The occasion of the Manhattan declaration has given an opportunity for a number of evangelicals, including Evangel’s very own very active Frank Turk, to profess that the primary reason he will not sign is that it was done in concert with Roman Catholics, and apparently even worse than that, with the Eastern Orthodox. Ecumenism is to be anathematized. His point of view, and in fact his very reason for not signing, is not unique but is representative of a number of prominent bloggers and those who self-label as Evangelicals who share his point of view. He writes:
I’ve said it elsewhere, so it should be no surprise when I say it here that I am sure there are Catholics who are saved, and likewise for the occasional Eastern Orthodox you may run into who exercises an Evangelical (large “E” intended) understanding of Jesus and the consequences of Him; but to throw out the wide blanket and just call all of these groups “Christian” in an overly-broad sociological sense, and to call all of them “believers” in the sense required to make the rest of the reasoning in this document is much.
This, to my ears, sounds very Pharisaic. Here we have Mr Turk standing in judgement of the whole of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and finding them wanting … except those few who secretly are “Evangelical.” Well, fortunately (apparently) for me, Mr Turk is not my judge, for I have a Judge already. It seems to me the Gospel has a few things to say about those trying to put themselves in the place of that Judge.
But thankfully, Mr Turk’s bark is worse than his bite, when you get down to it. For he offers statements like:
“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”
and
The reasoning of the Gospel is this: because Christ died for sins in accordance with Scripture, and was buried and raised on the third day in accordance with Scripture, men are called to repentance which is not just a confession of past wrong but a second birth — a new life in which we are dead to the moral law and its condemnation and raised to new life in the kind of love Christ has and showed us by dying on the cross.
Hmm. The problem here is that this demonstrates two things. First, the statements offered as definition of the core of Christianity alas for his thesis, a statement which is one with every Catholic and Orthodox that I’ve ever met would affirm. It certainly seems problematic to claim that another is not Christian because he doesn’t affirm and believe statements {X} … and then find that the statements in set {X} are held by that other. The second part is that, it seems Mr Turk is must be completely, absolutely, and (to be frank) amazingly ignorant of Eastern Orthodox liturgy and praxis. Seriously, there are a lot of ways that someone from the Orthodox tradition might be react to being accused of being in a tradition that fails to emphasize repentance and turning to Christ; dismay, resignation, or ROFL come to mind. At the very least that seems weird for from a Byzantine rite perspective the Evangelical liturgy seems like a Jesus pep-rally and any hint of repentance seems wholly lacking.
There are two serious points remaining. The first is that there is in fact one principled Scriptural argument for not signing. Jesus offered that it is wrong to take oaths for let your yes be yes, and your no be no could certainly be taken as a good reason for not signing. That seems really the only reason not to sign. I think that there are arguments for and against whether how what Jesus said about oaths might apply to signatures on statements. That is for another time and place. The second is that the doctrinal and ecclesiastical gulf between the SBC, Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox are real and should not be whitewashed. But you are not saved by getting the fine points of doctrine correct. Getting doctrine right is important in part because it’s one of the things that people working toward theosis (theosis is roughly how the East views sanctification) engages in but more importantly because salvation is of deadly importance and bad theology hinders people from finding God. Which is why the Pharisaic statements noted above made by Mr Turk aren’t just harmless dumb things said on a blog … but the devils work being done for him. When Peter and the early church wrestled with circumcision of Gentiles the question wasn’t “right doctrine” but getting people to the Gospel and to put it baldly, the statements made in judgement about the RC and EO are exactly like those who insisted that Gentiles eat kosher and get circumcised.
[update: I'm having a busy day ... but finally returned and have updated the regrettable first paragraph. Better?]
December 1st, 2009 | 11:27 am | #1
Hi Mark,
I certainly agree with you that the judgement shown by Frank Turk about the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches is dangerous ground. Really dangerous ground.
If your post here is only to call attention to that one of his two reasons for not signing the Manhattan Declaration then that is good.
However, Frank had two reasons – the second I agree with. The work of the Body of Christ is to preach the Gospel. Only the third area of the Declaration is a call to something that requires political action on the part of Christians – and it is not a call on Christians uniquely. Everyone in a free society should fight to preserve freedom of religion and conscience. It is an ideological point, and not a theological one.
Evangelicalism has gotten way too wrapped up in attempting to change the world through external political and cultural means – and not nearly wrapped up enough in bringing people to Christ and letting Him change the world.
December 1st, 2009 | 11:29 am | #2
Now I am Orthodox, and I came to Christ as an adult, and I believe that I have a true relationship with Christ in my heart. I do acknowledge that there are many Orthodox Christians and many Catholics who don’t really know Christ, but I bet that those people are not the ones interested in signing the Manhattan Declaration.
And I find it interesting because many of the beliefs and practices of Evangelical Christians came out of the early church which was a united church where there was no Catholic or Orthodox Christian. Those councils that rebutted heresy in the early centuries have a huge impact on Evangelicals today.
December 1st, 2009 | 11:43 am | #3
A good review but the refusal is the work of such narrow-minded thought that I doubt Mr. Turk has the ability to rethink it. As an Evangelical turned Roman Catholic I’ve heard all the arguments before by my pastors and friends trying to talk me out of it. No regrets; I’m blessed to be part of the Church Jesus founded and passed to Peter and in an unbroken succession to Benedict XVI.
I know one of the early signatories pretty well. A good and Holy servant of God. The point of his and my signing is to warn politicians that we cannot be pushed any further on these points. If we have to choose between God and government we will stand with Our Lord against the oppression of government.
Anyone who cannot see past their blinkered view of Christian fellowship to stand up for these principles with us is doing their own soul harm.
As for the “oath” question, I don’t consider the Declaration an oath any more than I’d consider the Declaration of Independence a violation of Christian ethics. We’re simply stating a facts. Whether there are consequences to come is up to our adversaries.
December 1st, 2009 | 11:46 am | #4
Proofread!
December 1st, 2009 | 11:59 am | #5
“But you are not saved by getting the fine points of doctrine correct.”
Perhaps not, but Paul seemed to indicate to the Galatians that attempting (intentionally) to add to the work of Christ, in order to cover your bases, is to make His work null and void.
While I can’t speak to the Eastern Orthodox point of view, when Trent went out of it’s way to anathematize those who claim that you cannot add to Christ’s perfect work in any way, it seems to me (and to the reformers of the time) that they anathematized the gospel itself.
—————————-
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
—————————
As long as Rome holds to Trent (and they do), then is this not more than a “fine point of doctrine”, is it not a re-definition of the gospel?
What I don’t get is why it’s apparently OK for Rome to say that the Evangelical definition of the gospel is wrong, (and Evangelicals have no problem with that) it’s off limits for Evangelicals to say that Rome has it wrong.
And if either one is wrong, what business does either side have in claiming the others to be fellow believers (or at least those who hold to the official teachings of either group, we all recognize that within each community there are dissenters)?
Why is a Catholic willing to say that an Evangelically faithful evangelical is a brother?
Why would an Evangelical say that a good Catholic who holds tightly to the teachings of his church, is a brother?
Is Frank not being consistent here?
Is the gospel not more central to everything than just another “fine point of doctrine”.
It seems to me that the gospel is about as fine as a sledge hammer.
December 1st, 2009 | 12:04 pm | #6
Mark Olson: “Which is why the Pharisaic statements noted above made by Mr Turk aren’t just harmless dumb things said on a blog … but the devils work being done for him.”
Mr. Turk felt the need to make those statements and you feel the need to call him out on it. This is fair and is fair-play.
By the way Mark, have a look at this post by Andrew Sandlin titled “Lordship Salvation Is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur.” Here are some excerpts:
“MacArthur is wrong on two counts. First, he over-generalizes and oversimplifies the Gospel.
Second, and more relevantly, MacArthur underestimates the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
The MD presupposes an ethical calling wider than the Gospel, and we dare not shrink back from the implications of this wholly valid assumption: the Gospel is one of the great themes of the Bible without which there can be no “true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills,” but the Gospel is not the entire, or even the most important, message of the Bible. It is a crucial dimension of an even more momentous message, which is the sovereignty of God over all things (2 Chron. 20:6; Ps. 103:19; Pr. 21:1; Zech. 9:10; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 19:6).
