Friday, December 25, 2009

A Reformed Baptist Response to the Manhattan Declaration

It's a bit long, but an enjoyable 45 minutes of Reformed Baptist response to the Manhattan Declaration:


- TurretinFan

33 comments:

beowulf2k8 said...

And the most important part of the M. Declaration is always ignored by Calvinist types. This is really the point of the whole, where at the very end, they say:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s."

In other words, we aren't giving in to your unjust laws and we will not marry gays etc. Calvinists who criticize this little 'Declaration' will be the first to cave in to such laws (Piper will go first probably), justifying their cowardice by OSAS.

Coram Deo said...

Merry Christmas to you too, beowulf2k8.

May God shed the love of Christ abroad in your heart today, and everyday.

In Christ,
CD

beowulf2k8 said...

Merry Christmas.

Sorry for posting so much here, but it bothers me how Calvinists just want to viciously attack those who are merely seeking to bring a little morality to the government. Nothing in their little 'declaration' says "We declare you don't need Jesus to be saved" so get off their backs already! You need God to shed the love of Christ abroad in your hearts today, and everyday, so you can stop attacking those who are trying to do his will while you just sit back pretending to be Christians while sinning profusely and singing OSAS.

natamllc said...

beo,

it is event and not so self event , it seems, that there is a disconnect between your spirit and the Spirit of Grace and Truth.

For what it is worth, I will proclaim the Gospel to you.

Jesus Christ came into His Creation.

Jesus Christ died on a cross for the sins of His people while among the creatures in this present heavens and earth, both of which He created.

He was buried in another man's grave.

He rose again the third day. There are some things He accomplished from that point of departure to His soon return to this present heavens and earth that His Chosen "eyewitnesses" could pick up the Mandate from Heaven and carry out the "Eternal Purpose" for which He was sent to die on a cross for sins and was buried and then rose again on the third day.

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
1Co 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

I would only note from those verses above, "one" word in verse one:

"BROTHERS".

I would only note one warning from those verses above at verse two: "....unless you believed in vain...".

I would assert about any declaration ever made in this world, past or present or any declaration after that has legs and gives a voice in this world, thus: If it does not come from Heaven itself through Christ by One Spirit, the Holy Spirit, according to the predetermined Will and Foreknowledge of God, it is not worth any respect among the "Brothers", other than to point out the errors in the declaration, and point out the errors so that to the "Brothers", they will hear, lest the "Brothers" find that they have believed in vain the Gospel.

I offer this advice per these Words from Paul's declaration to King Agrippa:::>

Act 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me.
Act 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Act 26:15 And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Act 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,
Act 26:17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,

The "vision" from Heaven will stand up against any and all declarations made in good faith by man!

John said...

The argument seems to come down to, because a Catholic signed the document, the meaning of Gospel in the document is compromised, and now no good.

Maybe if I sign the 1689 baptist confession, he'll withdraw from that too.

John said...

Oh yeah, Catholics and Orthodox have signed off on the bible as well, so I think its high time James White distanced himself from that now-compromised document. God forbid that anyone should get the impression that both sides' complicity in that document means we are in unity of any sort. Better James burn the bible than compromise the gospel in that way.

Turretinfan said...

John: you need to improve your listening skills. Dr. White's objection was over the fact that the document suggests that Rome and the Reformation preach the same gospel. Dr. White has signed a similar declaration (link) that avoids such confusion. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folks are welcome to sign that latter document, and there doesn't appear to be any dogmatic barrier to them signing (though almost none of the Roman Catholics who have read the declaration have signed it).

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

TU&D:

Until you answer this question (link) in a straightforward way, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from commenting on this blog. A simple "1. Yes, Rome proclaims a false gospel," is enough if that's your position, or "2. No, Rome proclaims the gospel of Christ," if that's your answer.

-TurretinFan

John said...

So as soon as a Mormon signs the Bronx declaration, White is going to repudiate it, because that would imply that he and Mormons worship the same God.

