Challenge: We must sign The Manhattan Declaration, or we don't care about the lives of babies.
Amazon also has it. See details at Kress
Also available at Logos
Available on Kindle and in Logos
View readers' favorite Kindle excerpts
|
Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.
See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.
If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.
 |
| The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always. |
20 comments:
If you're new to the "Next!" series, be sure to click on the link associated with NEXT! in the post and read the explanation.
DJP,
After all of the clamoring about the MD, the abortion document you wrote (linked in post) puts a giant exclamtion point on your argument.
(Readers note the copyright was 1997).
So now the pieces fall together nicely. You have opposed publicly the practice of abortion for over a decade (at least), and have very poignantly exposed its evils (frankly, I nearly cried as I read it).
And yet, you will not give a "free pass" to the signers of the MD because opposing abortion (a practice you clearly hate)is still NOT, more important than maintaining the clarity and purity of the Gospel.
Well done.
Dan,
are people really making the kind of statements you're addressing in these "next"s?
if so, it seems like they certainly would be representative of a severe minority of MD signers.
if not, are you implying that this is an argument from things you are reading or hearing?
Yes, David, all over; get out a bit more, you'll see it. In fact, it's about all they have, unless they just are in fact corrupted on the Gospel.
Thanks, SandMan. Yes, I've written letters, called, preached, attended demonstrations, voted; about all I can think to do.
thanks, dan. since i don't "get out" enough, can you point me to some links?
and please remember, you and i are on the same team!
Don't have time to do people's research for them, David. On your own; if I can find it, you can.
again, thanks Dan. i just figured you had seen it somewhere and could point out at least a website, person, etc.
ironically, i googled your statement as it appears here. it produced 9 hits, all of them linking to this post.
What do you mean, I can't divide by zero?
That's how my truth works!
Yep, y'all sure are getting some mileage out of the MD. And I'm glad. It is about time that true believers started making clear statements about the gospel. I think of Paul and his attituded toward the Galatians. Its not allos, but heteros. And i'd just as soon they emasculate themselves as circumsize you. Well the MD isn't heteros, its allos! What should our attitude be?
Unfortunately, it's still needed.
Take a trip to Challies or Justin Taylor metas on this topic, for instance, and you'll see too many still wanting to focus on anything other than THE issue. Dodge after dodge is thrown up, hiding behind irrelevancies.
Someone's got to do the Cartago delenda est on this.
Say, wasn't there a T-shirt like that?
Not yet.
David,
I think you ask very legitimate questions. I don't think you'll find this particular objection on the web (or anywhere else for that matter) to the extent which Dan insinuates.
At any rate, you certainly don't deserve to have the guy treat you like a punk. Par for the course over here.
Say, that's terrific! So far, everyone's agreed that the widespread argument that it was imperative to sign this awful thing to "do something for the babies" is ridiculous!
That's progress.
Now, when you run into those trying to take shelter behind this dodge, just be sure to point out how absurd it is!
Because with it gone, there is no excuse for the MD.
Actually, if one really cared about the babies they would not sign.
Only the Gospel of Christ can fix the abortion problem. By signing, the waters are muddied, the message watered down and less hear the truth.
Amen?
David: are people really making the kind of statements you're addressing in these "next"s?
Yes, David, people are saying it. Not the some of the evangelical noteable signers like Justin Taylor, Al Mohler, or Ligon Duncan. But if you read some of the comments from Justin Taylor's B2W (or I think even here on Pyro), yes. One comment that comes to mind is someone who said words to the effect that babies are going to die because we don't want to work with Catholics.
The issue of course is not that we don't want to work with Catholics. I'll work with them in the political process, but not through the MD.
CR,
Thanks for the reasoned response. I don't doubt that there are some out there who are taking that stance. I have friends who use that kind of silly logic as well.
Since i haven't spent a lot of time trolling the comments of those blogs, maybe you can answer my question. Is that kind of statement representative of the majority of signers? Or would you say it's a minority?
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/
Following some of the logic here; most Christian music isn't really Christian, so could you provide which artists and what specific songs (I'm certain many artists will need to be parsed to this degree) explain the gospel thoroughly enough to warrant your attention/approval? I expect it shouldn't take long, as short as the list will be.
Aztroy - I'm not tracking you. First you link to a post by a good man whose attempted defense, however, comes uncomfortably close to that refuted in this post. I figured you were meaning to give an example of the dodge.
But then your second comment simply seems unconnected from anything — at least from anything ever posted on this blog. Could you give a clue as to what you're talking about? Was this meant for another blog?
Dan,
I think I see the problem. If you think that Mohler's article is "close" to the dodge you present here, it's no wonder we don't see it the same way!
my bad. I see where you're coming from now.
Post a Comment