The MD is suggesting that Jesus is Lord of the state, too, not just Lord of redemption. And when the state transgresses its God-ordained role, it stands as a rebel against the kingdom of Jesus Christ to which it, too, and not just the church, is called to submit.
But what MacArthur does not seem to grasp, and what the signatories of the MD do grasp, at least intuitively, is that the Lordship of Jesus is wider than individual salvation. This fact is easy to prove.
The MD takes a step toward recovering an understanding of the full-fledged Lordship of Jesus — that Christians must speak prophetically to the ethical issues of the time, and expect the state to stay within its divinely prescribed limits. Just as Jesus’ Lordship is wider than the church, so Christians’ message must be wider than the Gospel.“
December 1st, 2009 | 12:13 pm | #7
“Just as Jesus’ Lordship is wider than the church, so Christians’ message must be wider than the Gospel.”
Wow. If that’s what the signers believe, then even more praise to those who refuse to sign.
A statement like that so badly misunderstands and underestimates the gospel that it takes ones breath away.
December 1st, 2009 | 12:27 pm | #8
Mark Olson: “When Peter and the early church wrestled with circumcision of Gentiles the question wasn’t “right doctrine” but getting people to the Gospel and to put it baldly, the statements made in judgement about the RC and EO are exactly like those who insisted that Gentiles eat kosher and get circumcised.”
That’s amusing because it’s so ironic. For I have read many comments and posts from MD critics that say the RC and the EO are the Judaizers, and yet here you are in a turnabout, saying that it’s those who sit in judgment of the RC and EO who are the real Judaizers. Very funny.
Daryl,
You have to read the entire article. Your approach is akin to an atheist picking a verse out of the Bible, and then dismissing the whole Bible because of his dislike for that one verse.
December 1st, 2009 | 12:42 pm | #9
“When Peter and the early church wrestled with circumcision of Gentiles the question wasn’t “right doctrine” but getting people to the Gospel and to put it baldly, the statements made in judgement about the RC and EO are exactly like those who insisted that Gentiles eat kosher and get circumcised.”
It’s interesting to see this argument turned around- usually it’s the Evangelicals who are accusing the RC and EO (perhaps less so the EO, but mostly because they’re off the radar) of being the Judiazers. I have to admit I’ve never heard this particular approach before, and I suppose it bears more thinking out…
December 1st, 2009 | 12:54 pm | #10
“This, to my ears, sounds very Pharisaic. Here we have Mr Turk standing in judgement of the whole of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and finding them wanting … except those few who secretly are ‘Evangelical.” Well, fortunately (apparently) for me, Mr Turk is not my judge, for I have a Judge already.”
Does Mark Olson also think the way in which the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church have both condemned Protestantism is equally Pharisaical?
And isn’t Olson judging Frank Turk? So is Olson also a closet Pharisee?
“It seems to me the Gospel has a few things to say about those trying to put themselves in the place of that Judge.”
If that’s an allusion to Mt 7:1, it would behoove Olson to read the entire verse in context. It doesn’t prohibit judging another, per se, but hypocritical judgment.
December 1st, 2009 | 1:11 pm | #11
I said this at the start of Evangel, and this post is the proof
Evangel – just like Boars Head Tavern, but with comments.
December 1st, 2009 | 1:35 pm | #12
The funny thing about all this “Pharisee” accusation stuff, and what makes it completely the wrong question here, is that any group can say that to any other, and on the same basis.
The Mormons can say it to the RC or the Evangelical. The JW’s can say it to the Mormons. Atheists can say it to pig worshippers…
I’ve read the whole article, TUAD, and the problem is that Mark is claiming that the issue is getting people to the gospel and therefore Frank and others are being Pharisee’s, when, in fact, when Mark says “get people to the gospel” Frank and John MacArthur and others are saying “And here’s the gospel to which you must come”.
But when the gospel becomes a point of division, people pull out the Pharisee line, instead of recognizing that the gospel does indeed divide.
How saying “You can’t add to the gospel” becomes adding to the gospel is beyond me.
December 1st, 2009 | 1:48 pm | #13
Mark said: “But you are not saved by getting the fine points of doctrine correct.”
Try believing you are saved and still believe in a works based theology, many do, but will be sadly deceived. As we all know…doctrine does matter, you cannot divorce Jesus from the data about Him and His message. Even then many can have correct doctrine and still leave their first love, but you will never see the light of Jesus or heaven, if you believe that you have anything to add to the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross. Fine points are God’s details and uncompromising way to LIFE eternal. He sets the parameters; I just believe He has the sovereign right and prerogative to do so.
December 1st, 2009 | 1:55 pm | #14
Well.
An interesting aspect of my complaint that I have offered as a clarification is that what is at stake here is not Protestant triumphalism over the other traditions. I am not sure how often I can say this, or in how many different ways, but factually, I am willing to accept for the sake of argument that my view of justification, my view of the scope and authority of Scripture, my view of church authority, and my view of the meaning of the sacraments (not to mention my view of Mary, my view of the heroes of the faith [you might call them 'saints'], and my view of the Mass, among other things) make me a heretic in the eyes of formal Catholicism. I know what I did when I rejected those doctrines, and I rejected them actively and not merely because I wasn’t ever informed of them. I accept very pointedly that me and people like me may be the problem.
The problem is that the three sides of the argument listed for the sake of this document are mutually exclusive. The problem may not be that My “purity” has been somehow tarnished by signing with Catholics: it may be that the truth as promulgated by the bishops under the heir to Peter in Rome have tarnished themselves by aligning with me.
This is not a complicated argument. It is simply a statement that there are three parties, and it is possible that all of them are wrong, but it is also necessary that some of them are wrong because they are not all three compatible. They are in fact exclusive.
Is that not the case? Or can someone make the case for me that the divide between Catholic and Evangelical, or Orthodox and Evangelical is all about completely non-essential matters?
December 1st, 2009 | 2:01 pm | #15
Daryl,
Take a look at Scott Klusendorf’s article titled “Should Christians be Cobelligerents in Ecumenical Coalitions?” Excerpts:
“Evangelical Christians who are committed to sound doctrine must distinguish themselves theologically from people who reject fundamental truths of the Protestant Reformation. Those truths must never be
discarded so as to achieve a greater unity with nonevangelicals. Are evangelicals forsaking the gospel, however, when they unite with Catholics, Jews, and other religious groups to address cultural issues?
First, it does not follow that because cultural reformers cannot make a culture blameless before God, we shouldn’t try to make it better for the weak and oppressed. I do not know of a single pro-life leader, for example, who argues that cultural reform can save souls eternally; only the gospel does that.
Second, the goal of cobelligerent cultural reform is not necessarily to change the hearts of individuals (whether saved or lost), but to restrain their evil acts.
Third, the notion that “there can be no real cultural impact apart from the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ” sounds good, but it is simply incorrect. Consider the moral evil of slavery in America, which did not end because of mass conversions to Christ. It ended when believers and nonbelievers joined forces to stand against it.
Fourth, it is not spiritually unacceptable for Christians to mobilize with non-Christians for causes other than preaching the gospel. Prior to the Civil War, Protestant clergy worked with non-Christians and organized the Underground Railroad to free black slaves. Anyone who thinks that God’s people are wasting their time pursuing social justice may want to take a look at how important it is to God: Jeremiah 5:26-28; 9:24; Isaiah 1:16-17, 21-23; 58:6-7; 61:8; Psalm 94:1-23; Proverbs 24:1-12; Matthew 25:41-46.
Fifth, why should anyone suppose that pro-life advocacy detracts from the discipline responsibilities of the local church as outlined in Matthew 28? Simply put, the answer to a lack of evangelical fervor for the Gospel is not to withdraw our political advocacy for the weak and vulnerable; it’s to encourage Christians to do a better job presenting the gospel. We don’t have to stop rescuing the innocent to do that.