It's nowhere near as strong a document, because it doesn't mention the Gospel. By the exact same logic you have to remove God from the document in case a Mormon signs it. Then you have completely neutered the document.

Turretinfan said...

John:

"So as soon as a Mormon signs the Bronx declaration, White is going to repudiate it, because that would imply that he and Mormons worship the same God."

No, it wouldn't. I really suggest you rewatch Dr. White's video with the aim of understanding him, not trying to throw stones. Perhaps you'll get that his problem is not with who signed the document, but with the language of the document itself.

"It's nowhere near as strong a document, because it doesn't mention the Gospel."

The Gospel isn't what this document is about, and those Reformed folks who signed the MD did so because they thought that the Gospel is not what that document was about. If they thought the document was about the Gospel, they wouldn't have signed it.

"By the exact same logic you have to remove God from the document in case a Mormon signs it. Then you have completely neutered the document."

No. By your failure of logic, if an Atheist signed the document ... but if an Atheist signed it, he'd be the one being inconsistent, not us. The document itself deals with three topics of morality: abortion, marriage, and standing up for what is right.

beowulf2k8 said...

But personally, I would have left out all the historical claims and just boiled the whole thing down to the last paragraph.

natamllc said...

Beo,

I am not sure how far I would go with you? As we know, TF moderates the comments in here and you have some liberty now to respond to comments directed towards you.

To you then I will assert that the Gospel is not about being moral.

There is none righteous, no not one, no matter how moral one is or becomes.

To be moral is not the issue and to become moral is not the issue.

What then is the issue?

1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.


For True Believers, the Elect and Called of God, being forgiven of their sins committed because of the sin nature inherited from the father of all human sinners, Adam, is what the Gospel is all about by virtue of the Ministry of Reconciliation.

True Believers have received the forgiveness for sins and the Ministry of Reconciliation, both of which come down from Heaven itself by One Spirit through Our Savior, Christ.

The unwillingness to reconcile to the Father through His Gospel is a sure sign of one of two things and or both things.

One, you are not of God in this world, devils full, foreknown from before the foundation of the world and or two, you have believed in vain in something that is not the Ture Gospel [demonstrated by Christ and the Holy Spirit], however the deception has come about.

For the present True Church of the Living God, this ground and pillar of Truth in the world today, we shall suffer persecutions, not for morality's sake, but for the Gospel's sake, this Gospel found in Christ alone. That's Gospel Life and those called and Elected to Eternal Life gladly accept this without remorse.

Again, I would assert that your words betray you, either because you are a non-elect or one quite deceived by the prince of the power of the air, who actively works in the children of disobedience.

God is not establishing worldly morality, persay. The god of this world is the only one who would want worldly morality anyway.

Why?

Well, if you are moral and good, you have no need of the Savior. He was sent to die on a cross for sins and then rise again to keep us in the Power of God.

A moral person needs no keeping.

Peter got ahold of this Gospel severity and goodness quite well as he records it here for posterity:::>

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


Good and moral people don't go to Heaven after they die just for being good and moral. Only forgiven sinners go to Heaven after they leave this creation, however they come to their natural death.

I am not sure you quite understand this as your own words show us??

"....But the Calvinists can't even put their divisive attack dog mindset aside for one moment to defend morality. How telling....".

For me, what you write is very telling!

Here's my question to you therefore:::>

"Why would anyone, who has been forgiven of their sins, defend morality?"

I don't consider myself a Calvinist so it seems your implication is an over reach to claim Calvinists attack dogs defend morality.

Quite the contrary IMO as I can sense it. I have found most Calvinists defending the Truth of the Gospel as found in the Scripture primarily and Calvin after that.

Alphonsus said...

"For the present True Church of the Living God, this ground and pillar of Truth in the world today, we shall suffer persecutions, not for morality's sake, but for the Gospel's sake, this Gospel found in Christ alone."

Your post raises interesting questions regarding theology and meta-ethics. Is the acceptance of the Gospel a non-moral or amoral action? Ought one accept the Gospel or not?

