tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4632992130762491652..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is the Manhattan Declaration ECT redux?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7817002857896856622009-12-30T08:44:12.190-05:002009-12-30T08:44:12.190-05:00TU&D: Just a reminder - still waiting for you ...TU&D: Just a reminder - still waiting for you to give a straight answer to this question (<a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/12/does-rome-proclaim-false-gospel.html" rel="nofollow">link</a>).Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90281699357701163382009-12-30T06:17:32.802-05:002009-12-30T06:17:32.802-05:00[cont.]
Dr. Niel Nielson here: "Some have p...[cont.]<br /><br /><b>Dr. Niel Nielson</b> <a href="http://president.blogs.covenant.edu/2009/12/11/why-i-almost-didnt-sign-the-manhattan-declaration/" rel="nofollow">here</a>: "Some have pointed to statements from Chuck Colson which reflect his views about the purpose and hoped-for outcome of the Declaration as evidence of how misguided Evangelicals have been in signing. Let me be clear: With as much respect and appreciation for Chuck as I have, <b>I did not – and do not – sign on to his commentaries about the Declaration, nor do I expect him, or anyone else, to sign on to mine.</b> Together we signed the Declaration because of what it states so clearly and well, and I, for one, did so with unswerving conviction about the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.<br /><br />I must add, even given what I have just said, that I dearly wish the gospel references had not been included in the Declaration. They introduce unnecessary ambiguity and provide unnecessary ground for the refusal of many Evangelicals to sign. With a more precisely disciplined focus on the main issues it addresses, the Declaration would have, I believe, garnered far wider support among Evangelicals and enabled this enterprise to have a vastly more far-reaching impact.<br /><br />So that’s why I almost didn’t sign The Manhattan Declaration – and why I did."<br /><br />--------<br /><br />So I recently read a very nice post by Rhoblogy titled "<b>The Special Pleading</b> of Sola Ecclesia-ists Claims to Unity" and I got to ponder Rhoblogy's argument that the RCC's are committing the fallacy of special pleading in their objection to <i>Sola Scriptura</i>. Well, it seems to me that Daniel J. Phillips may also be committing the fallacy of special pleading as well when comparing his reviews of Avatar and the Manhattan Declaration vis-a-vis authorial intent and "audiencial meaning."<br /><br />So if Dr. Nielson (and other conservative Protestant signers of the Manhattan Declaration) took the same evaluative approach towards the MD as Daniel J. Phillips himself did towards his review of the movie "Avatar" with regards to (failed) authorial intent and "audiencial meaning," then why is Daniel J. Phillips (and other conservative anti-MD Protestants) so bitter and angry towards the conservative Protestants who sign and support the Manhattan Declaration?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65863287986377300072009-12-30T06:15:32.928-05:002009-12-30T06:15:32.928-05:00Steve Hays: "To my knowledge, Timothy George...<b>Steve Hays</b>: <i>"To my knowledge, Timothy George and Chuck Colson are fairly aggressive ecumenists. So it’s quite possible–maybe probable–that they used this document as a pretext to further their ecumenical aims. <br /><br />3.In that respect, the document suffers from a conflicting agenda. And that, in my opinion, is one of its principal weaknesses.<br /><br />4.<b>At the same time, we need to draw a rudimentary, but often overlooked, distinction between the intent of the framers and the intent of the signatories.</b>"</i><br /><br />I commend you Steve on your fine post titled "Where is Meaning?" On that thread I posted the following:<br /><br />This is a very helpful post and I see applications of it in both the reviews of the movie "Avatar" and in the Manhattan Declaration.<br /><br />For example:<br /><b>Patrick Chan</b> <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/avatar-review.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>: "The movie is meant to be symbolic, allegorical."<br /><br /><b>Steve Hays</b> <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/osamas-little-helpers.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>: "That’s because the film is a set-up. Like any adept propagandist, Cameron is attempting–quite successfully, in Billy’s case–to sway the attitudes and emotions of the audience. ... It’s not a godly attribute to root for a thinly-veiled political allegory which slanders the very men who put their lives on the line to protect us from our mortal enemies. ... The only reason that Cameron has to specify an American force is because the film is a political allegory, ostensibly set in the future, but really about the “war on terror” and other alleged atrocities of US domestic and foreign policy."<br /><br /><b>Daniel J. Phillips</b> <a href="http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2009/12/avatar-movie-review.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>: "I had read that Avatar was about pantheism, Gaia-worship, and evil America. I disagree... sort of.<br />...<br />Is the film anti-military? Well, the soldiers there are ex-military; they are hirelings to the evil corporation. They are not the American Army, nor Navy, nor Air Force, nor Marines. So on the face of it, no. ...<br /><br />Therefore, I don't receive Avatar as a sermon about pantheism, Gaia-worship, Hinduism, America, the war on terror, nor eco-fascism.<br /><br />Now, I think that may be in the authorial intent. But if so, it failed to reach the screen.<br />...<br /><br />Briefly, then: Cameron may well have intended a heavy-handed parable preaching the joys of pantheistic Gaia-worship, and the evils of America, George Bush, the war on terror, the military, and capitalism.