Pro-life advocacy, in fact, often serves an important preevangelistic function because it reawakens people’s moral intuitions.
It is not morally wrong even for Christians to focus, for example, on saving human lives rather than primarily on spreading the good news. The fire department, for example, is not “distracted” when it spends time putting out fires rather than preaching the gospel. The purpose of the fire department, clearly, is not theology, but rescue. Its job is to save lives. The same is true of the pro-life movement. Its
primary goal is not to save souls, though we rejoice when that happens. Its mission is to protect lives.
Sixth, the theological claim that cultural reform efforts hinder the gospel because they leave unredeemed people feeling “safe” (falsely) in “superficial Christian morality” is misguided. Are we to conclude that God’s ability to save His elect decreases when cultural morality increases?
Koukl writes, “When someone tells me that laws can never change a fallen person’s heart, I ask them if they apply that philosophy to their children. Does the moral training of our children consist merely of preaching the Gospel to them? Wouldn’t we consider it unconscionable to neglect a child’s moral instruction with the excuse that laws can never change a child’s rebellious heart?”
Seventh, why shouldn’t evangelicals work with Catholics or nonevangelicals against abortion? Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform affirms that many Christians are inconsistent on this point. For example, if a critic of evangelical cobelligerence had a two-year-old daughter who stumbled into a swimming pool and needed immediate medical attention, he would gladly work with Catholic paramedics to save her life. If she were injured and needed surgery, it wouldn’t matter for a moment if the best surgeon were a Catholic operating out of a Catholic hospital. If the critic of cobelligerence will work with Catholics to save his own child, what’s wrong with working with them to save somebody else’s (unborn) child?
Cunningham points out, “The Good Samaritan did not preach salvation to the beating victim; he risked his own life to save a fellow traveler. Jesus used this example to illustrate our duty to love our neighbor. It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Catholics.”
December 1st, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #16
BTW, if we keep expanding my title, it will not fit on a business card anymore. I am now the cold, dead, rabid anti-catholic doer of the devil’s own deeds — if we believe my press.
December 1st, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #17
“It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Catholics.”
Or in the case of this thread…
“It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Eastern Orthodox.”
December 1st, 2009 | 2:25 pm | #18
Tactically:
I would be interested to check the statistics from the last 12 days as to how many “dead babies” were avoided because people signed this document. I’d settle for numbers rounded up to the nearest 1000, meaning if there was even 1 I’d call it 1000 without any quibbling.
Seriously: in an avergae 12 day period over the last year, about 36,000 babies were killed by abortionists. If we roll that back and say that everyone takes Thanksgiving off, maybe only 29,000 babies were killed. How many babies were saved because some-thousands have added their names to this document?
Since the implication is that there are babies dying because I will not this or any document like it, I’d like to know — because after all, this is not about the Gospel, right? It’s about pragmatic action. And pragmatism requires that it actually be doing something — preferably, what it says it’s setting out to do.
It’s an interesting emotional tactic, but it is an insipid tactic once one realizes that signing this document is a throw-away activity in the place of, for lack of a better term, real religion.
December 1st, 2009 | 2:41 pm | #19
Tactically:
I would be interested to check the statistics from the last 12 days as to how many people are going to hell because they were exposed to the Manhattan Declaration and to the folks in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church and in various Protestant churches who signed this document. I’d settle for numbers rounded up to the nearest 1000, meaning if there was even 1 I’d call it 1000 without any quibbling.
I mean: since the implication is that there are souls being destroyed because Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxers are signing the Manhattan Declaration. It’s an interesting emotional tactic, but it is an insipid tactic once one realizes what Scot Klusendorf said is true:
“Are we to conclude that God’s ability to save His elect decreases when cultural morality increases?”
December 1st, 2009 | 2:55 pm | #20
“While I can’t speak to the Eastern Orthodox point of view, when Trent went out of it’s way to anathematize those who claim that you cannot add to Christ’s perfect work in any way, it seems to me (and to the reformers of the time) that they anathematized the gospel itself.”
Daryl: How sure are you that you are reading Trent correctly? Since, after all, it says this as well:
If you think this is non-Christian, then all non-Calvinists (including Wesleyans and Catholics) do not embrace the Gospel. You are certainly free to believe that, but it seems to most of us completely indefensible. To believe that, for example, R. C. Sproul has the “Gospel” but Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, and Wesley didn’t is lurching into “trail of blood” restorationist territory. (For the record, Augustine as paleo-Calvinist is not a defensible point of view. See http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/augustinian-soteriolog/ and http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/augustine-and-varieties-of-monergism.html )
Second query: Are you sure you really know what the Church means by anathema in the context of these canons?
You should read this insightful piece by Jimmy Akin: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp
It seems to me that unless you can conclusively show that Akin is wrong, then the principle of charity requires that you cease and desist slandering your fellow Christians. Excluding entire traditions from Christianity based on a contested interpretation of Scripture (even among Reformed-types themselves!) not connected to any historic creed in the Church’s first 16 centuries is pretty thin basis on which to issue such cosmic judgments.
December 1st, 2009 | 3:18 pm | #21
That’s what I thought. No need to support one’s one argument: just a need to continue to attack rather-irrationally based on things I have never once affirmed.
We can take up Klusendorf’s reasoning another time. I’d rather finish this particular discussion rather than letting you run away from it, TUAD.
It’s your implication that this document has saved or will save lives. Prove it. If you will admit you cannot, that will be utterly sufficient.
After that, you are welcome to press the question of whether Klusendorf’s argument is material or even useful in making the case you are trying to make.
December 1st, 2009 | 3:21 pm | #22
Mark, please edit your opening paragraph. It is giving me grammatical headaches. :-)
December 1st, 2009 | 3:29 pm | #23
TUAD,
No one is disagreeing in principle with Klusendorf. In fact, those who refused to sign took great pains to say that the problem is not one of co-belligerency, but that it was in the assumption that all 3 listed groups mean the same thing by “gospel” and whether or not all three variations can actually save.
You need to drop your line of arguement if only because no one, to my knowledge, has made your line of reasoning, their reason for not signing.
December 1st, 2009 | 3:29 pm | #24
Mr. Frank Turk,
Did you edit your original comment #17?
December 1st, 2009 | 3:32 pm | #25
Yes I did. I posted it before I was satisfiued with it.
December 1st, 2009 | 3:37 pm | #26
That’s what I thought. For the record my comment in #18 was to your original comment in #17.
Why do you object to your silly question being mirrored? And of course you weren’t satisfied with your original comment after I showed how silly it was.
December 1st, 2009 | 3:48 pm | #27
Because you’re avoiding the question your own argument poses. You said this:“It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Eastern Orthodox.” The clear argument is that signing this document saves babies lives, and refusing to sign it (at best) avoids saving babies’ lives.
Do you really believe that — or are you finding convenient ways to slander those you disagree with (as usual)? I think you don’t believe that for a minute, and that you’re simply trying to find ways to slander those who disagree with you as people who do not care that abortion murders babies — since you could not make it stick that people who disagree with you have already sentenced all people not in their own local church to hell.
So: prove it. If you can’t prove it, admit you cannot prove it. That admission will, frankly, be worth far more than anything else that has transpired between us since this topic was raised (by me) 12 days ago.
December 1st, 2009 | 3:52 pm | #28
Mr. Frank Turk, you’re on the wrong track. Not too surprising.
Reproduce your original comment in #17 and I’ll show you what I’m talking about. Post it in a comment after this one.
December 1st, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #29
Michael Horton chimes in (on the declaration, not this thread):
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/250.html
December 1st, 2009 | 4:09 pm | #30
I don’t have the original. To the best of my ability, what I originally posted looked like this:
You may have the original someplace; I would stipulate to the version you would say it is.
That simply does not clear up the idea that it is your clearly stated position that this document will save babies’ lives.
Make your point, and substantiate your claim. You’re still running away from your basic claim here — and all I ask is that you admit you can prove no such thing as being true, or else prove it is true. It doesn’t have to be false for you to be completely wrong here.