John said...

"No it wouldn't" is not a response, and you haven't responded to the issue of a Mormon signing your declaration. And they would NOT be inconsistent in signing it. An athiest would be, but how does that help you?

beowulf2k8 said...

"To you then I will assert that the Gospel is not about being moral" (natamllc)

You indict your false religion well. When Jesus says "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" that mean be moral? Jesus' answer to the rich young ruler "Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother"; that doesn't mean be moral? His forbidding divorce except for when your spouse cheats on you doesn't mean be moral? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't mean be moral?

If all the gospel is to you is "I believe Jesus died for me: poof I'm saved" then you've missed a great big part of the gospel.

"Why would anyone, who has been forgiven of their sins, defend morality?" (natamllc)

Why don't you ask Paul that question:

Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

And what's this business about shining as lights in the world, in Phil 2:15, Paul???????? How dare you tell us to do that! Why us people who've been forgiven of our sins shouldn't care about morality! Nay, for natamllc claims only the 'god of this world' (i.e. the devil) cares about morality! We should sin sin sin sin sin sin sin sin sin!

Funny then that Jesus says "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 5:16) According to natamllcian definition our Father in heaven must be the 'god of this world.'

You have everything backwards natamllc. It is God who wants morality, not the devil. That morality alone will not save does not mean that God doesn't want morality. It means that even the most moral person has done something they need forgiveness for. Repent of your morality hating.

beowulf2k8 said...

I guess we'll have to also erase from the Bible Paul's commands to do good to all men and be honest among the gentiles and not be getting drunk and revellign and such like since morality belongs to the devil according to natamllc. Those must be some sort of corruptions according to natamllc's wonderful secret gnosis that has now been brought to light via the apostolic succession that natamllc enjoys which has delivered to natamllc that God hates morality and the devil loves it. Oi veh, Calvinism gives me a headache.

Turretinfan said...

B2k8:

The law informs us of our failure in morality, and the gospel provides a way of reconciliation to God. The devil would like people to try to trust in their own righteousness: that path is the path to destruction.

John:

I realize that "no, it wouldn't" isn't as helpful as a detailed explanation of why it wouldn't. However, your "yes it would" style argument doesn't really call for more of a rebuttal than that.

""No it wouldn't" is not a response, and you haven't responded to the issue of a Mormon signing your declaration. And they would NOT be inconsistent in signing it. An athiest would be, but how does that help you?"

As I think Dr. White points out in the video itself, sometimes Mormons get morality right, although monogamous marriage as the definition is contrary to the part of LDS scripture known as the Doctrines and Covenants.

As I said before, you should actually sit down and carefully watch the video with the goal of understanding what Dr. White is saying. If you do, many of your questions *should* be answered.

-TurretinFan

John said...

I listened to it twice, once here and once on the DL before posting here. I do not feel enlightened.

Turretinfan said...

Alphonsus:

The commands to repent and believe are commands from God, commands that it is good to obey.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Well, John, it is hard to understand how you could ask the questions you did, given that you've listened twice to what Dr. White said. Did you catch the part where he pointed out that Mormon support for Proposition 8 was inconsistent with their scripture?

John said...

Yes I did, and Prop 8 is not the topic.

Turretinfan said...

The D&C stand against the Bronx Declaration for the same reason they stand against Prop 8.

John said...

And...? Since as you observed Mormons supported Prop 8, it is all the more a frightening possibility they would sign the Bronx D., causing you to have to abandon it.

Turretinfan said...

John:

You seem still unable to grasp what's going on here. The problem is not co-belligerence but signing a compromised document. When Mormons sign the Bronx Declaration, it is they (not us) who are compromising. The same would be true of an atheist.

I don't think a Roman Catholic would have to compromise anything to sign the Bronx Declaration, because the document is about moral areas where Roman Catholics and Reformed folks agree (not about the Gospel where we disagree).

