tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199275616659608977.post1025848700154007308..comments2023-09-18T05:33:48.793-04:00Comments on By Every Word...: "The Manhattan Declaration"Douglas Phillipshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09040240128377241820noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199275616659608977.post-43195514708582418932009-11-30T19:55:40.137-05:002009-11-30T19:55:40.137-05:00One more point, in light of the contention, by som...One more point, in light of the contention, by some, that words like "Christian" and "believer" in the document can only be understood in one way: I am intrigued by Titus 1:12, where Paul is making a point about the Cretans. He quotes one of their own “prophets,” affirming the truth of what that “prophet” said. <br /><br />Surely Paul would not have regarded this “prophet” to be a prophet in the same sense that Isaiah, Jeremiah or Agabus (in the NT)were and yet he uses the word in a general way that he knows has a more distinctive theological meaning in a Christian context. And he is willing to use the truth found in this unusual source for his own (inspired) (declaratory) purposes.<br /><br />Again, this is only an analogy…it’s not an identical situation. But it might..MIGHT…be suggestive.Douglas Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09040240128377241820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199275616659608977.post-55409470460899130832009-11-30T19:53:02.415-05:002009-11-30T19:53:02.415-05:00For what it’s worth, I have been caught off guard ...For what it’s worth, I have been caught off guard by some of the negative response to the Declaration, primarily because I did not read it the same way as some like, for example, John MacArthur, did. Nor did I conceive of the Declaration as functioning in some of the ways its critics have described — although I can see how they would view things differently.<br /><br />I write as someone who, in recent posts on my own blog, has maintained that the continuing doctrinal differences between evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism are significant and fundamental. I would even say that official Catholic teaching on justification amounts to a ‘false gospel, which is no gospel at all.’<br /><br />Having said that, when I read a document like the Manhattan Declaration, I read the word ‘Christian’ (applied to Catholics and Orthodox) differently — in what I guess I would call a ’sociological’ and not a ’soteriological’ sense (I’m sure there are better, more precise ways of putting it than that). What I’m trying to say is that for the purposes and audiences and situations addressed in the Declaration, I think it is meaningful to use the term ‘Christian’ to apply to Roman Catholics and to the Orthodox. (Many would be surprised that this is even controversial.) So again, in a ’sociological’ sense (think of, how would such a person would self-identify on a religious survey) such persons are ‘Christian’ (they aren’t ‘Jewish,’ ‘Hindu,’ or ‘atheist.’)<br /><br />In fact the online edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘Christian’ as “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” So for purposes of standing together in the ‘public square’ and addressing together matters of such monumental importance for the common good (rooted in common grace), I come down on the side of saying it’s right to ’sign on’ with others in the historical stream of Christendom (who have been influenced by Scriptural teaching) to address matters of such crucial concern — even while saying that I would not unite with them in a theological concern like the statement, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” or in an evangelistic endeavor.<br /><br />-- Doug PhillipsDouglas Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09040240128377241820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199275616659608977.post-49584092188566267552009-11-26T12:31:37.897-05:002009-11-26T12:31:37.897-05:00I read this last week...Christians should be signi...I read this last week...Christians should be signing this!!!Larry Krausenoreply@blogger.com