christ, one sort of Baptism and Sacrament and are governed by one Holy Spirit, even if they have different ceremonies” (Ap VII/VIII, 10f). And when we also can only believe in and not realize this bond in this life because we may not declare ourselves in solidarity with false doctrine, nevertheless this faith remains indeed a reality to which we can give expression even without a union.

“And thus the situation stands exactly with the churches of the Protestant world. … Whom would it serve if in every country a “United Church” were to assume the place once occupied by the old confessional churches? These unionist churches would be but new denominations with watered-down confessions or none at all, in any case with completely different dogmatic coloring. … No, from this senseless construction of unions that only worsens the division of Christianity the Church should declare itself free in order to set themselves to the task that alone can have the understanding of true ecumenical work: the new ordering of the relationship of the great denominational confessions to each other.

“Instead of wanting to make the Una Sancta, the One Holy Church, visible — which is just as impossible as the attempt to make the Trinity visible — for the Una Sancta is an article of faith and not an article of sight–the churches of Christianity should learn to live together with each other, and, except for publishing when required the necessary polemics on behalf of truth, to communicate with each other to make it clear that only really believes in the Una Sancta.

“As long as faithful confessional Lutheranism is present, its duty is to stand watch and bear witness against the surrender of that, which for Luther was the central idea of the Reformation, because it is nothing other than the Gospel from the One that is alone our Righteousness and who through the Means of Grace of His Gospel and the Sacraments instituted by Him, that of the washing of regeneration and that of His true Body and Blood builds His Church on earth. “His work no one can hinder,” not even the folly and self-will of men. For it is not our Church, it is His Church. And this church is called perpetuo mansura, everlasting, in contrast to churches that we men seek to build. We learned this from Luther and he learned it from Holy Scripture. It is in this sense that we desire to believe and comforting article of the Una Sancta, dear brothers. Believe it in the manner that Scripture teaches it to us, and nothing else. Believe it in the manner that we should believe all the articles of faith: not only in word, but also in deed.”

Source: Hermann Sasse, Letter to Pastors, Number 3: On the Problem of the Relationship Between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church (Erlangen, January 1949), unpublished translation.

I’m absolutely equally certain of what you say as being true, a FT blog specifically for Evangelicals, to give RC readers and others a chance to hear and read Evangelicals commenting and discussing. It is precisely within the vision of RJN to do so, and I applaud FT for it. It is in the best spirit of RJN’s ecumenical vision.

But it remains true nonetheless that EVANGEL is well within the FT family, a web site surrounded by FT content, RCC advertisement and such.

Again, I find nothing insidious, negative, inappropriate or otherwise with this, but to think that FT is simply operating with the principle of the RCC being “one among many” stripes/brands of Christianity, or as we Lutherans would speak, one equal among many equal confessions would be incorrect.

There is nothing “underhanded” about any of this. I find it all refreshingly open, honest and entirely something that non-RCCs can participate in with integrity.

PTM

I stopped reading your old blog because you were so ecumenical – and I couldn’t agree with you anymore. While I’m sure you meant well, those who would actually be aligned with the historical meaning of “evangelicalism” aren’t ecumenical. That was the point. As Frank said, the only valid usage of “evangelical” any more is to distinguish those who believe that the Gospel is central from those who do not.

Hmm… Your faith was restored from this thread? Does that mean that if Frank stays away, you’ll be halfway back across the Tiber? ;)

You are correct that a Catholic probably would not put it that way. But a Catholic could say “justification by grace alone through faith”–since this would encompass “faith which works by love,” as well. Is that close enough to “the very heart of the gospel”? It’s even in Galatians!

Dear Frank Turk: Hello, love and peace to you in Christ, and Merry Christmas. :) (I am proud of myself for resisting the urge to write “Christ Mass.”)

Thanks for the various responses. If I may say one more thing: I slid out of the Evangel blog for a while (rather quickly, in fact) because I mistrusted the tone of the early discussions I read. This thread, in and of itself, has restored my faith in y’all. Blessings upon the participants.