THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE

Camp On This ^ | TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 | Steve Camp

[streetpreacher]

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE
...the ineffectual intersection of politics and faith

 

 

“The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good.”

-Francis Beckwith

 

 

The ultimate goal of the church biblically

is not the public good,

but the glory of God in the proclamation

and advancement of His gospel of sola fide.

God, not the audience, is sovereign.

The “public good” is political speak for tolerance.

The gospel, however, does divide;

it is a stumbling block, offensive and foolishness

for those who are perishing.

 

 

Here we go again!

In the face of President Obama's economic wasteland and political indecision vacuum concerning Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq; coupled with an abortion provision being slipped into the latest health care bill championed by Harr Reid yand company - the religious right has found reason again to try itself in the political arena through The Manhattan Declaration.

It is nothing more than ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and Justice Sunday revisited. Same framers and advocates of the benign philosophy of political remedy for moral malady. The religious right of the past 24 years has all but been silenced. And despite the grass-root efforts by many well respected evangelical leaders and politicians, our country remains unchanged on key social and family issues. So once again, those who are impassioned about important social issues from a "faith perspective" such as abortion, same sex marriage, and religious liberty and freedom, are all but silent about the real "faith solution" for these same issues. The solution being regeneration through the Lord Jesus Christ and not political legislation. The solution for the Christian must be Gospel-Centered; Christ-Centered; and Cross-Centered. Anything less is ineffectual in bringing real resolve spiritually to these concerns.

The lack of sea change in American society to a conservative political ethic for many of us has been frustrating. But attempting to fight spiritual battles with carnal weaponry is just as disappointing. Christians who in the past have sought real change on key cultural issues did so, in part, absent of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. IOW, the gospel became the afterthought, not the primary thought. That failed strategery to keep the proclamation of the gospel center in a righteous quest I have defined as Evangelical Co-Belligerence (ECB).

I offer the following definition:

Creating alliances with individuals or groups who do not share belief in or with orthodox biblical Christianity, in order to fight an agreed upon social, moral, cultural cause that seeks to undermine the traditional family and family values. This includes, but not limited to: gay marriage; abortion; euthanasia; etc. and those who aid, influence, or control such societal moral decline such as the Supreme Court, Congress, state and local officials, and a run-a-way Federal Judiciary. This is accomplished by using boycotts, petitions, picketing, legislation... any political remedies available to resolve the moral maladies in our nation.

This is further accomplished by organizing evangelicals/local churches as PAC's, lobbyist groups, or as some refer to as "Christocrats", as Christian voting blocks to threaten with militant tones sitting politicians with the prospect of not being reelected if they fail to adopt the ECB moral/family agenda. This tactic is being championed by many evangelical leaders, seminary presidents and pastors absent of the authority of Scripture, absent of the preaching of God's Word, and absent of the heralding of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. -Steve Camp, July 14, 2005

Christianity in culture does have impact and does produce change. But it only does so as long as Christianity doesn't become a political organization and remains at its very core deeply gospel-centered. Is it wrong for believers to enter politics? Of course not. Is it wrong for Christians in politics to use their office, driven by a biblical worldview, for the good of society and their fellow man as say Wilberforce did on the issue of slavery? Absolutely not. But the church itself is not driven by the brilliance of U.S. Constitutional ethics, but by the Scriptures of the living God.

So again, what is the solution to the plight our nation finds itself in? The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.And that brief answer is not about offering cultural reform back to an era of family values and more virtuous days. Jesus Christ did not come to transform America, but to transform Americans. The gospel is not the new nationalism for the conservative, but the hope for any sinner (like me and you) who by God's sovereign electing love trusts that eternal life and salvation is attained only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord alone.
 

IOW beloved, in this hour in our nations history may I propose a simple mandate: it is time for the church to be the church.

Gospel-driven Worship:

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

Gospel-driven Welfare:

44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Gospel-driven Witness:

47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

[Springfield Reformer]

Caricature Calvinists, of course, cannot know. Real, living breathing Calvinists know the same way any other genuine believer knows. We love Him because He first loved us. Believers ... believe. That’s how we know. We take Him at His word. He says believe and you will be saved. So we believe. Not rocket science. Nothing in Calvinism says you have to do some Gnostic double secret handshake to find out if you were chosen, you know, like finding out what your grade is before it gets posted. He says to the Calvinist as much as to anyone else, come to Him, and you will not be turned away.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“How do you define “the common good”? If you define it as “all religions are equal and should be homogenized into one lukewarm religion that offends no one”, then no, salvation is clearly not for “the common good”.”