December 1st, 2009 | 4:15 pm | #31
Frank,
When you ask:
In part that is what I was getting about in that recent post on Elijah and the priests of Baal. Logical consistency is not as important as you might think. After all, if as is likely, Quantum mechanics is real … God’s universe is not logically consistent … but instead is much cooler.
As for the divide been completely non-essential, no I don’t disagree that there are essential differences between the groups. That doesn’t mean that there are not saints in both (in abundance) but that we have to be careful to distinguish between the essential and non-essential divisions. The problem is from the point of view of salvation it seems to me that most of the issues which are argued about and bitterly contested are non-essential.
John H,
Oh, I disagree with the validity of Mr Turk’s second point as well … which I think is best met with a trenchant joke, which likely most of us know.
There’s the guy’s house is caught in a flood. He prays for God’s help. A canoe comes and offers to rescue him. He refuses saying he is going to be saved by God. A motorboat comes and meets the same reply. The waters rise further. Finally he is on the roof and refuses the assistance of a helicopter. He drowns and dies. He confronts God asking why he wasn’t rescued. God replies, “I sent a canoe, a boat and a helicopter.”
The point is, how do you know the MD document isn’t how God is trying to work in today’s world right now?
Steve,
You’d have to be more specific (and I won’t necessarily defend the Catholic criticism). What condemnation are you referring to?
December 1st, 2009 | 4:36 pm | #32
I don’t have your original comment in #17 either. But what you have looks close enough. Let me put the two comments back-to-back and I’ll show you where your big swing-and-a-miss is.
Frank Turk: “Tactically:
I would be interested to check the statistics from the last 12 days as to how many “dead babies” were avoided because people signed this document. I’d settle for numbers rounded up to the nearest 1000, meaning if there was even 1 I’d call it 1000 without any quibbling.
[I mean:] Since the implication is that there are babies dying because I will not this or any document like it, I’d like to know. It’s an interesting emotional tactic, but it is an insipid tactic once one realizes that signing this document is a throw-away activity in the place of, for lack of a better term, real religion.”
Me: “Tactically:
I would be interested to check the statistics from the last 12 days as to how many people are going to hell because they were exposed to the Manhattan Declaration and to the folks in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church and in various Protestant churches who signed this document. I’d settle for numbers rounded up to the nearest 1000, meaning if there was even 1 I’d call it 1000 without any quibbling.
I mean: since the implication is that there are souls being destroyed because Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxers are signing the Manhattan Declaration. It’s an interesting emotional tactic, but it is an insipid tactic once one realizes what Scot Klusendorf said is true:
“Are we to conclude that God’s ability to save His elect decreases when cultural morality increases?”
#1. Your question is silly because there are no such statistics. My comment in response to yours simply returns your silly question back to you. And hopefully you would see how silly it is.
#2. You extrapolated an unwarranted implication in order to build a strawman argument when you wrote:
“Since the implication is that there are babies dying because I will not this or any document like it, I’d like to know.”
I don’t know how or why you got this implication. Frankly, it’s a moronic interpretation if you seriously think that that is the implication.
Anyways, you’re constructing and attacking and burning your own strawman. You then use your strawman to then slander me. Please stop it. I don’t appreciate it.
December 1st, 2009 | 4:50 pm | #33
(#31 cont.)
#3. My original reference to Scot Klusendorf was in comment #14 whereby I merely asked Daryl to read Scot’s article.
In comment #16 I then reworded the last part in the excerpts from #14 to:
“It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Eastern Orthodox”
because of what Mark Olson wrote initially. He wrote:
“The occasion of the Manhattan declaration has given an opportunity for a number of evangelicals, including Evangel’s very own very active Frank Turk, to profess that the primary reason he will not sign is that it was done in concert with Roman Catholics, and apparently even worse than that, with the Eastern Orthodox.“
December 1st, 2009 | 4:52 pm | #34
TUaD,
I’d say Frank got that impression from your use of this quote:
“It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Catholics.”
If you don’t think that not signing the MD allows babies to die, what was the point of posting this quote? How does it apply to the situation?
You can call that a moronic interpretation if you like, but I can’t figure out what your point was, if not that.
December 1st, 2009 | 4:56 pm | #35
Mark Olson: “The point is, how do you know the MD document isn’t how God is trying to work in today’s world right now?”
It’s a reasonable point and a reasonable question.
December 1st, 2009 | 4:58 pm | #36
By the way, I forgot to say: I think it’s reasonable for you to say, “Those kind of statistics don’t exist, so I can’t provide them.”
It’s less reasonable for you to call it moronic for someone to think that you intended the quote to apply to this situation. Especially since you bolded it.
Either way, it would really help for you to restate what you did mean by that bolded quote.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:09 pm | #37
Test.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:14 pm | #38
P.S. I see that you posted comment #32 while I was writing #33. I’m looking back to see if you answered my question already…
The closest is when you said, “I merely asked Daryl to read Scot’s article.”
Does that mean you don’t think Scot’s article applies to Turk’s argument? (Or, you don’t think the last paragraph applies?) So you could have responded to Frank’s request by saying, “I wasn’t talking about your argument”?
December 1st, 2009 | 5:20 pm | #39
Banned by Mr. Frank Turk?
December 1st, 2009 | 5:21 pm | #40
Jugulum.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:22 pm | #41
Problems posting.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:23 pm | #42
TUaD,
I can see your posts. You haven’t been banned.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:28 pm | #43
“So you could have responded to Frank’s request by saying, “I wasn’t talking about your argument”?”
That’s more or less what I said in #32.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:35 pm | #44
To Sign or Not to Sign: A Reply to Mr Turk
That’s what this post and thread is about: Mark Olson’s reply to Mr. Turk.
Sorry if it got off track. I bid you all adieu (for the time being). Whew!
December 1st, 2009 | 5:39 pm | #45
Frank Turk:
Thanks for the Horton article!
It raises an interesting question: would this whole thing be less controversial and divisive if the Declaration had been clear that we’re dealing exclusively with the Law, and not with the Gospel? Could it then be signed by everyone in good conscience?
December 1st, 2009 | 5:52 pm | #46
TUaD,
You actually haven’t explained what you did mean by the quote in #14, as a reply to Daryl. Why did you think of posting it at all? What was it in Daryl’s comment that prompted it?
Wasn’t it supposed to apply to someone in this context? You did bold it originally, and you did say, “in the case of this thread” when you restated it in #16. Who did you have in mind when you said that?
Aside from that, I don’t think this would have gone so off-track if you had replaced #18 with the following–or at least had added this as an interpretation key after your satire:
“I wasn’t talking about your argument. Though if I were, I still couldn’t meet your challenge, since there aren’t statistics to track that.”
December 1st, 2009 | 5:53 pm | #47
I remain wholly unconvinced by the arguments made by those who speak against the Manhattan Declaration.
The chief flaw in thinking, in many cases, including Turk’s is the assumption that this statement is a something other than an assertion as to why Christians will not agree to, nor go along with, any demands placed on them by the government to tolerate and condone:
Abortion
Homosexual marriage
etc.
And, sadly, revealing the poverty that is much of American Evangelicalism, there is a total lack of comprehension that what makes Christian Churches Christian is not the individual faith or lack thereof of their various members and adherents, but what is formally confessed by the churches.
The Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church are Christian churches in their public confession, which is provided in the foundation of the ecumenical creeds.
That they do not, either corporately or individually by member, always live up to the assertions of those creeds is a failing of human sin, but to dismiss and reject, nearly out of hand, the historic churches, including the Reformation’s oldest and most historic church because they do not pass the “I’ve made a decision for Jesus” test of much of Evangelicalism is unhelpful.
We can quibble and pick at nits with the Gospel, but I could not, in good conscience, not add my signature and stand with those who are speaking out and declaring that we will obey God rather than men in those situations where the state attempts to dictate or force us to embrace what the Christian Faith can not embrace.
To suggest that the Law is somehow not part of the Christian Faith is foolishness, equally as foolish as any notion that it is only the Gospel that is part of the Christian Faith.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:12 pm | #48
Jug,
He can’t defend his comment about the dead babies. And he can’t disown it either, he’s been posting that same line all over the internet for a few days now, hoping to stir something up.