In fact, I don't think any of the Reformed signers are concerned by the fact that Roman Catholics could sign this in good conscience or that Mormons and Atheists could compromise their views to sign it as well.

John said...

Mormons may or may not be compromising their marriage principles by signing, but that's not the issue I'm raising. I'm pointing out that your definition of God is compromised (by your theory), if someone with a different God signs. Substitute Buddist or whatever if you like. The point is, if you can't ascribe to a document because someone else signs it and understands the terms a bit different to you, then you can never ever sign a document.

Turretinfan said...

John:

The problem is, you don't understand "our theory." Dr. White has actually provided a new post to try to help you better understand. I encourage you to read it: (link).

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Ooops, I wrote above:

Nat: "....beo,

it is event and not so self event , ...".

I see I can't spell!

Please accept my editorial:

Nat: "...beo,

it is evident and not so self evident, ...".

Beo, TF's response was quite succinct and well said.

Let's be clear about something, therefore.

Here is how Jesus cut it when confronting a sort similar to you:

Luk 11:39 And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.
Luk 11:40 You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?
Luk 11:41 But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you.
Luk 11:42 "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Luk 11:43 Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.
Luk 11:44 Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it."

Here we see Jesus going for that part none of us can go after, only that we can understand the severity and the goodness within one's own heart.

We are not judging the book by its cover, but by its fruit.

In your case, all you have offered is a self evident perspective.

It is like when the Pharisees are accusing Jesus of not knowing God because "they" do.

You must agree that Jesus is God, born of a woman and come in the flesh?

So what were they missing seeing they were accusing God of not knowing God?

Of the several points you make, I would only highlight one point of this sort of view made by you:

Beo: "....How dare you tell us to do that! Why us people who've been forgiven of our sins shouldn't care about morality!...".

I am not telling you "to do" anything. Rather I am pointing out to you what was done already. We should care about morality but the standard for it is so high, not one of us can attain to it by our own righteousness.

This should bring you face to face with your own unrighteousness, which is what God is bringing you to face. Just face it, you have fallen short of the Righteousness of God found only in Christ Jesus.

Here, finally is the "highest" standard of reality for Righteousness that Jesus puts over that no one can attain of their own so that we would stop trying to be righteous before God and accept His Righteousness in our sted instead, which, by the way, which is the only Righteousness that makes it out of here and into Eternal Life while in here:

Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
Mat 5:47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
Mat 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Turretinfan said...

By the way, NatAmLLC - you may notice that I have relaxed moderation significantly recently. Essentially, I am now limiting myself to deleting those comments that seem to me to be the more outrageous, insulting, etc. after they have been posted (sometimes a day or two after).

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

TF, yes, I noticed. Glad to see you have loosened up a bit! :)

Alphon: "....Is the acceptance of the Gospel a non-moral or amoral action?

Ought one accept the Gospel or not?"

You have asked two questions.

I am not certain I am grasping or understanding the first one so ask it again packaged differently so I can gain your presupposition.

As for the second, "yes" absolutely "yes".

In fact, that isn't nearly as strong an answer as Scripture itself.

Here's the dilemma I point to:::>

Rom 14:8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Rom 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
Rom 14:11 for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
Rom 14:12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Now, I suppose the Spirit of Grace was enhancing understanding to the Apostle because of the Words of the Great Prophet, Moses:

Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Exo 20:6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.


How does an unwilling soul, who hates God, live to bow their knee and confess with their tongue to Jesus as Lord willingly?

As the Scriptures say:::> "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

So, again, it seems that, to the "Brothers", the True Church, made up of both male and female, there is a willingness to Live Life to the fullest before God and man, while others, the children of disobedience, have another judgment to come to?

I like the way John in his Gospel develops this phenomenon:

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:16 "A little while, and you will see me no longer; and again a little while, and you will see me."

beowulf2k8 said...

I find it interesting that White says he can't get past the statement "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered..." He says he tries to be more accurate in his usage of the word 'Christian.' But look at it again. Only Evangelicals are called Christians by this. Look at the comma placement. It says "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered..." not "We, as (Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical) Christians, have gathered..."