And you think that is what I was doing? Please show me with evidence from my post as to how you came to such an incredibly bizarre conclusion.

“What the government sees as “the common good” and what Christ sees as “the common good” are often very different things. And that is clearly what Camp is referring to.”

What Camp should be referring to is how the state should be restored in Christ.

“The fact is that Jesus says “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.””

Yes, He did say that. And that means we are to embrace Christ and His teachings no matter what the cost. And part of that must be to FIGHT evil not just close our eyes and hide in our churches being sanctimonious about how sure we are that we’re saved while the “great unwashed” outside will burn in hell because of abortion, gay marriage and so on. Is abortion morally right? No. FIGHT IT. Is gay marriage moral? No. FIGHT IT.

“This does not sound like a man who earthly governments will think of as “advancing the public good”.”

Then fight the government and change it. Restore all things in Christ. Period.

[vladimir998]

You posted:

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

Just a reminder: the angels never said that. It is very popular at Christmas time for people to break out that verse, but it’s an incorrect translation of Luke 2:14 from the King James Bible. The verse actually says, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.”

God wished peace to men of good will. He wasn’t wishing peace to men who were evil.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“the same way any other genuine believer knows.”

I’m glad to see you allow that. Many Calvinists around here call noncalvinists “heretics”.

“We love Him because He first loved us. Believers ... believe. That’s how we know. “

Ok, but as a Calvinist, you must know that those words do not apply to everyone who reads them. The unelect, reading those words, can take no comfort from them.

Why can you?

“He says believe and you will be saved. So we believe.”

So ultimately your “assurance” is based on your own actions.

[hellbender]

Does evangelical Christianity have nothing whatsoever in common with Catholicism? Can't we make common cause against our common enemies--people who are radically, totally opposed to every aspect of Christianity, people who will make it impossible to even preach the gospel? The Manhattan Declaration is not about the means of salvation. (Incidentally, am not a Catholic, and agree that the RCC has erroneous doctrines.)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

PM,
Guess you are right. The KJV leaves out the meaning of the Greek text. Others may as well.

tn This is a generic use referring to both males and females.

sn The idea of people with whom he is pleased alludes to those who are marked out by God as objects of his gracious favor. It is not a reference to every single person, so the phrase should not be translated “good will toward people.”

Happy New Year,
ampu

[SeaHawkFan]

John MacArthur does not believe in acting on ones faith if it means confronting corrupt government. He is under the mistaken understanding that God put those people in their positions for His purpose.

John MacArthur is, of course, wrong!!!

[Springfield Reformer]

My assurance is the inevitable response of a believing heart. Calvinism allows that a person responds to God. The deeper question is why did that person respond at all? If we are dead in our sins, unalterably opposed to God in the natural man, at what point and by what means do we then become seekers after Him? The Calvinist answers that question by crediting God with giving the undeserved gift of new spiritual life, where before there was none. The fact that such belief can be experienced and the benefit of assurance felt through it does not detract one iota from crediting God alone for that newly alive condition. Indeed, many a true believer initially has the idea, like the first disciples, that they chose to follow Jesus, only to learn many years later, from Scripture, that it was He who had chosen us.

As for those who are not chosen obtaining no comfort from the recognition of salvation through belief, you must realize that the spiritually dead have no inclination to seek such comfort, at least not in the same manner as the penitent soul who sits trembling in the back row hoping for mercy. The front row chest-beater really wants nothing from God anyway. He’s out to impress himself and his friends. No, anyone who truly seeks Him and the comfort of His mercy will most assuredly find Him.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

Obama Doesn’t Want His Daughters Punished with a Baby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg

CNN on Obama’s Infant Born Alive Act Rejection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY

Jill Stanek on Obama and Born Alive Infant Protection Act (MUST SEE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html

Explosive Audio Found Obama arguing against BAIPA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc

Babies left to die!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[PetroniusMaximus]

“My assurance is the inevitable response of a believing heart.”

Practically speaking, you look inward... and what you see there (i.e. belief, love, humility etc.) gives you assurance.

But the fact remains, you might be wrong. You might be self deceived.(Remember all that stuff about the heart being wicked...) Because, as a Calvinist, you salvation depend on events you have not been privy to and have had no part in. Therefore, ultimately you can not know with certainty that you are one of the elect. The only certainty you can obtain is entirely subjective in nature.

_________

“If we are dead in our sins, unalterably opposed to God in the natural man, at what point and by what means do we then become seekers after Him?”

So you would say that a person can do nothing pleasing to God before they are born of the Spirit?

_________

“As for those who are not chosen obtaining no comfort from the recognition of salvation through belief, you must realize that the spiritually dead have no inclination to seek such comfort”

You’ve got to be kidding friend! Do you think the “unelect” don’t fear their own death as seek solace from it’s inevitability!?!?

[Springfield Reformer]

Practically speaking, I look to Him. It is His assuring presence which grants me my comfort. If you must assign credit based on which direction my inner eye is looking, then credit Jesus once again. Is it wrong for Him to give me comfort? Is it wrong for me to thank Him for it? If my looking inward were the first and only act, I would find nothing there to comfort me. You would paint me into a corner where my relationship with God must have a Kantian origin within myself. As tempting as that is philosophically, I must rely on Scripture, not Kant, which clearly teaches that our new birth is of heavenly, not earthly, origin, regardless of our perceptions.

As for uncertainty due to the evil of our own hearts, surely you prove too much. If the heart is so evil it cannot be made to know it has a relationship with God, then the power of God to redeem is so limited as to be lost altogether. And worse still, if it is not God who brings that ship into port, who shall? If it relies on your deeds, how do you know you have done enough, believed hard enough, trusted the right authorities, etc? Your estate is worse than mine, for not only is your contribution uncertain, but so is God’s.

Aristotle once said that circular logic is OK if the circles are small enough, by which he meant of course that there are some truths which do not lend themselves to infinitely deep inspection, yet which are essential to rational thought. If God has told me to believe, and I believe, and if he may be relied upon to keep his word, that really is sufficient. Trying to find some ex nihilo point of origin for that dynamic within my own soul is an exercise, not only in hubris, but in futility, as it is well beyond my capacity as a philosopher. Trying to find that point of origin in Him, on the other hand, is a practice of long standing and fully harmonious with Apostolic teaching.

As for whether one can please God without faith, you tell me what the Scripture says on that, and that will be my answer.

As for comfort, no, the “unelect,” as you call them, are spiritually dead already, as we all were at one point, and so do not seek the comfort of which I speak. Extrapolating from my experience to theirs, I did fear death before God rescued me, but I had no special desire for the embrace of God. I merely wanted to avoid the pain of ceasing to exist, or worse, of eternal punishment. No more than a rational response to facts as I understood them.

But the Scripture plainly says our love for God is a result, not a cause, of His work in us. And it is that love that seeks out the comfort of knowing we are in a right relationship with him. No unsaved person knows what that is, because you can’t really want what you don’t believe in. Belief is the prerequisite to desire, and God’s work of enlivening grace is the prerequisite to belief.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is very popular at Christmas time for people to break out that verse, but it’s an incorrect translation of Luke 2:14 from the King James Bible. The verse actually says, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.”"

Actually, the Byzantine Text agrees with PM.

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη· ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.

What you are quoting is a variant from the Alexandrian text type:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Wow... that is a mighty broad brush you are painting with.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Wow... that is a mighty broad brush you are painting with.”

Not unless you think a lot of Protestants are stupid. I wrote: “Sometimes I think some Protestants are just stupid.”

[vladimir998]

The Textus Receptus (Byzantine Text) was what was used by the KJV translators.

I have no reason to believe that the Textus Receptus is more correct than other compilations of editions. I know some scholars of Greek say this boils down to a copyist’s error with a genitive.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Practically speaking, I look to Him. It is His assuring presence which grants me my comfort”

Isn’t that subjective also? Could you be wrong about your feelings in this matter?

______________

‘You would paint me into a corner where my relationship with God must have a Kantian origin within myself. As tempting as that is philosophically, I must rely on Scripture,”

I didn’t paint you there, my friend. I believe your theology deposited you there.

Here’s the crux, if you believe in predestination then you can’t “trust” the scriptures because you can’t know if they apply to you or not - because you can’t KNOW FOR SURE whether you are one of the elect or if you are self-deceived.

______________

“And worse still, if it is not God who brings that ship into port, who shall? “

God provides the port and “whosoever will” may come.