What he won’t do is address the statement, which he’s seen from all kinds of people over and over, that the issue is whether or not we should cooperate with Catholics and EO’s, but that the real issue is stating that we are all Christians given that we have very different definitions of the gospel and justification.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:18 pm | #49
Unable to ban (unfortunately), but not tempted to here as I think you’re doing more damage to yourself than I could on my best day.
________________________________
Mark –
First, given the real heat this discussion inevitably generates, thanks for what is so far very calm engagement in spite of what you perceive as insulting implications. That’s classy, and I want to recognize it for that.
You said:
I am always hesitant to buy into agnostic materialism as a hermeneutical approach to scripture, and what astounds me about this statement is that whatever it is that happens at the quantum level, it turns out very much like the world we experience every day — so the gap is unifying what happens to people and rock and cattle with what we say we think we know about activities that light is too cumbersome to reveal and the naked eye is too poor an observer to perceive.
Whether the quantum world is “logical” or not, it’s difficult to transpose that into a world where, for example, Elijah says, “Let’s see who really is God — YHVH or Baal.” Elijah says that if Baal is God, let him prove it; and if YHVH is God, let Him prove it. That really is the point of that story: who is really God.
The irony is that Arius thought much the same thing — you guys with the son-as-god-and-man are interesting folk, but wrong, but I won’t call you “not Christian”. You’re differently-enabled. This stuff about the Trinity is too far removed from the actual Jesus and Gospel to matter — you have your version and I have mine.
The problem is that the faith is not actually that broad. I honestly wish it was, if it could be and still be the power of God to save. There are fatal errors, and they were not all expounded at Nicea; the council of Trent makes that plain enough.
I wish being a Christian was as broad a covering as being a “democrat” can be — but it’s not. It is not non-essential, for example, for the church to be interpreted as somehow infallible and therefore beyond self-correction; this makes the church irreproachable in a way which only Christ is. It is not non-essential, for example, to see what happens at communion as presenting again, in a salvific way, the sacrifice of Christ, as if the cross was repeated at the altar. It is not non-essential to say that Christ does not take away all our guilt, but that we must somehow pay a penalty to God still in punishment for the sins we have done.
Yet to your point “that there are saints in both (in abundance)” overlooks the problem in yet another way: it overlooks what is taught vs. what is believed in faith. I concede the point completely: there are peopel inside the Catholic church from the moment Trent was ratified onward who have been and are part of God’s elect and are saved by Christ alone. No question; further, prior to the promulgation of Trent, there were Roman and Eastern saints; further still, prior to the Great Scism, there were saints even among these who sought Christ and who were saved by him as far back as the day of Pentecost.
The question is only, and still: what does the institutional church teach? As with that, I’m going home for the day. I may check in later to see what other things TUAD has baked up, and to see if there are other reasonable objections of additions to this discussion.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:25 pm | #50
Coyle –
THAT is a great question.
Here’s what I think: there is NO QUESTION that all kind of people reject abortion, gay marriage, and theocracy (including an atheist theocracy). To me, it would have made an INFINITELY MORE reasonable starting place to stand up on these issues ACROSS POLITICAL LINES rather than in an “ecumenical” way.
What if this was a document with 200,000 signatures from a political cross-section of our nation from people who come at the problems from diverse political perspectives and they could agree that these three things are not negotiable in our country?
I’d sign that as a Republican, an Arkansan, a former New Yorker, a capitalist, a college graduate, and as a father and husband. There’s no reason to make it about whether or not I am a “Christian”, nor about who else I would call a “brother in Christ”.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:30 pm | #51
He’s been posting it elsewhere? Well, I’m going to continue imputing honest intentions to him, taking him as straight-forwardly and seriously as I can.
Taking #32 at face value, his quote was relevant to something that you said, in relationship to Mark Olson’s post. Taking #16 at face value, there was something in “the case of this thread” that deserved the paraphrased criticism, “It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Eastern Orthodox.”
I’m just waiting for him to point to it. Or to correct me, if I’m still misunderstanding him somehow.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:59 pm | #52
Mark,
I have little doubt that quantum mechanics is very real. But as far as I know, it doesn’t actually suggest anything about logical inconsistency in the way the universe works.
Quantum mechanics is mathematically, logically consistent. There are things we don’t know. (Like, “What counts as a ‘measurement’?”) There are weird things. (It turns out that we can’t distinguish between waves and particles very well.) But not logical inconsistency.
FYI, I have a masters in physics. (My masters is in semiconductor microelectronics, not QM; I did have a couple courses in it, and got As.) That doesn’t mean I’m right–I could be missing something–but I’m also not a layman. And I suspect that you based your comment on general pop-culture descriptions of QM, which often get mixed up. If so, you should hold that thought. Or if you have a more solid basis, I’d be interested in it.
December 1st, 2009 | 8:01 pm | #53
Mark Olson
“You’d have to be more specific (and I won’t necessarily defend the Catholic criticism). What condemnation are you referring to?”
Well, there’s a lot of material to choose from. On the Catholic side, we could start with Leo X’s “Exsurge Domine,” which is a pretty broad-brush condemnation of nascent Protestant theology.
And from the Orthodox side, what about the Synod of Jerusalem (1672)?
December 1st, 2009 | 8:05 pm | #54
Francis Beckwith
“It seems to me that unless you can conclusively show that Akin is wrong, then the principle of charity requires that you cease and desist slandering your fellow Christians. Excluding entire traditions from Christianity based on a contested interpretation of Scripture (even among Reformed-types themselves!) not connected to any historic creed in the Church’s first 16 centuries is pretty thin basis on which to issue such cosmic judgments.”
Beckwith’s remarks were directed at a different commenter, but just out of curiosity, does Beckwith think that Leo X was exercising the “principle of charity” in “Exsurge Domine”?
December 1st, 2009 | 10:06 pm | #55
Turk, I love your work on Scrubs. Just kidding. :-)
I just read Horton’s thoughtful assessment of the Manhattan Declaration. However, he does write something that is not quite accurate: “Although these impressive figures [i.e., Benedict, JP II] point to general revelation, natural law, and creation in order to justify the inherent dignity of life, marriage, and liberty, they insist on making this interchangeable with the gospel.”
It is certainly true that JP II and Benedict maintain that Christ’s Gospel requires that Christ’s Followers love their neighbors as themselves, including their unborn neighbors. But they do not believe, for example, that if an atheist were to defend the unborn that the atheist would now be practicing the Gospel. They would say that the atheist would be acting justly, advancing the common good, and loving his neighbor.
In Evangelium Vitae, for example, John Paul the Great eloquently and persuasively connects the theological truth of God becoming man as the focal point of our love of neighbor and our concern for the downtrodden, the poor, the oppressed, and the vulnerable. Writes John Paul:
After reading that, I don’t know how anyone can come to the conclusion that Benedict and JP II, in the words of Horton, “point to general revelation, natural law, and creation in order to justify the inherent dignity of life, marriage, and liberty, they insist on making this interchangeable with the gospel.”
December 1st, 2009 | 11:05 pm | #56
Hey Steve. Leo X sounds alright:
December 1st, 2009 | 11:30 pm | #57
Let me admit that I am perplexed by Dr. Beckwith’s hugging of Jimmy Akin’s explanation that Trent doesn’t excommunicate anyone anymore because of the lack of bells and also because of the lack of explicit listing in the 1983 Canon law. This perplexes me for two reasons — one logical, and the other factual.
The logical reason is this: one has to ask one’s self why one requires an infallible magisterium when this body cannot do anything substantive about people who disagree with it. See: we Prots have the problem that we don’t really care about church discipline as a whole. It’s one of our greater faults as a group. But the big appeal in catholicism is that the Pope is always right, and those who disagree with him are, well, um … at one time (see Vatican I, particularly session 3 section 5) they were schismatic heretic who destroyed Christian faith. You can get your head around that, I am sure: an infallible Pope can tell you who’s not really a Christian.