<br /><br />If so, Cameron failed miserably, pathetically, and laughably, because there is no actual connection."<br /><br />So by the above we see that there is a spectrum of opinion about the interplay between political allegory, authorial intent, and what Steve calls "audiencial meaning" from the movie "Avatar".<br /><br />Now let's do the same thing with the Manhattan Declaration as we just did with the "Avatar" review:<br /><br /><b>Daniel J. Phillips</b> <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/nineteen-questions-for-signers-of.html#7425976959295048987" rel="nofollow">here</a>: "BTW, MD mastermind Chuck Colson wrote this:<br />"This document [The Manhattan Declaration] is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith."<br /><br />Which very nicely (if tragically) underscores the point of my post.<br /><br />Yeah, Stan; and authorial intent is supposed to matter to us, no?"<br /><br />[cont.]Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80632473814015522772009-12-04T17:57:52.486-05:002009-12-04T17:57:52.486-05:00Steve Hays: "It’s not enough to simply attac...<b>Steve Hays</b>: <i>"It’s not enough to simply attack the document. One should also present an alternative. And that needs to be done by contributors who are at least as prominent as the contributors to the Manhattan Declaration."</i><br /><br />I fully agree. I have not yet seen an alternative and I would like to.<br /><br />BTW, here's a very thoughtful <a href="http://feedingonchrist.com/more-on-the-manhattan-declaration/" rel="nofollow">post</a> by Nicholas Batzig titled "More on the Manhattan Declaration."<br /><br />In the comment thread he wrote "The best thing I can say is that I believe that signing this document does more harm than good to the cause of the Gospel" which I think is contra to what Jason Engwer wrote in a previous T-blog comment (if my memory serves me correctly).<br /><br />And I also made note of his statement:<br /><br /><b>"For the record, I do not think that the conservative protestants who signed the document have compromised the Gospel."</b>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19480508742592131692009-12-01T08:28:56.655-05:002009-12-01T08:28:56.655-05:00TUAD,
1. I agree with most of Sandlin's excer...TUAD,<br /><br />1. I agree with most of Sandlin's excerpt.<br /><br />2. I don't agree with him that the Gospel is not the most important message of the Bible. And I wouldn't rank the sovereignty of God above the Gospel. Indeed, that's an odd disjunction. A sovereignless Gospel is no better than a Gospelless sovereignty. The two are interrelated.<br /><br />3. Ironically, the way in which Sandlin tries to defend the MD corroborates the objections of its critics.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56458387152440005882009-12-01T06:47:34.614-05:002009-12-01T06:47:34.614-05:00I agree with Andrew Sandlin that many Evangelicals...I agree with Andrew Sandlin that many Evangelicals haven't acknowledged the full implications of Jesus' lordship over the state, and I agree that there's some significant overlap among Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals on matters pertaining to what Sandlin calls the accomplishment of the gospel. But even when a Catholic and Evangelical agree that Jesus died for our sins, for example, they aren't necessarily defining that concept the same way. And, as Sandlin acknowledges, the disagreement over the application of the gospel remains. Scripture defines that issue of application as a foundational issue, as we see in Paul's disputes with the Judaizers. See my comments in posts # 94 and # 99 in the Challies thread <a href="http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/the-manhattan-declaration.php" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The Manhattan Declaration, when read in the most natural way it could be read, affirms the orthodoxy of groups that are wrong on that foundational issue.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45356993291975848652009-11-30T22:54:04.588-05:002009-11-30T22:54:04.588-05:00Steve Hays: "I agree with Sandlin on social ...<b>Steve Hays</b>: <i>"I agree with Sandlin on social ethics."</i><br /><br />Sandlin makes the following comments about ethics in his article. Is it safe to assume that you agree with him here also?<br /><br />"The MD presupposes an <b>ethical</b> 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, <i>which is the sovereignty of God over all things</i> (2 Chron. 20:6; Ps. 103:19; Pr. 21:1; Zech. 9:10; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 19:6).<br /><br />The MD takes a step toward recovering an understanding of the full-fledged Lordship of Jesus — that Christians must speak prophetically to the <b>ethical</b> issues of the time, and expect the state to stay within its divinely prescribed limits. <b>Just as Jesus’ Lordship is wider than the church, so Christians’ message must be wider than the Gospel.</b>"Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57227328899488882132009-11-30T19:48:27.018-05:002009-11-30T19:48:27.018-05:00I agree with Sandlin on social ethics.
However, C...I agree with Sandlin on social ethics.<br /><br />However, Catholicism teaches elements of the gospel, while adding to the gospel, as well as subtracting from the gospel. So what you're left with is a gospel-plus/gospel-minus pastiche. Priestcraft, hocus pocus, and works-righteousness.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69727529395699365242009-11-30T19:39:03.188-05:002009-11-30T19:39:03.188-05:00Hi Steve,
I don't think the Manhattan Declara...Hi Steve,<br /><br />I don't think the Manhattan Declaration is ECT redux. Not at all. <br /><br />Also, here are some <br /> <a href="http://web.mac.com/pandrewsandlin/iWeb/Site%2013/Blog/A206D64F-2C07-42D0-99D5-A9D361A0DA6C.html" rel="nofollow">arguments</a> by Andrew Sandlin in a post titled "Lordship Salvation is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur." <br /><br />What do you think of them?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com