The Debate over the Manhattan Declaration

Pyromaniacs: Nineteen questions for signers of "The Manhattan Declaration" My Answers (I signed it; approx. #28,000).
1. Is the Bible your sole, sufficient, ultimate source and authority for faith and practice? Yes.
2. Do you believe that the Biblical Gospel is the good news that lost, sinful man can be reconciled to God by grace alone, through faith alone, in and because of Christ's person and work alone, to the glory of God alone, as seen with final authority in Scripture alone? Yes. The Biblical Gospel is also the good news that all nations will repudiate homosexuality, abortion, and statist tyranny, and will then experience the blessings of God in terms of God's Covenant (Galatians 3:8; Deuteronomy 28).
3. Do you see — note well my wording — Scriptural warrant for applying the word "Christian" to anyone other than one who is yoked as a student to the words of Christ and His apostles (Acts 11:26), who affirms the Gospel as described in #2 above (Acts 26:28), and who has been spiritually regenerated by grace alone through faith alone (1 Peter 4:16; cf. 1:3-5)?
Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Notice that it is unbelievers who are using the term "Christian." Who knows why people in Antioch called other people "Christian." The people to whom the Manhattan Declaration (MD) is addressed probably have as accurate an understanding of what a "Christian" is -- and of Christian doctrine -- as those who spoke of  "Christians" in Antioch.
 
Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
Paul wasn't talking about imputed righteousness. He was talking about the resurrection. He was talking about the Gentiles repenting and doing good works:
Acts 26:19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.
There is nothing in Paul's sermon to King Agrippa that any non-reformed signer of the MD would disagree with. And it was sufficient for Agrippa to say he was thinking about becoming a "Christian." Paul didn't object, saying, "Oh, no, Agrippa, you're not a Christian unless you're thinking about the issues in the Pyromaniacs blog." "Oh no, Agrippa; it sounds like you've been reading N.T. Wright."
29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”
 
1 Peter 4:16
Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.
Is it possible that Peter was writing his epistle to people who believed exactly like some of the non-Reformed signers of the MD? Is it possible that people called "Christians" might need to have their doctrine further reformed, semper reformanda?
4. Do you see — again, note well my wording — Scriptural warrant for applying the word "Christian" to anyone who would distort and oppose that Gospel, either personally or by aligning himself directly as a supporter (let alone promoter) of such institutional distortion and opposition? The only "Scriptural" warrant for a Christian applying the term "Christian" is in 1 Peter 4:16. The other two verses are more sociological. The MD uses the word "Christian" or "believer" in a sociologically appropriate way: to distinguish those who strive to follow Christ, and those who are at war with Biblical Law, and are running away from Christ.

Is it possible that Peter was writing his epistle to anyone, or would refer to someone as a "Christian," who had a defective understanding of the "Pyromaniac" doctrine of the Gospel? Until they're excommunicated for intransigent heresy, yes.