But Akin’s Papacy apparently has resigned that power by abolishing the anathema by omission. It’s not listed in the Canon Law (he says; more on that in a second), so it’s been abrogated. So the Pope can’t toss anyone out of the church, and therefore out of eternal life (“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”), so when we read Trent and its myriad of anathemas (for rejecting the Deuterocanon, for example) we shouldn’t get too upset.
We therefore have all the pomp of the Magisterium, but none of the seriousness or the gravity of having an authority: with the misuse of one passage of the intro to the canon, the entire point of having a successor to Peter is made into pixie dust in order to avoid the hard fact that Trent’s anathemas were intentional and spell out the boundaries of the Catholic faith.
But to my second point, it is a misuse of Book I Canon 6. We can know this in three ways:
[1] The canon law is not intended to outline all doctrine or even all church law. It is intended to outline the normal juridic functions of the Catholic Church. That is: the Canon Law is a system of implementing law. You can read that in 10 guiding principles for revising the code in the introduction to the code; it outlines the normal operation of church discipline, not every law the members of the church must abide.
[2] Book I, Title I, Canon 8 states,
This is interesting because Acta Apostolicas Sedis (AAS) is a decades-old organ of the Vatican promulgating decisions — and many of these decisions are founded clearly on documents like Vatican I and Trent (and others, of course). It is clear AAS is the common method of promulgating Catholic ecclesiastical law; one has to wonder how Trent and Vatican I can be the basis for some of these decisions and not be Law themselves.
[3] There is the significant problem of “latae sententiae excommunication”, which is “automatic excommunication”. It’s the penalty prescribed for striking the Pope, for example. No bells or smoke needed to have the penalty apply — and this punishment is all over the 1983 Canon law. True: the word “anathema” is utterly absent. But Canon 1364 is not, and while it does not define “heresy”, it tells the tale clearly: “Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
So my contention it two-fold: Akin dismantles the authority of the Pope to avoid the facts of Trent, and he utterly misreads the Canon Law for the sake of undermining the message of Trent.
Thanks for asking, Dr. Beckwith.
December 2nd, 2009 | 1:42 am | #58
Excerpts from an interview with Professor Robert P. George about the Manhattan Declaration:
GEORGE: “Beginning at a meeting in New York in late September, Christian leaders came together across the historic lines of ecclesial difference — Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians — to bear witness to three foundational principles of justice and the common good: (1) the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions; (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and (3) religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The Declaration’s signatories understand that each of these principles is under threat from powerful forces in our culture and politics. They seek to make clear that, as Christians, they regard these principles as non-negotiable, and will therefore be unceasing in their defense of them and tireless in their efforts on their behalf.”
“Forces favoring abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, the redefinition of marriage, and the like see this as a critical moment for advancing their causes. The Obama administration is explicitly with them on some issues and is at least broadly sympathetic on others.”
“For too long, the historic traditions of Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have failed to speak formally with a united voice, despite their deep agreement on fundamental questions of morality, justice, and the common good. The Manhattan Declaration provided leaders of these traditions with an opportunity to rectify that. It is gratifying that they were willing — indeed eager — to seize that opportunity. Of course, as Cardinal Justin Rigali observed at the press conference at which the Declaration was released, the foundational principles it defends “are not the unique preserve of any particular Christian community or of the Christian tradition as a whole. . . . They are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of goodwill even apart from divine revelation. They are principles of right reason and natural law.” So the signatories are happy to stand alongside our LDS brothers and sisters who have worked so heroically in the cause of defending marriage, our Jewish brothers and sisters, members of other faiths, and people of no particular faith (even pro-life atheists such as the great Nat Hentoff), who affirm our principles and wish to join us in proclaiming and defending them.”
LOPEZ: What’s the top-priority issue for signers of the Manhattan Declaration?
GEORGE: The three principles — life, marriage, and religious freedom — are integrally connected. They are, as the Declaration says, foundational to justice and the common good, properly understood. They will stand or fall together.
GEORGE: “I hope that President Obama will understand that the signatories to the Manhattan Declaration are determined to defend the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and respect for religious freedom. On these issues, they cannot compromise, and they will not remain silent.”
GEORGE: “So if legislation is enacted that compels obstetricians and gynecologists to participate in abortions or refer for them, Christians and other pro-life men and women who practice in those fields of medicine will find themselves faced with the options of doing what they judge in conscience to be gravely unjust or abandoning their careers. Their obligation will be to abandon their careers. By the same token, if legislation is enacted to compel Catholic hospitals and clinics, for example, to provide abortion services or refer for abortions, those institutions could face the options of doing what the Church teaches is profoundly wrong or going out of business. Their obligation will be to go out of business.”
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:28 am | #59
Jugulum,
I have a BA and PhD in Physics both from the U of Chicago (’84 and ’90), so no … I didn’t get my expression about logical impossibility from “And I suspect that you based your comment on general pop-culture descriptions of QM, which often get mixed up. If so, you should hold that thought.” As to … “Or if you have a more solid basis, I’d be interested in it.” … a combox isn’t the place of the time … but I’ll try to get back to that. Bell’s inequality, questions of what constitutes measurement, and so on … smarter men than myself, Feynman included have noted that if you don’t find Quantum mechanics troubling … you haven’t understood it deeply enough.
Many “logical inconsistencies” in Physics and Maths are resolved from stepping back and realizing how you posed the question was the problem … which is sort of what I’m driving at here. Others can be resolved by realizing that the different formulations while formally and practically appearing very different can be proven to be isomorphic or equivalent.
Frank,
It seems to me that not one of these matters touches Orthodoxy. What is your beef with the East? After all in your original post you were clearly more critical of them than of Rome.
So you look to effectiveness? What if Orthodox praxis & liturgy is more effective at generating discipleship than the American Protestant aka Evangelical? Is that all it takes? A proof of effectiveness. Russian Orthodoxy survived 3 generations of destruction, murder, and the gulag. Are you sure your denomination could say the same? I would recommend for your reading the book Father Arseny if you haven’t already and would be very interested in your comments on the same.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:34 am | #60
I was not aware that the Synod of Bishop of the OCA and the USCCB for the Catholics had formally adopted this document.
Since that’s how those two bodies would “formally” make a statement like this, I’d be interested to see where and when that happened.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:22 am | #61
Equivocation on the word “formally.” Which then leads to further ridiculous statements. Sigh.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:33 am | #62
Mark asked:
Intersting observation. I didn’t intend that at all; I mostly was intent on making sure I wasn’t bashing Catholics but making it clear that EO is exclusive of Catholicism as much as Evangelicalism is exclusive of Catholicism.
If you’re asking, I would reject Orthodox “synergeia”, including the specific statements regarding God’s “powerlessness” in man’s salvation vs. man’s freedom; I am extremely uneasy with EO concepts of theosis; I am deeply suspicious of the “therapudic” concept of reconciliation in EO thought. There are other things I would call “minor” disagreements; those are the majors.
No, you misunderstand me. I am not saying, “if it’s an effictive teaching, it must be true.” I am saying, “without regard to what the layman believes, the formal teachings of a given church are what they are; in that fact, we can in some way assess whether the formal teachings of an ecclesiastical body are true or false, given the authoritative Scripture.”
That is: if every Catholic functionally believes in sola fide, but sola fide is formally anathematized by the Roman magisterium, it doesn’t matter that all Catholics believe the right thing — they may be saved and their institution and its leaders are condemned by their Gospel-denying teaching.
This is not about the efficacy of the institution in its didactic efforts: this is about the actual teaching of the institution.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:37 am | #63
TUAD:
I then just want you to confess this nugget:
“If any adherent of any organization publicly confesses some point of order, the organization has thereby publicly affirmed the point of order.”
You know that this is a false statement, yet when your source makes this claim specifically — that is, because some EO and Catholics have affirmed something, their churches have affirmed something — you think it’s a great idea, and explanatory moment.
It’s not. You are arguing from the center of a horrible muddle (as usual) and you want to accuse to would of being full of blurriness when in fact the problem is that your eyes are obscured by muck.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:40 am | #64
Frank Turk: “That is: if every Catholic functionally believes in sola fide, but sola fide is formally anathematized by the Roman magisterium, it doesn’t matter that all Catholics believe the right thing — they may be saved and their institution and its leaders are condemned by their Gospel-denying teaching.”