Then they say "We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God." By which, seeing as how the word 'Christian' is only modifying the word
'Evangelical' I would interpret it that the document is actually labeling Catholics and Orthodox as unbelievers. It is the Catholics and Orthodox who are stooping down and compromising to sign this document.

Furthermore, in only listing Orthodox, Catholics, and 'Evangelical Christians' the document has actually excluded all Protestants who do not label themselves Evangelicals. Evangelical has come to be associated with a lot of tom-foolery in recent times and many Protestant do shy away from it, especially non-denominational churches, so that this document excludes a large body of Protestants (mainly Arminians actually!) by the use of the term Evangelical (which is heavily associated with Calvinism). How ironic that the document excludes a great many Arminians and yet the Calvinists hate it so.

Turretinfan said...

B2k8,

Thanks for your thoughts.

-TurretinFan

John said...

This is my response to Dr White.

"the church of Nicea did not hold to the distinctives of most of the modern groups."

The church of Nicea didn't hold to a Protestant ecclesiology, yet Protestants say the creed apparently without your complaint, that is the issue. Trying to switch the discussion to other extraneous issues than stated in the text doesn't address the parallel to the MD.

"the Manhattan Declaration is written in the context of full knowledge of the issues that divide us."

The Nicene creed was written in full knowledge of a non-Protestant ecclesiology, and the idea of "one church" divided the church from various heretical sects. The idea of the "One Church" was inserted specifically to delimitate it from other groups. So what's the difference, except that this is far more decisive than the MD situation?

"Further, the issue at hand, that being the gospel itself, is not defined by the Nicene Creed "

The issue is the parallel between you accepting the Nicene creed and rejecting the MD on an inconsistent basis. Remember what the sign of a failed argument is? The issues of the Nicene creed and MD are obviously different, but you accept/reject them inconsistently.

"Both vociferously deny the doctrine of sola scriptura, do they not? "

They deny SOLA scriptura, but they affirm scriptura. So what has this to do with anything? Is there some dispute between MD and Sola-MD? There is no parallel here. All you're doing is throwing an irrelevancy into the ring to obscure your inconsistency.

"You seem to have confused my concern over the gutting of the gospel with some kind of "I don't want anything to do with those folks" simplistic attitude of a back-woods fundamentalist."

No, I just see you're being hypocritical and I'm calling you out on it.

"A Catholic who "signs off" on the 1689 is, obviously, no longer a Roman Catholic."

Maybe they interpret the confession differently to you. Maybe they're inconsistent. Maybe they don't understand it very well. These are all the objections you are likely to throw at Catholics and Orthodox with regards to the Gospel. So how is this not completely parallel? You won't be party to a document if a signatory is confused about something mentioned in its contents, so as soon a confused Catholic signs your confession, you need to abandon it.

"are seeking to present a "Mere Christianity" that seeks to create a unity based upon a gospel-less Trinitarianism."

There is nothing in the MD about "seeking to present a mere Christianity" or about creating any sort of unity at all, other than around the issues of abortion and marriage. The people who wrote it may or may not have all sorts of beliefs and desires, but that has zippo to do with what the MD actually says.

"many "Protestants" are merely popeless Catholics theologically speaking)"

So I guess you wouldn't sign a document like the MD even if every signatory was Protestant? I guess unless they are Reformed, and pass a catechism first, you are out?

The fundamental problem, is that your objections have nothing to do with the text of the MD, but are all about the signatories. This shows how silly your objections are.

"The "Mere Christianity" of Frank Beckwith and Dinesh D'Souza and Timothy George and Chuck Colson is sub-Christian"

More arguments about the signatories rather than the text, which just digs you deeper into your hole.

Turretinfan said...

John:

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think Dr. White normally reads the comment boxes here, but perhaps he'll see it. You're better off sending your response directly to him, if you want him to read it.

-TurretinFan