______________

“If God has told me to believe, and I believe, and if he may be relied upon to keep his word, that really is sufficient. Trying to find some ex nihilo point of origin for that dynamic within my own soul is an exercise, not only in hubris, but in futility, as it is well beyond my capacity as a philosopher.”

Nice move, but you can’t escape the logical trap that Calvinism makes for it’s adherents. If salvation has nothing to do with you then you can’t know with certainty that you are saved. It’s one of the cracks in Calvinism’s foundation.

________________

“As for whether one can please God without faith, you tell me what the Scripture says on that, and that will be my answer.”

Well, you rephrased my question slightly. Let me ask it again, according to the Scriptures, can you do anything to please God or exhibit faith before being born of the Spirit?

_______________

“As for comfort, no, the “unelect,” as you call them, are spiritually dead already, as we all were at one point, and so do not seek the comfort of which I speak.”

The comfort I speak of is the comfort of knowing their is life after death - something which virtually all men in all ages have sought.

[Kolokotronis]

“I have no reason to believe that the Textus Receptus is more correct than other compilations of editions.”

Nor do I as a general proposition.

“I know some scholars of Greek say this boils down to a copyist’s error with a genitive.”

Yup, an error one way or the other. As the Byzantine Text writes it, it is in accord with “A Morning Prayer” found in sec. V of Book VII of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles which is likely from the very early 4th century which makes it earlier than the Vulgate, to the extent, no doubt very limited, that that makes any difference. As a matter of curiosity, I checked the Vetus Latina. It is the same for this verse as the Vulgate. +Methodios the Martyr (June 20), the great antagonist of Origen, uses the Byzantine text in his Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna which was written before 311 when he was martyred. It also shows up in Topic XII in Twelve Topics on the Faith attributed, probably wrongly, to +Gregory Thaumaturgus, so that’s 3rd century and Alexandria.

The only non-scriptural writing I know of where the Alexandrian text type wording shows up is in the Gospel of Pseudo Matthew, which is an interesting read dfor all sorts of reasons. I think +Jerome may have been familiar with this manuscript or whatever it was based on. Are you aware of other instances where the Alexandrian text type wording shows up?

[Poe White Trash]

Catholics and Evangelicals will have plenty of time to feud in their shared prison cells.

"Prison cells"? Optimist!

It will be more like "Catholics and Evangelicals will have no time to feud as their bodies molder in a mass grave."

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Are you aware of other instances where the Alexandrian text type wording shows up?”

Not that I can think of off the top of my head, no.

[Springfield Reformer]

The problem, and you have not yet admitted it, is that your universal test, “Isn’t that subjective also,” applies to virtually everything. It is the trap Kant could not escape, and it helped bring forth the ruination of western philosophy. Your certainty, whatever it issues from, is subject to the same accusation you constantly lay at my feet. I repeat, you did not address my challenge to you concerning this. Why are you any more certain than the Calvinist? Do you not have a propensity to sin as much as anyone else? Do you know when you’ve believed enough? By what objective measure?

Yet you claim I, as a Calvinist, must base my assurance on some empirical, faithlessly obtained knowledge that God has chosen me. Why? Scripture does not teach that and neither does Calvin. God has not asked me to obtain or demonstrate that knowledge, only that I rely on Him and Him alone for my salvation. I cannot know, and do not need to know, in some abstract, impersonal way whether anyone at all is chosen. In fact, without faith, I cannot even believe in Scriptural doctrines such as divine election, not as God would have me believe, because the focus is all wrong, with man and not God at the center.

But this I can know, that I do believe in Him, because my heart looks to Him and not to myself for my salvation. Why would you add to or impose on Calvinism the condition of a special knowledge, even though neither Scripture nor Calvinism requires it? And please do not resort to Kant’s all-pervasive subjectivism. It solves nothing. We are discussing Biblical doctrine, not humanistic philosophy. At least that is my hope.

To answer your other question more directly, without faith it is impossible to please God. As faith is a gift of God, the unbeliever does not have it. That is why they don’t believe. Do you remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees? Read it carefully. He did not say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe.” He did say, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.” John 10:26.

Contrariwise, if you would demonstrate that Pelagius was right, that faith can mix concurrently with unbelief to produce a God-pleasing God rejecter, I am willing to have you try and prove it. I would only ask that in doing so you strictly adhere to Scriptural proofs as opposed to philosophical excursions. I do not have version allergies. Anything reasonable close to the Byzantine will do just fine.