With regards to the doctrine of Sola Fide can one be saved without affirming it? Is it essential for salvation?
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:43 am | #65
Frank Turk,
Do you admit that you committed equivocation in #58?
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:17 pm | #66
Re #58: Nope. What does it mean for (for example) Eastern Orthodoxy “to speak formally” in any circumstance, as your source said? Can a group of laymen do that in EO, or does it require the Bishops?
re “sola fide”: It is faith; it is the description of what faith is. Someone may not possess a systenatic description of this which includes these two latin words, but it is faith itself. If someone does not have the faith “sola fide” describes, they are not saved.
December 2nd, 2009 | 1:52 pm | #67
he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council
Yes, that was “crazy Luther” at his best. Imagine daring to ask for a council to consider his situation and his claims! Didn’t he realize that in fact the Pope was the final authority in all things?
Silly man.
December 2nd, 2009 | 4:37 pm | #68
Robert George: “For too long, the historic traditions of Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have failed to speak formally with a united voice, despite their deep agreement on fundamental questions of morality, justice, and the common good.”
Frank Turk: “I was not aware that the Synod of Bishop of the OCA and the USCCB for the Catholics had formally adopted this document. Since that’s how those two bodies would “formally” make a statement like this, I’d be interested to see where and when that happened.”
Your equivocation may have been unintentional based upon a misreading or misunderstanding of Professor George’s response to the interview question.
When Professor George is using the word “formally” he is referring to the Manhattan Declaration being a “formal” document.
When you, Frank Turk, are using the word “formally” you are talking about a “formal” adoption process by the Synod of the Bishop of OCA and the USCCB.
You are using a very different sense of the word “formally” than what Professor George was conveying.
Please be more careful.
December 2nd, 2009 | 4:49 pm | #69
That’s nice. George was speaking of the “traditions”, not the “adherents”, or the “members”.
That speaks to something other than the formality of form inherent in a document.
December 2nd, 2009 | 5:32 pm | #70
The Manhattan Declaration – What To Do Next
Excerpts:
To all signers of the Manhattan Declaration:
Thank you for signing. We are now over 200,000 strong-and counting, for which we give thanks to God.
We have received thousands of e-mails asking what’s next – a good question. The goal of those of us who drafted and signed the document is not just to get a lot of names on a manifesto, gratifying though that is. We are seeking to build a movement – hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Catholic, Evangelical, and Eastern Orthodox Christians who will stand together alongside other men and women of goodwill in defense of foundational principles of justice and the common good.”
Read the rest.
December 3rd, 2009 | 4:07 am | #71
I appreciate that you say a number of evangelicals and I am thankful for that because as you know it is not all and I am hopeful that it is a large number that like me support for example Albert Mohler’s stance to sign.
I do think it is unfortunate the way in which the signing has been used by some in a way that seeks to emphasise division rather than unity when the whole focus of this document, the three principles is surely what we can all be united around and is targeting essentially an audience that does not understand many of these differences. There are plenty of other appropriate contexts and there have been many used over the years that are available to use to look at the often hugh differences of theology between us and respectfully. In fact, some of the comments are an embarassment for some evangelicals to see. I am grateful to my catholic friends (orthodox too but I know none that I am aware of) for themselves to have been willing to join with evangelicals in this common cause. In fact, I would go further and commend many parts of the current Pope’s encyclical on “love” in this context, and particularly if anyone has read it his reference to “exalted in contemplation”. Thank you too to Truth Divides for some really useful analysis of the issues and for many who have kept their cool. Love finds a way in the end and certainly the command to “love your neighbour” is a compelling rallying call in every way here. As we turn to prayer we shall also find our way through.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:41 am | #72
I have a question, and this might be completely off the wall or not, but it’s been bothering me.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said in “Cost of Discipleship” that faith and obedience are two sides of the same coin. Faith minus obedience is dead (see James 2) and obedience without faith is not only pointless, but actually impossible.
What is the point of calling people to obedience if it is not accompanied by a loud and clear expression of the Gospel, a call to repentance at the cross and subsequent faith? As I read the Manhattan Declaration, I see moralist declarations but no clear call to repentance and faith. How can we expect the world to bother listening to us if all we do is project morals at them like some sort of carebear? The only way they’ll understand, the only way they can possibly obey is to acknowledge Christ as Lord and own him King over their lives.
I’m just confused as to how this isn’t a colossal waste of time.
December 3rd, 2009 | 11:14 am | #73
TUaD,
Have you had an opportunity to think about how that quote was relevant to Mark’s post and Daryl’s comment, or how the paraphrased dead-babies/Eastern-Orthodox version applied to “the case of this thread”?
December 3rd, 2009 | 4:42 pm | #74
Will this comment come through? I have a response but there’s difficulty posting.
December 3rd, 2009 | 5:11 pm | #75
Joe Carter, please e-mail me to resolve the posting difficulties. (Will this post?)
December 3rd, 2009 | 6:10 pm | #76
(Let’s see if this comment gets through)
The following comments in the blogosphere are worth pondering:
(1) “I see both sides, and it is nearly impossible to force someone to go against their conscience on an issue of this much import. What I don’t understand however is that we cannot cooperate with leaders who have a different message but want to promote the type of society that is in more conformity with God’s laws… but … we *can* somehow (via Romans 13) cooperate with and submit to unbelievers and power grabbers and oppressors who are neither trying to promote Godly laws nor God’s gospel. This is what confuses me. It seems like a choking on gnats/swallowing camels thing.
If we can cooperate as police officers, firemen, doctors, EMT’s, soldiers, seamen, marines, airmen, with unbelievers to defend this country, to save lives, why not in this limited endeavor? If someone was attacking my neighbor, unjustly taking his belongings or killing his children, and my other neighbor called me to help stop it, would I refuse to help because my neighbors are Catholic or unbelievers? Would I even bother to ask? Wouldn’t this be the point at which a pharisee might say I can’t help you pull your donkey out of the well on the Sabbath, lest I violate my God’s command?”
(2) “Here’s a serious question I’m wondering if someone else has an answer for: If salvation comes by faith alone, can Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc receive salvation simply by their repentance and belief in Christ’s death on their behalf and resurrection? If they believe that additional good works are also necessary, does this negate their faith? If they misunderstand the nitty-gritty theological underpinnings of justification, does this negate their faith?
I guess what I’m getting at is, if salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, not by anything that we can do, does it not follow that there’s also nothing we can do that negates our saving faith? (Including being a part of a wayward theological tradition?)
For example, were the Judaizers in the early church truly saved? Or did they negate their salvation when they insisted that the OT ceremonial regulations were still necessary?”
(3) “Seldom have I been more ashamed of Christian brothers. Have none of you read Mark 9:36-40?
“He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.’
“‘Teacher,’ said John, ‘we saw a man driving out demons in your name and WE TOLD HIM TO STOP BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ONE OF US.’ [sound familiar?]
“‘Do not stop him,’ Jesus said. ‘No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.’”
If a man came to your burning house and offered in the name of Christ to help you rescue your wife and children from the flames, would you first ask him to define “Christian”? Of course not. Yet here you are questioning the doctrinal purity of those who signed the Declaration even as 1,300,000 babies are murdered in the womb every year in the USA.
Hypocrites!
You are the modern equivalents of those who condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. The Lord was very clear about your responsibility in matters such as this:
“And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth…”
If they were guilty of the blood of prophets, all the more so are do-nothing theologians like you guilty of the blood of children who have died while you sit at your computers pontificating. One of you said 200,000 signatures on a document will not stop the holocaust. Meanwhile you would rather sacrifice those unborn children than stand against the slaughter beside anyone who disagrees with your doctrine. In Jesus’ own words, thus you do not welcome Him, nor do you welcome the one who sent Him.
