John MacArthur weighs in on the Manhatten Declaration and Catholicism

[FriendofSpurgeon]

It depends on what one is referring to. My church partners with other local churches and jewish synangogues to provide volunteers for a local foodbank, and the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity. I can't imagine why Christian would have an issue with this, but some, no doubt, do.

Yet Jesus says "whatever you to do the least...". It's a misonomer to think that proclaiming the Gospel is limited to one's lips moving. Most often, it's more effectively done by having one's hands and feet moving. I'm of the opinion that a hungry man can't be spiritually fed until he is physicall fed first.

We do that too and can't understand why others would have a problem with that. In fact, our denomination is the longest supporter of Habitat in our metro area.

On a related matter, on Sunday nights, we provide sandwiches to the homeless downtown and then have a time of worship and prayer. Sometimes, it's not an issue of one versus the other, but actually doing both -- acts of mercy plus verbally sharing the Gospel.

But I don't think we always have to share our faith verbally. I'll never forget a most wonderful compliment some time ago from someone I was helping. They said, "some people talk about their faith, you actually live it." It reminded of the song "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love."

 

[Johnv]

The Lord rebuke you for your unbiblical stance on His Gospel and His prescribed manner for preaching it.

Since scripture doesn't define preaching the Gospel as only moving one's lips, the rebuke is yours.

Here is your professed confession:

The Confession does not define preaching the Gospel as only moving one's lips.

And your teaching about preaching the Gospel by your deeds is contrary to the plain text of Scripture

Scripture doesn't define preaching the Gospel as only moving one's lips.

Return to the Scripture friend.

Since proclaiming the Gospel isn't limited to using words alone, I will continue to use my words and actions to preach the Gospel. If you're incapable of using your actions to preach the Gospel to people, don't get bent out of shape when others are so able.

We do that too and can't understand why others would have a problem with that. In fact, our denomination is the longest supporter of Habitat in our metro area.

It's a great organization, isn't it? If I listed all the stories of lives I've seen changed though Habitat's work, I'd need a whole other thread, plus a box of tissue.

On a related matter, on Sunday nights, we provide sandwiches to the homeless downtown and then have a time of worship and prayer.

We've done that too. I met a wonderful homeless woman who was homeless, living in the shadow of the county courthouse with her son. We brought her food on regular occaision. She eventually found a place to live. One morning, at the start of church, she walked in the back, said she wanted to know Jesus like we did, and asked to be baptized. How awesome!!

She's since relocated to another state, managed to get employment, and has permanently gotten off the street. Anyone who says feeding her wasn't spreading the Gospel is an idiot.

They said, "some people talk about their faith, you actually live it." It reminded of the song "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love."

How true, and how scripturally dead on!!

 

[Revmitchell]

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I will sign, if only they didn't drag in the name of Christ and the tag of Christianity in it, and stated that those principles were simply what made up a decent society and values of decent man and women.

We need to remember that many Baptists and Roman Catholics who have been so outspoken in their faith and Christianity have actually fallen into error and sin right in front of people.

It can happen to any of those public figures in this Manhattan thing, and then whose Name is dragged in the mud ?

Many laugh at this reason, but I just feel my Lord's Name is altogether precious and our flesh is altogether weak.

 

[Johnv]

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

True, but hearing is not done exclusively through the ears, and the Word of Christ does not proceed exclusively from the lips.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

True, but....

That's where your rebuttle failed.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Since scripture doesn't define preaching the Gospel as only moving one's lips, the rebuke is yours.

The Confession does not define preaching the Gospel as only moving one's lips.

Scripture doesn't define preaching the Gospel as only moving one's lips.

Saying something 3 times doesn't make it true. :laugh:

I asked you to address the Scripture, and you haven't. I asked you to address your Confession and you haven't.

Since this is resulting from you and a "no it's not, yes it does, no it's not, yes it does" type interchange...I will leave you to your whatever thingie mojiggy.

 

[Johnv]

That's where your rebuttle failed.

Rubbish! Hearing the Word is not done exclusively through the ears, and the Word of Christ does not proceed exclusively from the lips. That's a fact.

Saying something 3 times doesn't make it true.

Rebutting it like you do doesn't make it false.

I asked you to address the Scripture, and you haven't. I asked you to address your Confession and you haven't.

You're asking for something that doesn't exist. There's nothing in either scripture or in the Confession that is contrary to my position.

 

[Gold Dragon]

No Christian should stand united with those who pervert the Gospel. The Church's mission isn't social reform, but to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus.

That is not what MacArthur said. He said he would have been willing to sign the Manhattan Declaration if the wording of the declaration did not suggest that Catholics and Orthodox were also Christian. If it was just "religious people" agreeing to sign this, he said he would have.

 

[Johnv]

(double post)

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That is not what MacArthur said. He said he would have been willing to sign the Manhattan Declaration if the wording of the declaration did not suggest that Catholics and Orthodox were also Christian. If it was just "religious people" agreeing to sign this, he said he would have.

I thought my statement basically said the same thing. Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma and Orthodox teaching pervert and twist the Gospel. Their teachnigs a Christian does not make...

If you listen the first part when he begins his explaination, after the part about Roman Catholics and Orthodox not being Christians, he said he is most interested in the preservation and purity of the Gospel. This declaration says, basically, hey...we have these "eclessial" differences, but let's put that aside on work on these other things like abortion, same-sex marriage, et."

What MacArthur and others are saying is...the Gospel is more important than that.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Alistair Begg was mentioned by MacArthur. I found this that gives some light as to why some won't support or sign such a letter:

In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel. I wonder whether it might not have been more advantageous for evangelicals to unite on this matter, rather than seeking cooperation with segments from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter Day Saints. The necessary co-belligerence, as far as I’m concerned, can never be rooted in a Gospel other than that which has been given to us.

Alistair Begg

That is at the end of a short statement on the matter found here http://www.truthforlife.org/resources/article/manhattan-declaration/

 

[JDale]

While I disagree with MacArthur's view on whether Catholics and Orthodox can be saved, I do think that he presents a legitimate and rational argument of why he does not sign the Manhattan Declaration. I also agree with him that we should be telling those Catholics and Orthodox and Baptists I should add who think they are saved because of their denominational affiliation about real salvation and point them to the gospel.

I just think that MacArthur is being derelict by leading Christians in America NOT to be responsible citizens. While I agree with his assessment that many Roman Catholics (or those who wear other labels within the sphere of "Institutional Christianity") may not be saved, to sign the same declaration regarding moral and social issues does NOT compromise the Gospel, nor does it make the Gospel "secondary." And yes, I AM a signer of the Manhattan Declaration.

 

[Marcia]

Never said it was. However, charity is a way to preach the Gospel. There's an implication in the NT that effective preaching the Gospel includes, among other things, charity.

If you don't think charity can be used to preach the Gospel, then you don't know what the Gospel is. The Good Samaritan did a better job preaching the Gospel than anyone who preceded him.

I have to disagree. Feeding someone is not preaching the gospel. It may be living out the gospel but no one will be saved if you just feed or clothe them. They have to hear the gospel and believe.

Scripture doesn't define preaching the Gospel as only moving one's lips.

You've said this several times but have offered no scripture to back it up. How does one preach the gospel without using words so that an unsaved person hears the gospel?

 

[Revmitchell]

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
End of story


Baptists do not think they are saved because of denominational affiliation. Such and idea is absurd.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
End of story


Baptists do not think they are saved because of denominational affiliation. Such and idea is absurd.

Yes this is true.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rev. Mitchell: Baptists do not think they are saved because of denominational affiliation

HP: I would consider that a questionable statement. If one considers themselves saved due to doing or saying certain things that are specific in nature to the teachings of a certain denominational group, yet in reality those things are not necessarily evidence of salvation, why could it not be said that they think they are saved due to denominational affiliation? What is denominational affiliation other than adherence to doctrine, practices, and beliefs held by a particular denomination? The same question could apply to many other groups as well.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me illustrate. In another thread Tom Butler makes this statement: “Salvation, baptism and church membership are inseparable.”

That apparently is a doctrinal position by some Baptist Churches. ( I am assuming water baptism is the baptism mentioned) Now if one believes his salvation is secure due to believing and doing these clearly ‘denominational’ things, (I say that due to many denominations and others that would take exception to this denominational stance) and one bases their salvation/or the lack thereof on them, why is that not basing ones salvation on denominational affiliation/beliefs and practices of a specific denomination, in this case a Baptist denomination?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Attending a Baptist Church I was first introduced to the principles of TULIP. Those principles were taught as the gospel truth. Those principles were taught as having their foundation in the Word of God, and to reject those truths was tantamount to rejecting God's Word.

I now fully believe those principles of TULIP are not found in the Word of God, and those basing their salvation upon those truths are either deceived or saved in spite of erroneous teachings. I fully believe many base their salvation upon those beliefs. Those beliefs are clearly doctrine in many Baptist Churches. Why cannot I conclude that if one bases their beliefs on faulty principles that their belief, in this case, is founded upon faulty denominational sand? Why could not I rightfully conclude that there are some in Baptist Churches (and many other denominations as well) that base their salvation upon the denomination, which in reality is nothing more than placing their hope in the beliefs and practices of a particular group of individuals banded together as a denomination?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I listened to John MacArthur’s interview. Having read him in years past, and listened to him on the radio, he is a confused man. For starters, he tries to paint himself as ‘orthodox’ concerning basic Calvinistic notions, then tries to establish a theology that he himself has been labeled as one promoting a ‘works based’ salvation. Simply put, he professes to hold to Calvinistic notions such as "sovereign grace and grace alone," making "saving faith,repentance, commitment, and obedience..all divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved" and then tries to tell us that it is our duty to make Jesus Lord. Why John, if it is all a sovereign work of God, if something is not accomplished in our lives, who is to blame but God??? Is he suggesting that we could thwart the Sovereign hand of Almighty God by not making him Lord???

If one cannot see the maelstrom of confusion John MacArthur is bound to, one is as confused as he obviously is.

If I am to take his interview at face value, he alone is God’s messenger as to what constitutes what he denotes as the ‘pure gospel’ and grace, and truth will die with him. If you do not agree with his presentation of the gospel, you are outside of the faith. You are “apostate” and as such “polluting the gospel,” Well John, I for one find you at odds with the truth of the gospel as presented by yourself as evidenced in your preface in “The Gospel According to Jesus.”

Just because he labels anyone and everyone that differs from his Calvinistic idea of what constitutes grace as one promoting a 'works based theology' is no proof at all that one promotes a works based theology nor are they necessarily at odds with truth as to what constitutes grace according to Scripture.

His broad brush sweeping approach to all that disagree with him, clearly defining them as his "enemy" and of necessity part of an "apostate" religion, smacks of an attitude not at all unfamiliar in history. The only thing in my mind that seemingly separates himself from the cruel injustices of the past, such as the manner in which Augustine treated his detractors and Calvin allowed his to be burnt at the stake, would be power.

God, may John MacArthur, nor any other for that matter, ever be granted such like political/ ecclesial power ever again.