I am aware of no evidence that anyone who signed the MD is an intentional, self-conscious, and unrepentant distorter of Scriptural teaching.
5. Do you believe that "distortion" of that Gospel is a damning heresy, such as falls under the thundering apostolic condemnation of Galatians 1:6-9? I believe Judaizers described in Galatians are damnable heretics. I believe their victims in Galatia, to whom Paul wrote, were not yet damnable heretics. The signers of the MD are more like Galatians than Judaizers.
6. Do you believe that Roman Catholicism's official formulation of the gospel is such a damning heresy? I believe the "official" Roman Catholic formulation of the gospel is self-contradictory. It would therefore be logical error to conclude that any Roman Catholic individual ipso facto has a damnable understanding of the Gospel. That individual may be logically consistent with the Scriptural teachings of Rome, and inconsistent with the unScriptural teachings of Rome. An individual might be in need of teaching and nouthetic counseling because of his defective understanding of the Gospel. Such an individual could still be called a "Christian" or a "believer."
7. Can a church be a Christian church if it has the Gospel wrong? Of course. And the apostles wrote letters in the New Testament to such churches.
8. What do you believe the Reformation was about? Justification, fascism, and usury. See www.TheonomicAnabaptists.com
9. Do you believe the Reformation was vital and necessary, or a mistake? Good question. See www.TheonomicAnabaptists.com. See also www.JustificationbyAllegiance.com 
10. Do you agree with the document you signed, that the Popes of the 16th and 17th centuries were Christians (remembering ##1-6, above)? I'm not sure a person can be a pope and be a Christian, but that's a political, rather than a doctrinal position. I'm not sure a person can be President of the United States and be a Christian. I guess I would say, "As much as the 'Christians' in Antioch and Galatia."
11. As to the central themes of the Reformation, has anything fundamental changed today, so that the Reformation is no longer relevant? Could Agrippa become a Christian without first believing in God, that God raised Jesus from the dead, and that he (Agrippa) needed to repent and do good works? Can a 21st century American become a Christian while still being a homosexual or an abortionist? Can a 21st century American become a Christian if Paul's sermons are banned by the government as hate speech? Would Paul sign the Manhattan Declaration?
12. Do you believe that persuading people to assent to a vaguely-Biblical opinion about homosexuality, marriage, or abortion is more critical than clearly presenting the Gospel, as described in #2 above? No. But then, who does? What is more critical, eating to avoid starvation, or presenting the Gospel? Does that mean Paul would never cooperate with Arminians or Catholics to grow, harvest, cook, and eat food?
13. Do you admit that "The Manhattan Declaration" identifies as Christians men and women who are members of — indeed, leaders within — sects which (A) formally and officially oppose the Gospel as described in #2, above; and which (B) make a great deal of the fact that all adherents of those institutions must walk in lockstep conformity with their formal and official positions? Name one of the signers (or somebody identified by the MD) who you would publicly say is not a Christian. Unsaved. Going to hell. Give me the name of that individual and the phrase from the MD that commits me to say that that person is one of the elect.
14. If your son or daughter were to tell you that he or she wants to join the Orthodox or Roman Catholic church, "Because anyway, you said they were Christians just like you are, except for 'ecclesial difference'" — how would you respond? I can say to the world at large that someone is a "Christian" as opposed to, or rather than, a homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-religious freedom person, without at the same time being able to say to a close friend or family member that that same person probably isn't regenerate due to their belief in autonomous works-justification.
15. Can  your fellow-signatories rely on the "Gospel" that their sects officially proclaim — which "Gospel" contradicts the Gospel as defined in #2 above — and still go to Heaven? Maybe not, but I can still speak of them as Agrippa-style Christians, as opposed to being atheists, homosexuals, pro-death, anti-freedom advocates. But then, I'm not yet convinced that every signer of the MD accepts with lock-step uniformity the "official" beliefs of whatever ecclesiastical body they are associated with.
16. Which is more important and more critical in our day: to define marriage, life, and civil liberty; or to define the Gospel? To define marriage, life, and civil liberty.

An atheist pro-death homosexual can say, "I believe that John MacArthur won the debate with Charles Colson over the Biblical doctrine of justification," and not be saved. A person can intellectually assent to the proposition that Luther was right about the Biblical Gospel and Trent was wrong, and still not be saved. So "defining" the Gospel is not as important as helping homosexuals get out of slavery, and preventing governments from criminalizing the Gospel.

Why does this have to be either/or?
17. How can it be helpful to join hands in defining the former, with those who cannot define the latter? It can be more than helpful, it can be necessary.
18. Can any civic gains that this document achieves for the issues of abortion or marriage offset the spiritual damage it causes in blurring the line between a true, Biblical, saving Gospel, and a false, un-Biblical, damning distortion? A blurred line is more helpful than the inability to see the line at all, or to be on the atheist, homosexual side of the line. The MD does not set out to "define the gospel." It's defining marriage, murder, and tyranny.
19. If you have answered all of the preceding questions, can you explain why you would not ask that your name be removed from "The Manhattan Declaration," which over and over again identifies both you and adherents of Gospel-distorting sects as alike Christians, which says that you and they alike "are compelled by our Christian faith," and which repeatedly suggest that you and they alike proclaim "the Gospel"? The more I think about it, the more I'm happy to be on Charles Colson's side on the issue of marriage, life, and liberty, than on the side of Pyromaniacs who put Aristotelian distinctions ahead of sexual slavery, murder, and tyranny.

The question presented by the Manhattan Declaration is not "Which doctrine of Justification do you accept, Rome's or Pyromaniacs?" Rather, it is, "Which direction do you want America to go: back in the direction of Luther and Calvin, or ahead in the direction of Homosexuality, Death, and Tyranny?" If a Catholic says, "I'd rather go in the direction of Luther and Calvin than H, D, and T," I'm not only going to walk with him, I'm going to hold the door open for him.