You are right to concern yourselves about the authentic Gospel–of COURSE you are–but you are terribly wrong to allow theological differences to stand in the way of fighting shoulder to shoulder with anyone who opposes the worst holocaust in all of human history. As Jesus told another group of hypocrites exactly like you 2,000 years ago: “You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
May God have mercy on your souls.”
December 3rd, 2009 | 6:29 pm | #77
So, taking stock of context.
You posted a comment that included the sentence, “It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Catholics,” and said it had to do with “the case of this thread”.
But you mocked as moronic the notion that you were applying that to Frank’s argument. When asked what you were applying it to, you didn’t answer.
Just after I repeated the request for you to explain what you were talking about, you posted this new quote. (Whoever it’s from.) It seems to repeat the same basic idea–that people who don’t sign the declaration are allowing babies to die to avoid “working with” Catholics. (It says that twice: In the paragraph that starts, “If a man came to your burning house”. Also in the last paragraph, where it says we’re allowing “theological differences to stand in the way of fighting shoulder to shoulder”.)
You posted this without comment, without any hint of who you think it applies to. The author seems to think it applies to everyone who’s refusing to sign because of issues of the gospel, so presumably that’s what you think is “worth pondering”.
And yet, I thought that’s what you mocked as a moronic interpretation of your earlier quote.
Help me out here, TUaD. I’m doing my best to understand you. What do you mean by this quote? Am I misunderstanding you? Whose argument against signing the MD do you think it applies to?
December 3rd, 2009 | 6:48 pm | #78
Jugulum,
You’re a reasonably intelligent person and I’ll leave it to you and what I hope are your capable skills to figure out the fairly obvious answers.
If you still need help, then answer the following questions *FIRST*, and then I’ll help you.
December 3rd, 2009 | 6:57 pm | #79
You wrote on a series about the sin of gambling the following:
“I take the view that gambling in small amounts for entertainment doesn’t violate any Biblical principles.”
Now that you’ve read all of Phil’s posts, and his various comments throughout the threads, do you retract your initial view or do you still maintain it? Why?
December 3rd, 2009 | 6:57 pm | #80
TUaD,
I might, once you post them. I might not. It depends on whether it looks like you’re making me jump through hoops. And I have bent over backwards already.
Frankly, you should answer even though you think it’s “fairly obvious”–because it may be obvious to you, but it apparently hasn’t been obvious to anyone else posting in this thread. Someone needs to post the explanation & clarification here. Why don’t you just do it?
December 3rd, 2009 | 7:08 pm | #81
Jugulum, I sent you an e-mail. You know what I’m looking for.
(I hope this gets through).
December 3rd, 2009 | 7:31 pm | #82
“For example, were the Judaizers in the early church truly saved? Or did they negate their salvation when they insisted that the OT ceremonial regulations were still necessary?””
Paul said they negated Christ’s work.
No, they weren’t saved.
December 3rd, 2009 | 7:50 pm | #83
TUaD emailed me his questions, because he’s have trouble posting them again. They aren’t relevant to this thread–they have to do with Phil Johnson’s recent gambling series. But I understand why he wants me to answer those questions–he’s not jerking me around.
He had sent me a couple emails asking whether Phil had convinced me or not, and why. I never responded. That was partly because of the holidays. It was also partly because I wasn’t motivated to continue engaging about the issue. But it would have been good to at least say so to him. I apologize, TUaD.
I posted my answer at the Pyro blog, in the appropriate thread. Here’s the link.
Now please, clarify. Not for my sake–for the sake of clear communication. Please don’t simply say what you didn’t mean (as you did the last time, in #32). Please explain.
December 3rd, 2009 | 7:55 pm | #84
Now I’m having trouble posting. It showed the preview, but when I posted, nothing showed up. I’m going to try again, without the html code that I had included.
TUaD emailed me his questions, because he’s have trouble posting them again. They aren’t relevant to this thread–they have to do with Phil Johnson’s recent gambling series. But I understand why he wants me to answer those questions–he’s not jerking me around.
He had sent me a couple emails asking whether Phil had convinced me or not, and why. I never responded. That was partly because of the Thanksgiving. It was also partly because I wasn’t motivated to continue engaging about the issue. But it would have been good to at least say so to him. I apologize, TUaD.
I posted my answer at the Pyro blog, in thread for Phil’s final post, “Gambling: The Moral Antithesis of Charity”.
Now, please clarify. Not for my sake–for the sake of clear communication. Please don’t simply say what you didn’t mean (as you did the last time, in #32). Please explain.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:06 pm | #85
Now I’m having trouble posting, too. I keep trying.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:11 pm | #86
I answered TUaD in Phil Johnson’s final gambling post.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:40 pm | #87
This website can get a little sketchy from time to time.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:46 pm | #88
Well, whaddya know? I’m not the only one having problems.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:52 pm | #89
May have to do with misfiring spam protection–it did first happen when I was posting a link.
December 4th, 2009 | 9:05 am | #90
It’s a new morning; time to try posting again.
TUaD’s question wasn’t relevant to this thread–it has to do with Phil Johnson’s recent gambling series. I understand why he wants me to answer it–he’s not jerking me around.
He had sent me a couple emails asking whether Phil had convinced me or not, and why. I never responded. That was partly because of Thanksgiving–my reply kept getting delayed. It was also partly because I wasn’t motivated to continue engaging about the issue. But it would have been good to at least say so to him. I apologize, TUaD.
I posted my answer at the Pyro blog, in thread for Phil’s final post, “Gambling: The Moral Antithesis of Charity”.
Now, please clarify. Not for my sake–for the sake of clear communication. And please, explain what you did mean–don’t just say what you didn’t mean (as you did the last time, in #32).
December 4th, 2009 | 2:24 pm | #91
Sorry for the double-post–#82 and #87. It looks like the posts were being held in a queue for moderation.
December 8th, 2009 | 7:12 pm | #92
Oh, my…
More of the missing posts have shown up. And they got inserted into the flow of comments, so the #’s shifted. Now my double-post is actually a triple-post: #83, #84, and #90.
So, in the future, if you have trouble posting, don’t keep trying–they’re probably in a queue, and they’ll show up eventually.
*sigh*
December 11th, 2009 | 3:33 pm | #93
This will, I expect, be my last comment on this thread. A thread which looks to be dead.
Daryl Little in a comment above said that he read all of Andrew Sandlin’s article. Since he did that, I then referred him to Scot Klusendorf’s article and provided some excerpts from which to whet his appetite to read the whole Klusendorf article much like he did with the Sandlin article.
Scot Klusendorf was quoting Gregg Cunningham as one part of his argument in arguing for Christians to be co-belligerents in ecumenical coalitions.
Now given that this is Mark Olson’s post, and given that Mark Olson wrote: “The occasion of the Manhattan declaration has given an opportunity for a number of evangelicals, including Evangel’s very own very active Frank Turk, to profess that the primary reason he will not sign is that it was done in concert with Roman Catholics, and apparently even worse than that, with the Eastern Orthodox.”
I then substituted “Eastern Orthodox” for “Catholics” for Gregg Cunningham’s quote whom Scot Klusendorf quoted.
Anyways, I give you the last word of edification.
Pax.
December 11th, 2009 | 4:06 pm | #94
I hope it will not be your last post, because I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me that you requested from me.
You were going to explain who the quote about letting babies die was supposed to apply to, if not Frank. (Because apparently, you think it’s moronic to suppose that you meant him.)
Yet your answer seems to say that it did apply to Frank. (i.e., you substituted “Eastern Orthodox” into the quote because of what Mark Olson said about Frank Turk not signing the MD.)
How does this explain anything? Do you think people in this thread are letting babies die by not signing the MD, or not? If so, who? If not, how did the quote apply to “the case of this thread” & Eastern Orthodox?
I made a sincere effort to answer your question, and I struggled to continue assuming good will on your part after you ignored multiple emails–only returning after I made a public request. Please, extend the same courtesy. Please, engage.
December 17th, 2009 | 7:26 pm | #95
[...] with a post by Frank Turk on why he respectfully declined to sign. Mark Olson responded with To Sign or Not to Sign and James Grant wrote The Manhattan Declaration, the Gospel, and Repentance. Mark Olson responded [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact